The saga continues. The saga, that is, which is my project of going through Exodus chapter by chapter and posting my thoughts, asking questions, and giving commentary. Today, I am looking at Exodus 18. My primary source is chabad.org and my secondary source (for deciphering cryptic passages at chabad) is biblegateway.com. So here we go.

Exodus 18:1-4 Wrote:1 Now Moses' father in law, Jethro, the chieftain of Midian, heard all that God had done for Moses and for Israel, His people that the Lord had taken Israel out of Egypt. 2 So Moses' father in law, Jethro, took Zipporah, Moses' wife, after she had been sent away, 3 and her two sons, one of whom was named Gershom, because he [Moses] said, "I was a stranger in a foreign land," 4 and one who was named Eliezer, because [Moses said,] "The God of my father came to my aid and rescued me from Pharaoh's sword."

Exodus 18:5 Wrote:Now Moses' father in law, Jethro, and his [Moses'] sons and his wife came to Moses, to the desert where he was encamped, to the mountain of God.

Exodus 17:1 Wrote:The entire community of the children of Israel journeyed from the desert of Sin to their travels by the mandate of the Lord. They encamped in Rephidim, and there was no water for the people to drink.

Exodus 17:7 Wrote:He named the place Massah [testing] and Meribah [quarreling] because of the quarrel of the children of Israel and because of their testing the Lord, saying, Is the Lord in our midst or not?

Exodus 18:11 Wrote:[Jethro said "]Now I know that the Lord is greater than all the deities, for with the thing that they plotted, [He came] upon them."

Exodus 18:13-23 Wrote:13 It came about on the next day that Moses sat down to judge the people, and the people stood before Moses from the morning until the evening. 14 When Moses' father in law saw what he was doing to the people, he said, "What is this thing that you are doing to the people? Why do you sit by yourself, while all the people stand before you from morning till evening?" 15 Moses said to his father in law, "For the people come to me to seek God. 16 If any of them has a case, he comes to me, and I judge between a man and his neighbor, and I make known the statutes of God and His teachings." 17 Moses' father in law said to him, "The thing you are doing is not good. 18 You will surely wear yourself out both you and these people who are with you for the matter is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. 19 Now listen to me. I will advise you, and may the Lord be with you. [You] represent the people before God, and you shall bring the matters to God. 20 And you shall admonish them concerning the statutes and the teachings, and you shall make known to them the way they shall go and the deed[s] they shall do. 21 But you shall choose out of the entire nation men of substance, God fearers, men of truth, who hate monetary gain, and you shall appoint over them [Israel] leaders over thousands, leaders over hundreds, leaders over fifties, and leaders over tens. 22 And they shall judge the people at all times, and it shall be that any major matter they shall bring to you, and they themselves shall judge every minor matter, thereby making it easier for you, and they shall bear [the burden] with you. 23 If you do this thing, and the Lord commands you, you will be able to survive, and also, all this people will come upon their place in peace."

Exodus 18:27 Wrote:Moses saw his father in law off, and he went away to his land.

https://youtube.com/@joylucky7451

The channel hasn't posted any videos in years, but posted a comment somewhere last year. That means it might still be active. I need to contact him.
DIf anyone knows him, please let me know where I can contact him. I need something from him.

How many of you sing the grape hymn before drinking the wine? What prayers do you sing or say during Sabbat

Hey everyone. Please be sure to check out my amazing book on the chilazon.

The secret of the sea creature the ancient Hebrews have used to get a blue dye for clothing fringes has been lost for over 2000 years. Michael Edery, a biblical researcher, has made hard research for the past 8 years to find it. And after much hard research, he has found it! Now finally after 2000 years, the secret is once again back! It was bonellia viridis! He has also discovered it is the key to living a long life.

Link to Book

Hi  Shalom Alechem
My Mom has been working on an Etsy Shop which I can only describe as a beacon of light in the dark place called the internet.
It's adorable IMO and she's been working on it every day.
I hope you'll find it pretty. More traction would make her really happy 
Take care y'all!
Bsorot Tovot <3
Link

Query Ask a Rabbi Ref No 6632934
Date: 08/06/2025
Incident ID: 6632934
puzzeled by definations:

Question:
puzzled by definations-in regard to a jewish person who is an aposate to another religion..i come across definations of this action such as Mumar or Meshumad or that they are no longer considered Jewish..On the other hand Ive also come across that even if a jewish person converts to another religion..they are still considered Jewish although Sinners.. are all this definations describe the same action?


Answer August 7,2025
Rabbi Eliezer Zalmanov | Chabad.org
Aug 7, 2025, 7:00 PM (13 hours ago)
to me

Hi ,

Regardless of what word is used (you're right, there are several) one thing that is entirely incorrect is to say that they aren't Jewish anymore. A Jew can never change his or her essence, no matter heretical they behave.

I hope this helps.

All the best,

Rabbi Eliezer Zalmanov
for Chabad.org


Browse our ongoing schedule of live classes and courses -- all free at: http://www.chabad.org/live

[size=1][size=1]Rabbi Eliezer Zalmanov | Chabad.org [/size]
[/size]

[size=1]to
[/size]

Hello ladies and gentlemen, I will now post my thoughts on Exodus 17: water from the rock and the war with the Amalekites. As always, my source is chabad.org with biblegateway.com to assist with some of the more difficult passages.

Exodus 17:5-6 Wrote:5 And the Lord said to Moses, Pass before the people and take with you [some] of the elders of Israel, and take into your hand your staff, with which you struck the Nile, and go. 6 Behold, I shall stand there before you on the rock in Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, and the people will drink Moses did so before the eyes of the elders of Israel.

Exodus 17:7 Wrote:He named the place Massah [testing] and Meribah [quarreling] because of the quarrel of the children of Israel and because of their testing the Lord, saying, Is the Lord in our midst or not?

Exodus 17:11-12 Wrote:11 It came to pass that when Moses would raise his hand, Israel would prevail, and when he would lay down his hand, Amalek would prevail. 12 Now Moses hands were heavy; so they took a stone and placed it under him, and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one from this [side], and one from that [side]; so he was with his hands in faith until sunset.

Exodus 17:14 Wrote:The Lord said to Moses, Inscribe this [as] a memorial in the book, and recite it into Joshua's ears, that I will surely obliterate the remembrance of Amalek from beneath the heavens.

Exodus 17:16 Wrote:And he said, For there is a hand on the throne of the Eternal, [that there shall be] a war for the Lord against Amalek from generation to generation.

Exodus 17:16 Wrote:He [Moses] said, “Because hands were lifted up against [or to] the throne of the Lord, the Lord will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation.”

is there a jewish word for someone those actions are a affront and defience to the L-D?
In Judaism, several Hebrew words capture different nuances of acting in defiance of God's word or commandments:
Marah (מָרָה): This verb signifies rebellion and disobedience, encompassing willful defiance against God's authority and commandments. It goes beyond mere civil insubordination to describe intentional acts that break the covenant relationship with God. Examples include Israel's rebellion in the wilderness and the acts of apostasy by the monarchy.
Meri (מֶ֫רִי): This noun, derived from "marah," denotes bitterness and rebelliousness. It describes a state of hardened resistance to divine correction and a refusal to acknowledge God's lordship. The prophet Ezekiel frequently uses this term to describe the rebellious nature of his audience, calling them a "rebellious house".
Sarar (סָרַר): This verb means to be stubborn, to rebel, or to be rebellious. It describes someone who is unyielding in their disobedience and resists being guided by God's word.
Pesha (פשע): This term signifies a trespass or a sin committed out of rebelliousness. It suggests a deliberate act against God's law, a knowing violation rather than an accidental transgression.
These terms highlight different aspects of acting in affront to God in Jewish thought, ranging from general disobedience to deliberate and rebellious defiance. Each term carries specific connotations about the nature and severity of the transgression

Several terms in Jewish tradition and texts can describe a person whose actions are an affront to God, depending on the specific nature and intent of the actions.
Mumar (מומר): Literally meaning "one who is changed (out of their faith)," this term refers to a Jew who has rejected Judaism, potentially converting to another religion. It can signify a fundamental turning away from Jewish faith and practice.
Poshea Yisrael (פושע ישראל): Translates to "transgressor of Israel," denoting someone who disobeys God's commandments, especially in a rebellious or defiant manner.
Kofer (כופר): Means "denier" and can refer to someone who denies the existence of God or the principles of Judaism, implying atheism or heresy.
Meshumad (משומד): Literally "destroyed one," this term also refers to an apostate, someone who has abandoned their faith.
Min (מין) or Epikoros (אפיקורוס): These terms are used to denote heresy and the negation of God and Judaism, and can also imply atheism.
Megaddef (מגדף): This term refers to a blasphemer, one who reviles or insults God. In Jewish tradition, the act of blasphemy (birkat Hashem) is considered a serious offense against God's name.
Chillul Hashem (חילול השם): This phrase means "desecration of God's name" and describes actions, whether verbal or otherwise, by a Jew that causes others to disrespect or question the sanctity of God and His commandments. Conversely, Kiddush Hashem (sanctification of God's name) refers to righteous behavior that brings honor to God.

Yes, in Judaism, there are several terms to describe someone whose actions are an affront and disobedience to the word of God (often referred to as L-rd to show reverence).
One of the most prominent terms is Rasha (רָשָׁע). This term signifies a wicked person who rejects the Kingship of God, the commandments (mitzvot), and the morality of the Torah. A Rasha prioritizes their own interests over those of the community and God's will. While this term carries a strong negative connotation, it also suggests the possibility of repentance (t'shuvah) and a return to the right path.
Other related terms that describe different aspects of such behavior include:
Mumar (מומר‎): Literally "one who is changed" (out of their faith), referring to someone who has rejected Judaism and potentially converted to another religion.
Poshea Yisrael (פושע ישראל‎): Meaning "transgressor of Israel," denoting someone who acts rebelliously against Jewish law and tradition.
Kofer (כופר): Meaning "negator" or "denier," referring to someone who denies the existence of God or the principles of Judaism, according to Wikipedia.
In a broader sense, the Hebrew word for sin itself, Pesha (פֶּשַׁע), can be used to describe willful transgression and rebellion against God's authority, suggesting a defiance and casting off of the divine will.

Marah (מָרָה): This Hebrew word signifies to rebel, be disobedient, or be contentious. It describes deliberate acts of defiance against divine and even human authority. The Bible uses forms of this word to describe the Israelites' rebellion in the wilderness against God's commands.
Pesha (פֶּשַׁע): While often translated as "transgression," pesha implies a willful and rebellious transgression, defying God's authority and pushing against the boundaries of His Law. It is seen as a more serious breach than a simple mistake or unintentional failing.
Avon (עָוֹן): Typically translated as "iniquity", avon carries the connotation of perversion or a deliberate twisting and distortion of God's will for selfish purposes.
Resha (רֶשַׁע): This term specifically refers to acts committed with a wicked intention, highlighting the deliberate malice behind the disobedience.
Aveira (עֲבֵירָה): This is a general rabbinic term for transgression or violation of Jewish law, encompassing a range of disobedient actions.
Terms relating to specific types of defiance
Mored (מורד): This term signifies "rebel" or "rebellious" and is used in the context of apostasy, meaning rejection of Judaism and potentially converting to another faith.
Mumar (מומר): Literally "one who is changed", this term refers to someone who has changed (abandoned) their faith. It can be further qualified as:
Mumar ledavar echad (מומר לדבר אחד): Someone who foregoes the observance of a specific mitzvah (commandment).
Mumar lekhol hatorah kulah (מומר לכל התורה כולה): Someone who observes none of the Torah.
Mumar l'teyavon (מומר לתיאבון): Someone who transgresses due to craving or convenience.
Mumar l'hakh`is (מומר להכעיס): Someone who transgresses out of spite or willful defiance.
Poshea Yisrael (פושע ישראל): Literally "transgressor of Israel", this is used to describe an apostate by rabbinical scholars, emphasizing the breach of covenant with the Jewish people.
Kofer (כופר): This signifies a "denier", referring to someone who denies the fundamental principles of Judaism or the existence of God.
Meshumad (משומד): Meaning "destroyed one", this term also refers to someone who has apostatized, highlighting the spiritual destruction associated with leaving the faith.
Min (מין) or Epikoros (אפיקורוס): These terms denote heresy and the negation of God and Judaism, sometimes implying atheism.
Megaddef (מגדף): Refers to a blasphemer, one who reviles God.
In short, there are various terms to describe someone whose actions are an affront and disobedience to God's word, ranging from general transgressions to more specific acts of rebellion, denial, and apostasy within the Jewish tradition

mumar l'hakh'is (מומר להכעיס), in Jewish law, refers to a Jew who transgresses a mitzvah (religious commandment) out of spite or in order to intentionally defy God's will. This differs from a mumar l'teyavon (מומר לתיאבון), who transgresses a mitzvah out of craving or convenience.
Here's a breakdown of the concept:
1. Motivation is key
The distinction between these two types of mumarim lies in the motivation behind their actions. A mumar l'hakh'is doesn't violate a law because they can't control their urges or find it difficult to keep a specific mitzvah. Rather, they intentionally violate a mitzvah to demonstrate their rejection of it or of God's authority. For example, someone who eats non-kosher food because they crave it would be considered a mumar l'teyavon, but someone who eats it publicly on Yom Kippur to defy religious norms would be a mumar l'hakh'is.
2. Greater severity
This intentional rebellion is considered a more severe transgression in Jewish law. The act itself isn't necessarily more severe, but the defiant intent behind it carries greater weight. Some sources even consider a mumar l'hakh'is for even one mitzvah to be akin to someone who has abandoned all of the Torah, a "mumar l'kol ha-Torah kulah", given their intentional rejection of divine will.
3. Halakhic implications
The distinction between a mumar l'hakh'is and other types of apostates can have various implications in Jewish law, depending on the specific context and the extent of their transgression. These include matters related to ritual purity, marriage, divorce, inheritance, and even whether certain actions are permissible when interacting with them. It's important to note that these are complex issues within Jewish legal discourse, and rulings may vary depending on the specific circumstances and interpretations

would a mumar l'hakh be someone who defies the word of the L-d for secular things such as power or Prestigue among men?
In Jewish law, a mumar l'hakh`is (מומר להכעיס) is someone who transgresses a mitzvah (religious commandment) out of spite or defiance. This is contrasted with a mumar l'teyavon (מומר לתיאבון), who transgresses due to craving or convenience.
Therefore, if someone defies God's word for secular reasons like seeking power or prestige among men, such as to gain influence within a community or advance their social standing, and they do so with a defiant or rebellious intent, this could be considered an act of a mumar l'hakh`is. Their actions, if driven by a clear rejection of God's authority or a deliberate flouting of the commandments for worldly gain, could be classified as such.
Key considerations
Intent: The core distinction for a mumar l'hakh`is is the intent of defiance or spite, according to Wikipedia. Someone driven solely by desire or convenience (mumar l'teyavon) is seen differently than someone openly challenging divine authority.
Rejection of the Torah: While it can involve transgressing specific commandments, a mumar l'hakh`is might be seen as rejecting the entire Torah, even if they only defy one mitzvah, if it's done as a symbolic act of rebellion.
Important nuance
It's crucial to remember that halachic categorizations are complex. Actions can be perceived differently depending on the specific circumstances, the individual's level of knowledge and understanding, and their intent. For example, a "captured infant" (tinok shenishba) – a Jew raised without sufficient knowledge of Judaism – may transgress, but might not be halakhically classified as a mumar.
In essence, while pursuing power or prestige in defiance of God's word for secular reasons could align with the actions of a mumar l'hakh`is, the specific context and the individual's intention are paramount in determining the halachic classification.

While there isn't one specific Jewish word that perfectly captures the scenario of someone who exploits their family under the guise of religious study, several concepts and terms shed light on the problematic nature of such behavior within Judaism:
Goniff, according to Chabad: While generally meaning "thief," the term is expanded in Jewish thought to include those who manipulate or deceive others, including those who "steal hearts and minds" through pretense. A person exploiting their family in this manner could be seen as acting as a "goniff of the heart," taking advantage of trust and potentially undermining their well-being under false pretenses.
Hypocrisy: Jewish sources, including the Talmud, critique religious hypocrisy and disingenuous devotion. The Talmud, for example, refers to certain impious dissemblers as "tzevu'in," meaning "colored" or "painted," highlighting the discrepancy between their outward appearance of piety and their true inner state. The Bible itself, notes Jew in the City, condemns hypocrisy, as exemplified by passages like Jeremiah 7:9-10 and Isaiah 66:17, which criticize those who practice religious rituals while engaging in unethical behavior. Talmidi says the prophet Yeshua criticized individuals who engaged in outwardly pious acts without genuine devotion.
Neglect of Marital and Parental Responsibilities: Jewish law (Halacha) outlines specific obligations for a husband towards his wife and children, including providing sustenance and ensuring their well-being. A husband who shirks these responsibilities by feigning religious devotion would be acting against these foundational principles of Jewish marriage and family life. The Jewish Virtual Library highlights that a husband’s duty to provide for his wife takes precedence even over his own rights to her handiwork, reinforcing the importance of his role in supporting the family.
Emphasis on Action and Moral Integrity: Judaism emphasizes the importance of actions and moral integrity in addition to belief. Simply studying Torah without putting its principles into practice, particularly when it comes to family responsibilities, is seen as falling short of the ideal.
Therefore, while there may not be one single term, the actions described would be viewed very negatively within Jewish tradition and would be addressed through the lenses of hypocrisy, deception, neglect of marital/parental obligations, and a lack of genuine devotion.

While there isn't one specific Jewish word that perfectly captures the scenario you described, there are several concepts and terms that address aspects of hypocrisy, exploitation, and abuse within Jewish tradition.
Here are some relevant terms and concepts:
Tzeviut (צביעות): This Hebrew word is the modern Hebrew equivalent of hypocrisy. It means "coloring" or "dyeing" to give off a false appearance. A person who engages in tzeviut is a tzavua, literally "colored," implying deliberate manipulation and a discrepancy between inner essence and outer appearance.
Tocho aino kevoro (תוכו אינו כברו): This Talmudic phrase literally translates to "one's inside is not like one's outside". It describes a hypocrite who presents a pious exterior but lacks genuine inner commitment or acts contrary to their outward claims.
Hanufah (חניפה): In the Talmud, ḥanufah denotes flattery or simulation, another form of hypocrisy. A person exhibiting ḥanufah brings wrath upon the world, and their prayers are unheard.
Goniff (גנב): This Hebrew and Yiddish word means "thief" and can refer to someone who is a swindler, a cheat, or dishonest. While not specifically addressing the scenario of feigned piety, it speaks to the broader concept of taking advantage of others through deceit.
Manipulation and Exploitation: Jewish sources strongly condemn manipulation and exploitation of others for personal gain. The Torah emphasizes honesty in all dealings, regardless of the other party's religious affiliation. Misrepresentation and fraud are considered serious offenses. In the Tosefta, misrepresentation is deemed the most egregious form of theft. The prohibition against cheating applies even to intangible things, like gratitude, taken through trickery.
Violation of Family Obligations: Jewish law places a high value on family and outlines the responsibilities of parents to children and children to parents. Parents are obligated to provide for their children's physical needs, education, and spiritual well-being. Failing to meet these obligations, especially by exploiting family members for personal benefit, contradicts core Jewish values and principles. The Talmud describes the obligation to honor parents as one of the hardest mitzvot and compares those who fail to honor their parents to heretics.
Chillul Hashem (חילול השם): This term means "desecration of God's name" and refers to actions that bring shame or dishonor to God or Judaism. Someone using piety as an excuse to exploit their family would undoubtedly be considered a chillul Hashem, bringing disrepute to the religious community.
It's important to note that Jewish teachings strongly oppose religious hypocrisy, emphasize the importance of fulfilling family responsibilities, and condemn all forms of exploitation and deceit. Therefore, while there may not be a single perfect word, the described behavior is clearly contrary to Jewish values and would be viewed as seriously problematic within Jewish tradition

The user is asking if there is a specific Jewish term for someone who claims to be pious but then demonstrates contempt for a rabbinic court's verdict by refusing to obey it.
While there might not be a single word that perfectly encapsulates all these nuanced aspects, there are some related concepts that can provide insight:
Zaken Mamre (זקן ממרא - "rebellious elder"): This term refers to a Jewish scholar who defies the ruling of the Great Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish court in ancient times). While this primarily applies to a scholar and not necessarily to a "pious" person in general, it highlights the severe repercussions of disregarding rabbinic authority.
Contempt for God's Word (Bazah Devar Hashem - בזו דבר ה'): This phrase from the Torah, used by the Rabbis, describes someone who intentionally and brazenly violates God's commands and is viewed as showing contempt for God's word. While not specifically addressing a disregard for a rabbinic court, it reflects the seriousness with which Jewish law regards defiance of religious authority.
Chillul Hashem (חילול השם - desecration of God's Name): A related concept is the desecration of God's Name, according to The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. Publicly disregarding a ruling by a religious authority, particularly after having presented oneself as observant, could potentially be considered a Chillul Hashem, as it brings shame upon God and Jewish tradition in the eyes of others.
Additionally, the act of refusing to appear before a Beth Din (rabbinic court) after being summoned can result in a "seruv," or contempt order, issued by the Beth Din. This public declaration may be followed by social sanctions imposed by the community or synagogue, according to the cRc Beth Din.
Therefore, while there may not be one single term, a combination of concepts like Zaken Mamre (if the individual is a scholar), the idea of Contempt for God's Word, and the consequences of a seruv (contempt order) from a Beth Din, addresses the different aspects of the user's question regarding someone who claims piety but disregards rabbinic rulings.

The concept you describe - someone who appears pious but shows contempt for rabbinic authority when rulings go against them - is strongly condemned within Judaism. While there might not be a single, direct Hebrew word that perfectly encapsulates the specific scenario of a pious individual disregarding a rabbinic court verdict, the underlying issues are certainly addressed in Jewish texts and thought.
Here are some relevant concepts:
Hypocrisy (Ḥanufah): The Talmudic term "Ḥanufah" denotes flattery and simulation, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia. The rabbis viewed hypocrisy with extreme disdain. A person exhibiting this behavior might be seen as acting hypocritically by appearing devout but secretly harboring disdain for rulings that inconvenience them.
Contempt for Rabbinic Authority: The refusal to accept a rabbinic court's verdict demonstrates a disregard for rabbinic authority, which is a significant concept in Jewish law. It's considered a serious transgression, says the Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. The Torah warns against disobeying the rulings of the high court or Sanhedrin, according to Jews for Judaism.
Lack of Humility: True piety involves humility and submission to God's will, which, in Rabbinic Judaism, includes accepting the rulings of the Sages who transmit and interpret the Torah. Rejecting a valid ruling could be viewed as a manifestation of arrogance and a lack of proper deference to established authority.
"Not in Heaven": There's a significant Talmudic discussion related to Rabbi Eliezer who used miracles and heavenly voices to support his halachic opinion against the majority of the Sages. The Rabbis ultimately rejected this, stating, "It is not in Heaven," meaning the Torah is to be interpreted through human reason and scholarly debate, and decisions made by the majority of the court are binding. This story highlights the importance of accepting the authority of the court's decision, even if one privately disagrees.
While there might not be a single, succinct Hebrew term for the specific combination of actions you describe, it would be viewed as a serious lapse in both piety and respect for the authority of Torah and its interpreters within traditional Judaism.

cRc Beth Din – What happens if the person who is summoned to a Din Torah refuses to come? – Chicago Rabbinical Council

Is there a jewish word for someone who defeys the word of the L-d by persudading a legislature to make this offensive to the L-d Legal?
Jewish legal and ethical thought addresses the concept of an individual who deliberately defies God's commands and attempts to influence legislation that runs counter to those commands, particularly regarding core religious principles.
While there isn't a single, universally accepted specific term for such a person, several concepts within Judaism relate to this situation:
Chillul Hashem (Desecration of God's Name): This term broadly refers to any act by a Jew that brings shame or dishonor to God's name or to the Jewish people. Publicly defying God's word and actively campaigning for legislation that contradicts core Jewish values would certainly be considered a severe form of Chillul Hashem, especially if done by a person of influence, according to Wikipedia.
Mumar L'hachis (Transgressor out of Spite/Defiance): This term refers to someone who transgresses Jewish law not out of weakness or ignorance but out of a deliberate desire to rebel against God or provoke others. While not directly linked to legislative action, the intent of defiance aligns with the spirit of the question.
Mesit (Inciter): This term specifically refers to someone who incites others to idolatry, a major transgression in Judaism. While the question isn't solely about idolatry, the principle of inciting others to violate core Jewish law could be considered a form of this, according to Wikipedia.
Kofer ba-Torah (Denier of the Torah): This refers to someone who denies the divine origin or authority of the Torah. While a more theological term, actively working to overturn Torah-based laws through secular legislation could be viewed as a practical denial of the Torah's authority.
Important considerations
Intent: Jewish law often considers the intent behind an action. The question specifies "persuading a legislature," implying a deliberate and calculated effort to bring about a change that conflicts with religious principles.
Impact: The impact of such actions on the broader Jewish community and society would also be a crucial factor in how it's viewed.
Public Nature: Engaging in public advocacy for laws that contradict core Jewish values could exacerbate the negative impact of such actions.
While no single term perfectly encapsulates the specific scenario described, the concepts of Chillul Hashem and, in certain contexts, Mumar L'hachis and Mesit are the most relevant in Jewish thought to describe an individual who intentionally acts to defy God's word through legislative means.

From a Jewish perspective, someone who actively works to persuade a legislature to enact laws that explicitly defy what is considered the word of G-d would likely be regarded negatively within the community. While there might not be one single, widely recognized word that perfectly encapsulates all aspects of this specific scenario, here are some concepts and terms that might apply:
Chutzpah Klapei Shmaya: This Hebrew phrase translates to "audacity towards Heaven" or "audacity in the face of the Divine". While sometimes used positively for righteous individuals who challenge G-d in prayer or on behalf of others, in this context, it could describe the act of directly and purposefully defying G-d's will through legislative action, according to Wikipedia.
Kofer Ba-Torah: This term literally means "one who denies the Torah". Someone who actively works to undermine or defy the principles of the Torah through legislation could be seen as denying its authority, says Wikipedia.
Resha (Rasha): This Hebrew term refers to a "wicked" or "evil" person. Someone who intentionally promotes actions deemed sinful or harmful to the community could be considered a rasha, reports the Rabbinical Assembly.
It's important to note
Jewish law (Halakha) provides guidance for various aspects of life and is considered derived from the Torah.
While there are different interpretations and approaches to Halakha across various streams of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, etc.), the core principles are generally held in high regard.
The conflict between religious and secular law is a topic of ongoing discussion and debate within Judaism, particularly in modern times.
Ultimately, the specific term chosen would depend on the degree of perceived defiance and the context in which it's used within a given Jewish community.

Is there a jewish word for someone who acts like a cafaeria Catholic..claims to follow religious principles...but only those that suit hims while defying other religious dogma?
While there isn't a single Hebrew phrase that perfectly encapsulates the "Cafeteria Catholic" concept, several terms relate to the idea of selective religious observance or hypocrisy in Judaism:
Tzeviut (צביעות): This Hebrew word signifies hypocrisy, and it's particularly relevant when someone presents a false appearance of piety while not genuinely upholding those values. It is rooted in the word tzevah, meaning color or dye, implying someone coloring themselves to give a false impression.
Tocho aino kevoro (תוכו אינו כברו): This Aramaic phrase, meaning "one's inside is not the same as one's outside," is used in the Talmud to describe a hypocrite, according to The Jewish Chronicle.
Chanuphah (חֲנֻפָּה): This term is used in the Old Testament to describe profaneness or ungodliness, particularly when religious leaders outwardly appear observant but privately subvert religious principles, according to Bible Hub.
Off the derech (דֶּרֶךְ): This Yeshiva-English expression describes someone who has left an Orthodox way of life or community. While it doesn't directly describe selecting principles, it can be used in a broader sense to include those whose lifestyle is less observant or in a non-Orthodox form of Judaism, notes Wikipedia.
Apikores (אפיקורוס): This term, derived from the Greek philosopher Epicurus, is used as a slur and has been extended in meaning to include anyone expressing a view regarded as heretical or heterodox.
Yetziah besheelah (יציאה בשאלה): This Modern Hebrew term, translated as "leaving in question," refers to the process of decreasing or halting religious observance.
It's important to remember that:
The concept of observing religious principles to varying degrees exists across many faiths.
In Judaism, there's a distinction between being "religious" (holding Jewish beliefs and values) and "observant" (carrying out daily rituals and Mitzvot or commandments).
Orthodox Judaism emphasizes strict adherence to Mitzvot, while other denominations, like Reform and Conservative Judaism, allow for different interpretations and levels of observance.
Therefore, while no single word perfectly translates "Cafeteria Catholic" in Hebrew, the terms listed above offer a starting point for understanding how different degrees of religious adherence and authenticity are viewed within Judaism.
While there isn't one single, universally accepted Jewish term that perfectly captures the nuance of "cafeteria Catholic" in the sense of picking and choosing religious observances for convenience or personal preference, several terms and concepts come close:
Terms that describe aspects of selective observance
Tinok Shenishba (תינוק שנשבה): This term literally means "captured infant". In a contemporary context, it is used to describe a Jew who transgresses Jewish law (halakha) because they were raised without sufficient knowledge or understanding of Judaism. While not technically a "cafeteria Jew," it acknowledges the nuance of someone not fully adhering to religious principles due to factors outside their immediate control.
Mumar Ledavar Echad (מומר לדבר אחד): This translates to "one who foregoes observance of a certain mitzvah". It describes someone who knowingly disregards a specific commandment, unlike a tinok shenishba who acts out of ignorance.
Mumar L'teyavon (מומר לתיאבון): This term signifies someone who transgresses a mitzvah due to craving (teyavon) or convenience. This comes closest to the spirit of "cafeteria Catholic" as it implies a conscious choice to prioritize personal desires over religious observance.
Concepts that express similar ideas
"Off the Derech" (OTD): This Yeshiva-English expression describes a Jew who has left an Orthodox way of life or community. It broadly encompasses those who embrace a secular lifestyle or even a non-Orthodox form of Judaism. While often used disapprovingly within Orthodox communities, some individuals who have left reclaim the term to express their newfound freedom from traditional religious constraints.
"Selective observance": This phrase, while not a formal Hebrew term, captures the essence of picking and choosing religious practices. It's used in discussions about Jewish identity, particularly in analyzing how individuals engage with religious traditions in a modern context.
Hypocrisy (Tzeviut - צביעות): While not directly about cafeteria observance, the concept of hypocrisy is relevant. In Hebrew, Tzeviut describes someone who projects a false image of piety, according to The Jewish Chronicle. The Talmud uses the phrase tocho aino kevoro – one's inside is not the same as one's outside – to denote a hypocrite.
mportant considerations
Context matters: The appropriate term can depend heavily on the specific context and the individual's reasons for selective observance. Some might be questioning their faith, while others might be making conscious decisions to prioritize certain aspects of Judaism over others.
Sensitivity: Terms like "mumar" can carry negative connotations. When discussing an individual's religious observance, it's generally best to use respectful and non-judgmental language.
In conclusion, while "cafeteria Catholic" isn't a direct translation in Jewish terminology, concepts like tinok shenishba, mumar ledavar echad, and mumar l'teyavon touch upon the idea of selective religious observance or deviation from established Jewish law. The broader concept of being "off the derech" also offers a way to describe individuals who have moved away from an Orthodox lifestyle.

Is there a jewish word for leader who has a jewish communty in the land of Israel dismantled although doing so is both a against a decree of the L-d and puts Jewish lives in danger?

While there isn't one specific Jewish word that perfectly captures the scenario you've described, several concepts and terms within Jewish tradition come close to addressing the various facets of such a situation:
Marsha (wicked person): This term broadly refers to someone who acts against God's will and the Jewish Law (Halakha).
Mored b'Malchut (rebellious against the King): In some interpretations, a leader who acts against the will of God or the established religious law could be seen as rebellious. However, this primarily pertains to political or religious authority.
Posek (decisor of Jewish Law) who acts against Halakha: If the decree against dismantling the community is considered a matter of Jewish Law, then a Posek who actively promotes actions against it could be seen as acting improperly. While technically not violating a decree from God, ignoring or actively defying established Halakha is a significant concern.
Mechallel Hashem (desecrator of God's name): Acting in a manner that brings disrepute or contempt upon God or Judaism can be considered a desecration of God's name. Deliberately endangering Jewish lives or dismantling a community against a religious obligation could be seen as such an act.
It's important to remember that:
Different schools of thought and interpretations exist within Judaism regarding the application of religious law and the authority of different leaders. Some groups might not consider a particular decree to be binding in a given situation or may interpret it differently.
The historical context and the specific reasons behind the leader's actions would be crucial in determining the appropriate Jewish legal or ethical assessment.
Therefore, while there may not be one single word, the concepts of acting wickedly, rebelling against divine/religious authority, defying Halakha, and potentially desecrating God's name would likely be used to describe a leader who disbands a Jewish community in the Land of Israel contrary to what's believed to be God's decree and at the risk of endangering lives.
While there isn't one specific Jewish word that perfectly captures the complex scenario you've described, several terms and concepts could apply to different aspects of the situation:
Mored (מורד): This Hebrew term signifies "rebellious" or "one who rebels". A leader who acts against a clear decree of G-d and endangers the Jewish community could be seen as rebellious.
Poshea Yisrael (פושע ישראל): Literally meaning "transgressor of Israel," this term could apply to a leader who transgresses against the well-being and safety of the Jewish people and the land of Israel.
Avon (עָוֹן): This term refers to an "iniquity" or a "sin done out of moral failing." A leader who makes decisions that harm the community could be said to commit an avon due to a failure in moral judgment.
Pesha (פֶשַׁע): This refers to "deliberate sin" or "rebellion" against God. If a leader knowingly acts against a divine decree, this could be seen as a pesha.
Chet/Chata (חֶטְא): This is the most common Hebrew word for "sin" and literally means "to miss the mark." A leader who "misses the mark" by failing in their responsibility to protect  the community could be considered to have committed a chet.
Din Rodef (דין רודף): While not a word for a leader, Din Rodef refers to the "Law of the Pursuer". It outlines the religious obligation to intervene and prevent someone who is pursuing another with intent to kill from doing so, even if it means killing the pursuer. Some have controversially invoked this concept against leaders seen as endangering Jewish lives. However, it's a very serious and highly debated concept.
It's important to note
The terms listed above describe various aspects of sin, transgression, and rebellion within Judaism.
The application of these terms in such a situation would depend heavily on the specific context, interpretation of divine decrees, and the leader's intent.
Therefore, while there may not be one single term that encapsulates all the elements you've described, the concepts and terms outlined above can offer a nuanced perspective on such a complex situation within a Jewish context.
https://torahmitzion.org/learn/%D7%99%D7...ontinually.

Is there a jewish word for leader who claims to help protect a jewish community but who in fact becomes a servant of demands of non jewish nations?
While there isn't one specific Hebrew or Yiddish word perfectly capturing the precise nuance of a Jewish leader who outwardly protects the community but covertly serves non-Jewish demands, several terms and concepts in Jewish tradition speak to aspects of this complex behavior:
Meshuchad (מְשׁוּחָד): This Hebrew term describes someone corrupted by self-interest and an inability to perceive the consequences of their actions, often rooted in prejudice, ignorance, or uncontrolled desires. While not exclusively referring to political betrayal, a leader swayed by personal gain or fear of non-Jewish authorities to compromise community interests could be deemed meshuchad.
Corruption and Self-Serving Leadership: Judaism emphasizes ethical leadership and views actions like bribery (shochad), according to Bible Hub, as a betrayal of covenant with God and a perversion of justice. A leader prioritizing personal benefit or non-Jewish approval over the community's well-being would be seen as corrupt and failing in their moral obligations.
Historical Examples and Warnings: Jewish history provides instances where leaders, under pressure from external forces, made choices with both positive and negative repercussions for the community. The role of the Judenräte (Jewish Councils) during the Holocaust, notes The Wiener Holocaust Library, serves as a complex and cautionary example, with different leaders making varying choices in impossible situations.
Assimilation and its Nuances: While distinct from the scenario presented, the concept of assimilation and acculturation within Jewish communities highlights the ongoing tension between maintaining Jewish identity and adapting to the surrounding culture. A leader prioritizing acceptance by non-Jewish society to the detriment of Jewish tradition or communal needs could be seen as failing in their responsibility.
In summary, while no single word perfectly describes the specific type of leader you've outlined, the spirit of your question resonates with themes of betrayal, moral failure, and compromising communal welfare for personal or external gain, which are addressed through terms like meshuchad, the concept of corruption in leadership, and the various historical examples of Jews navigating relationships with surrounding cultures.
While there isn't one single, specific Hebrew or Jewish word that perfectly captures the idea of a leader who claims to protect the community but ultimately serves non-Jewish demands and betrays his people, some terms come close and carry strong negative connotations:
Shtadlan (שַׁדְלָן): This term describes a person, often a wealthy and well-connected one, who intercedes with non-Jewish authorities on behalf of the Jewish community. While historically seen as important for protection, the Jewish Virtual Library explains that from the late 19th century onwards, "the terms shtadlan and shtadlanut acquired a pejorative undertone; they were used derisively to decry Jewish representatives who failed to stand up with pride and courage against persecuting governments and came to denote those who showed weakness and an eagerness for compromise". In that sense, a shtadlan could be seen as someone who becomes a servant to non-Jewish demands rather than a true protector.
Baged (בגד) and Boged (בּוֹגֵד): The Hebrew word לִבְגּוֹד (livgod) means "to betray." A male traitor is called a בּוֹגֵד (boged), and a female traitor is a בּוֹגֶדֶת (bogedet). While not specifically tied to political leadership, betraying one's people for personal gain or external influence certainly fits this description.
Pesha (פֶשַע): In the Old Testament, Pesha refers to the betrayal of a relationship or a breach of trust, such as violating a treaty between nations or a betrayal between individuals. A leader betraying their community to non-Jewish powers could be seen as committing a Pesha.
Additional considerations
Kapo: During the Holocaust, the term "Kapo" referred to Jewish inmates who assisted the Nazis in overseeing other inmates, notes the St. Louis Jewish Light. They are considered traitors and it is a powerful and negative insult. While a specific historical context, the sentiment of a leader betraying their people in exchange for favors from a hostile outside power resonates.
Criticism of leadership: Throughout history, Jewish communities have faced difficult choices regarding how to navigate relations with outside powers. Leaders have sometimes been criticized for being too accommodating or for compromising the community's interests for the sake of survival, says Brill.
It's crucial to understand the historical context and complexities of these terms when discussing such a sensitive topic. Accusations of betrayal are serious and require careful consideration of the specific situation and motivations involved

https://torah.org/torah-portion/rabbiwei...%20actions.

of interest
https://www.sefaria.org/Gittin.56a.15?lang=bi

Is there a jewish word for leader who takes action to save a jewish community and is critized by non jewish nations for doing so?
While there isn't one single, specific Jewish word for a leader who takes action to save a Jewish community and is criticized by non-Jewish nations for it, the concept is present and can be understood through existing terms and historical examples.
One term that comes close in describing a person dedicated to the safety and well-being of the Jewish community, potentially facing external pressures, is "Manhig" (מנהיג), meaning "leader" in Hebrew.
However, to fully capture the nuance of your question, consider the following points:
Historical Examples: Jewish history is replete with figures who defended their communities and faced external criticism or persecution. For instance, Zionist leaders like Theodor Herzl, faced both internal and external challenges and criticism in advocating for a Jewish homeland.
Contemporary Context: In modern times, the leadership of Israel in defending the Jewish population often draws strong criticism from non-Jewish nations and organizations.
Righteous Among the Nations": While this term specifically honors non-Jews who saved Jews during the Holocaust, it highlights the value placed on actions to protect the community, regardless of the criticism faced.
The act of a leader taking action to ensure the safety and continuity of the Jewish people is a recurring theme in Jewish history and is intertwined with the ongoing challenges and criticisms faced from the outside world

Is there a jewish word to describe the actions of non jewish nations who do anything to prevent jews in exhile from settling in the Land of Israel and thus bring the judgment of the L-d on themselves for their actions?

While there isn't one specific Jewish word that perfectly captures the complex actions of non-Jewish nations hindering the return of Jews to Israel and the subsequent divine judgment, several Jewish concepts and biblical passages speak to this sentiment.
Prophetic warnings against nations that oppose Israel: Many prophets, like Zechariah and Ezekiel, describe a future time when nations will align against Jerusalem and face the Lord's judgment. JNS.org suggests that these prophecies might extend beyond physical armies to diplomatic, economic, and ideological opposition.
The "Three Oaths" (according to some interpretations): Some interpretations of Talmudic passages mention three oaths, one of which states that non-Jewish nations should not excessively oppress the Jewish diaspora.
Concepts of Chillul Hashem (desecration of God's name) and Kiddush Hashem (sanctification of God's name): The Jewish Virtual Library highlights the historical Jewish experience of exile, expressed by the term galut, which involves a feeling of uprootedness and alienation.
While these aren't single words, they represent the Jewish perspective on the actions of nations that might hinder the Jewish return to the land of Israel and the subsequent divine judgment mentioned in the user's question

Here are some relevant ideas:
Galut (Exile/Diaspora) and the yearning for return: The term "Galut" signifies the Jewish experience of exile from their homeland, coupled with a deep yearning for the national and political restoration in the Land of Israel. Any obstruction to this return would naturally be viewed as prolonging and intensifying the suffering associated with Galut.
Aliyah (Ascent): The return of Jews to the Land of Israel is known as Aliyah, a central theme in Jewish history and prophecy, seen as a fulfillment of God's promises. Actions hindering Aliyah oppose this central tenet.
Goyim (Nations/Gentiles): This term refers to non-Jewish nations. While originally a neutral term simply meaning "nations", in contexts discussing their opposition to Israel's return to the Land, it can take on a more negative connotation in some interpretations.
Biblical prophecies of nations opposing God's plan: Jewish texts contain prophecies about nations opposing God's chosen people and His plan for them, which includes the return to the Land of Israel. This opposition is often linked to future divine judgment on those nations. For example, Zechariah 12:9 speaks of God setting out to destroy all nations that attack Jerusalem.
Negation of the Diaspora: This Zionist concept asserts that Jewish life in the Diaspora is an unnatural state prone to assimilation, discrimination, and persecution, according to Wikipedia. Obstacles to returning to Israel would be seen as perpetuating this negation.
Therefore, while there may not be a single word, the actions you describe are seen within Jewish thought through the lens of:
Prolonging the suffering of the Jewish exile (Galut).
Opposing the divinely ordained return of the Jewish people to their land (Aliyah).
Inviting divine judgment as prophesied for nations that oppose God's plan and His people, though the timing and nature of that judgment are subjects of ongoing theological discussion

Is there a jewish word to describe the choices of those jews who were so assimilated that they refuses to heed the word of the L-d and join the Exodus from Egypt?
While there isn't one specific Jewish word that perfectly captures the choices of those Jews during the Exodus who were so assimilated they refused to heed the word of God, several terms and concepts in Jewish tradition speak to aspects of this phenomenon:
Midrashim on the 80% who didn't leave: Some midrashic interpretations, notably those attributed to Rashi and Shemot Rabbah, suggest that only a minority (perhaps one-fifth) of the Israelites actually left Egypt, with the majority choosing to remain due to their comfort and unwillingness to leave behind the familiar, even if it meant continued subjugation. This reflects a reluctance to embrace the unknown and the challenges of a new life with God, perhaps even clinging to a sense of belonging in the familiar Egyptian society.
"Negation of the Diaspora" (Shlilat ha-Galut): While a much later concept in Zionism, the idea of "negation of the Diaspora" suggests that Jewish life outside of the Land of Israel inherently leads to assimilation and a weakening of Jewish identity. While the context is different, the underlying concern about assimilation's impact on Jewish continuity resonates with the Exodus narrative, where assimilation potentially led some to reject liberation.
Concepts of Apostasy: Terms like mumar (one who is changed [out of their faith]), poshea Yisrael (transgressor of Israel), or kofer (one who denies God) refer to different levels of rejecting Judaism or its core beliefs. Although the context of the Exodus is before the formalized giving of the Torah and Jewish law, the choices of those who refused to leave could be seen as a precursor to or a form of straying from the path God intended for the Jewish people.
It's important to remember that these are interpretations and not a single, universally agreed-upon explanation for the choices made during the Exodus. The act of choosing to remain in Egypt, despite the opportunity for freedom, is open to various interpretations, highlighting the complexities of faith, identity, and the allure of the familiar.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article...l%20future.
https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/col...er%20story.

Erev Rav (עֵרֶב רַב): This term literally means "mixed multitude" and refers to a group of non-Israelites who joined the Israelites on their journey out of Egypt. While not exclusively referring to assimilated Jews, some interpretations and commentary link the Erev Rav to those who had assimilated into Egyptian society or had questionable motives for joining the Exodus, and who later caused trouble for the Israelites in the wilderness.
Mumar (מומר): This term is used to describe an apostate, someone who has rejected Judaism and potentially converted to another religion. While the specific context is not exclusively about the Exodus, it represents the act of abandoning one's Jewish identity due to assimilation or other reasons.
Pesha (פשע): This term refers to transgression or rebellion, a deliberate act of going against God's will. In the context of the Exodus, those who refused to leave despite God's clear instructions could be seen as committing a form of pesha.
Midrashic perspectives
It's important to note that Jewish tradition, particularly in the Midrash, offers interpretations of the Exodus that acknowledge the presence of assimilated Jews who did not want to leave Egypt. Some Midrashim suggest that a significant number, even a majority in some interpretations, died during the Plague of Darkness because they refused to leave Egypt, highlighting the tragic consequences of their choices.
These Midrashic accounts emphasize the spiritual blindness and attachment to Egyptian life that prevented some from embracing the opportunity for freedom and redemption offered by God. They serve as a reminder that even in times of divine intervention, individuals have agency and the ability to choose their own path, even if it deviates from the divinely ordained one.
The Exodus story offers profound and enduring lessons for Judaism about the complexities of assimilation and the importance of maintaining faith and Jewish identity, particularly in diaspora:
1. The Dangers of Assimilation
Losing Sight of Covenant: The Israelites' initial assimilation in Egypt led to a forgetfulness of their covenant with God and a diminishing of their distinctiveness as a people.
Spiritual Blindness: The Midrashic accounts of those who chose to remain in Egypt during the Exodus suggest that a deep entanglement with the dominant culture can lead to spiritual blindness and an inability to perceive God's call for liberation.
The Power of Choosing Faith and Distinctiveness
Remembering the Past: Judaism places immense emphasis on remembering the Exodus and the experience of being strangers in Egypt. This collective memory serves as a foundation for gratitude, empathy towards others, and a commitment to justice.
Maintaining Jewish Customs and Language: According to some Midrashic traditions, the Israelites in Egypt initially maintained their distinct identity through adherence to their names, dress, and language, creating a "hedge against assimilation". These practices become crucial safeguards against losing one's identity.
Education and Continuity: The Haggadah, which guides the Passover Seder, plays a vital role in transmitting the story of the Exodus and instilling in children the importance of the covenant, gratitude, and a vibrant Jewish identity, according to jewishideas.org.
Living a Purposeful Jewish Life: Some Jewish thinkers emphasize that simply preserving Jewish identity isn't enough; it must be coupled with a passionate commitment to Jewish values, community engagement, and serving as positive role models for the next generation
The Challenge and Opportunity of Diaspora
The Struggle for Identity: The Exodus story resonates with the ongoing struggle for Jewish identity in the diaspora, a context in which the allure of the surrounding culture can be powerful.
Diaspora as a Creative Space: While diaspora presents challenges, it can also be a space for Jewish creativity and resilience, where Jews can, through their prophetic voice, reject societal injustices and forge new alliances with other marginalized groups, says Contending Modernities.
Building a Stronger Community: The Exodus experience teaches the importance of recognizing the vulnerability of others, and working to build a stronger, more compassionate community that supports all its members, particularly the marginalized, notes Congregation Beth Tikvah.
Ultimately, the Exodus story serves as a constant reminder that choosing a vibrant Jewish life involves actively embracing the covenant with God, upholding Jewish distinctiveness, learning from the past, and working to create a just and compassionate world. According to My Jewish Learning, the Exodus is not just a historical event, but a living narrative that continues to inspire and shape Jewish identity and purpose in every generation

Specific Midrashim (rabbinic commentaries and stories) elaborate on the Jews who remained in Egypt, focusing on their reasons for staying and the consequences of their choices:
1. Assimilation and lack of desire for redemption
Midrash Tanchuma Bo: According to one opinion in this Midrash, the Jews who refused to leave Egypt were so thoroughly assimilated into Egyptian society that they were unwilling to join the Exodus. They had become comfortable with the lifestyle they knew, and the promise of a journey into the unknown wilderness, even for the sake of freedom and a life dedicated to God, held little appeal.
The Lure of Egyptian Life: Some midrashic accounts suggest that these assimilated Jews enjoyed a degree of wealth, honor, or connections within Egyptian society, further dissuading them from leaving their comforts for the uncertainties of freedom and faith, notes Tablet Magazine.
2. The plague of darkness as a consequence and cover-up Death during the Plague of Darkness: A significant and striking midrashic tradition, cited by Rashi, posits that the Jews who were unwilling to leave Egypt died during the Plague of Darkness. This was so the Egyptians would not witness the loss of life among the Israelites, potentially diminishing the impact of the plagues as divine retribution.
Scale of the Loss: Some midrashic sources even suggest that a substantial portion of the Jewish population, as high as four-fifths, perished during this plague. This is viewed by some as the most severe tragedy in Jewish history.
Hiding the Deaths: The thickness and intensity of the darkness prevented the Egyptians from witnessing the deaths and burials, preserving the honor and mystique surrounding the Israelites' departure, according to Chabad.
3. Lost generations and the significance of individuals
The Loss of Descendants: Rabbinic commentary highlights the immense tragedy of these losses by emphasizing the vast number of descendants these individuals might have produced in future generations, effectively wiping out millions of potential future Jews.
Individual Choice and Legacy: The Midrash underscores the profound impact of individual choices, reminding us that even seemingly small decisions can have far-reaching consequences that reverberate across generations.
These Midrashim about the Jews who remained in Egypt offer a sobering reflection on the challenges of faith, the allure of assimilation, and the importance of actively choosing a life of purpose and covenant, even when faced with hardship or the unknown. They serve as a reminder that the Exodus was not only a story of miraculous redemption, but also one of individual and collective struggle and the consequences of choosing to remain in a spiritual or cultural "darkness," even amidst the dawn of a new era

is there a Jewish word for those who want to be so much like secular non-religious nations that they try to stop teaching of the Torah?
While there isn't one single, universally agreed-upon Jewish word that precisely captures the nuanced sentiment of wanting to be like secular nations to the point of actively discouraging Torah study, several terms and concepts come close and have been used in different contexts throughout history:
Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment): This movement, prominent in the 18th and 19th centuries, emphasized the study of secular subjects and integration into broader European society. While not necessarily advocating against Torah study, it shifted the focus and was viewed by some more traditional Jews as a departure from the sole emphasis on religious learning.
Hiloni (Secular Jew): In modern Israel, this term designates the least religious segment of the Jewish public. While not inherently against Torah study, it implies prioritizing secular pursuits over strict religious adherence.
Hitbolelut (Assimilation): This term refers to the cultural assimilation and social integration of Jews into surrounding cultures. Historically, assimilation, particularly the desire to shed distinct Jewish identity and practices, has been viewed as a threat to Jewish continuity and a rejection of the Torah's teachings.
Off the derech (OTD): This contemporary term, meaning "off the path" or "leaving the way," is used to describe a Jew who has left an Orthodox way of life or community and adopted a secular or non-Orthodox lifestyle.
Apikores: This term, derived from the Greek philosopher Epicurus, is used to describe a person who expresses heretical or heterodox views regarding traditional Jewish beliefs.

While there isn't one single, universally agreed-upon Hebrew word that perfectly encapsulates the idea of someone rejecting Torah teaching specifically out of a desire to emulate secular, non-Jewish nations, the concept is addressed in Judaism through terms like Hiloni and the broader concept of assimilation (hitbolelut).
Hiloni: This Hebrew term refers to a secular Jew, someone who identifies as Jewish but gives little or no attention to its religious aspects. While not explicitly referring to a desire to emulate secular nations, a hiloni's secularism can be influenced by surrounding secular cultures.
Assimilation (Hitbolelut): This term describes the gradual cultural and social integration of Jews into the surrounding non-Jewish culture. Within the context of assimilation, there have been historical instances where Jews sought to distance themselves from religious practices and traditions in an attempt to be more accepted or integrated into a wider, non-Jewish society.
One might also consider the term "Hellenizing Jews" from the Chanukah story. These were Jews who sought to integrate Greek culture into Judaism, affirming their place in Hellenistic society and seeking to abandon or downplay Jewish practices like Kashrut, Sabbath observance, and circumcision. While not solely motivated by a desire to be "like secular non-religious nations," the Hellenizing movement does illustrate a desire for integration and adaptation that could involve shedding some religious practices.
It's important to note that
Not all secular Jews are motivated by a desire to imitate non-Jewish cultures.
Assimilation is a complex phenomenon with various contributing factors, not just a desire to be like non-Jews.
The terms listed above are descriptive, not necessarily pejorative.
While

The Prohibition Against Living in Egypt - Parshat Ki Tavo - Chabad.org
Yerida - Wikipedia
Never Return to Egypt | My Jewish Learning


is there a jewish word for someone who disregards Moses and Joshua warning that Jews in Israel must not go down from Israel to Egypt (goy nations)?
While there isn't one specific Hebrew word that perfectly encapsulates someone who disregards Moses and Joshua's warning about Jews not returning to Egypt, several related terms and concepts exist within Jewish thought:
Yerida (ירידה): Literally meaning "descent," this term describes the act of emigrating from Israel. While it doesn't specifically target those returning to Egypt, it reflects the negative connotation associated with leaving the Land of Israel, particularly for countries perceived as less spiritually pure or that might lead to assimilation.
Mumar (מומר): This term refers to a Jew who has "changed" and abandoned their faith, according to Wikipedia. While not exclusively about the Egypt prohibition, it encompasses the act of rejecting core Jewish practices or beliefs, including those related to dwelling in the Land of Israel or avoiding negative influences.
Poshea Yisrael (פושע ישראל): This means "transgressor of Israel" and also describes a Jew who has strayed from the path of Jewish law and tradition. This broader term includes the disregard of warnings like those concerning Egypt.
It's important to consider that the prohibition against returning to Egypt stems from several concerns outlined in the Torah, including:
Avoiding Immoral Practices: Egyptian society was considered to be highly immoral, and returning there was seen as a risk of negative influence on the Jewish people.
Affront to God: Returning to Egypt would be an affront to God, who specifically saved the Israelites from slavery in Egypt.
Loss of Holiness: Some Jewish teachings suggest that Egypt was emptied of its holiness when the Israelites left, and returning there would be a spiritually unproductive act.
In conclusion, while "Yerida" describes the act of emigration from Israel, and terms like "Mumar" and "Poshea Yisrael" address the broader concept of abandoning Jewish practice, there isn't a single Hebrew word used specifically to denote someone who disregards the warning about returning to Egypt.

Based on the information available, there isn't one specific Jewish word that precisely encapsulates someone who disregards Moses and Joshua's warning about Jews in Israel not going down to Egypt (or "goy nations"). However, related terms and concepts from Jewish tradition can shed light on this scenario:
Mumar: This Hebrew term literally means "one who is changed" and refers to an apostate, someone who rejects Judaism, according to Wikipedia. While not solely focused on the "return to Egypt" aspect, disregarding core commandments and warnings from the Torah, such as the prohibition against relying on other nations instead of God, could be seen as a form of apostasy.
Kofer: This term translates to "denier" or "heretic" and is used to describe someone who denies the divine inspiration of the Torah or the authority of the Oral Law.
Tinok shenishba: This Talmudic term translates to "captured infant" and refers to a Jew who sins inadvertently due to having been raised without sufficient knowledge and understanding of Judaism. This highlights the importance of education and understanding in Jewish tradition.
Avodah Zarah: This term refers to idolatry, the worship of "strange gods" or "idols" instead of God alone. The warnings against returning to Egypt or interacting closely with other nations were often rooted in the fear that Jews would be led astray and worship other gods or adopt immoral practices. Therefore, choosing to go to Egypt despite the warnings could be seen as a step towards Avodah Zarah.
The core issue revolves around obedience to God's commandments and warnings found in the Torah. Disregarding these warnings would be considered a form of sin or transgression, according to The Jewish Theological Seminary. The specific context of the "return to Egypt" was significant because it represented a potential rejection of the path God had chosen for the Israelites and a possible return to the idolatry and immoral practices they had left behind.
In conclusion, while no single word perfectly fits the description, several concepts in Jewish tradition address the behavior of disregarding divine warnings and laws, emphasizing the importance of faithfulness, obedience, and maintaining one's unique identity as a member of the Jewish people

For many US Colleges trying to get a degree in History learns learning a foreign langauge

(I tried for this type of degree but had to drop out of college  because I couldnt pass foreign langauges requirement for a US history degree)

if your going to study history abroad..that would certainly be useful....
otherwise  for me its frankly a waste of time and effort

Foreign langauges in everyday life are about as useful as studying algerbra  

https://www.oah.org/tah/august/against-l...uirements/
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/201...tive-essay
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/com...transcript.

• Practicality and career focus: For a significant portion of American history research, primary sources are predominantly in English. Critics argue that requiring foreign language proficiency for all American history degrees might not be necessary, especially for those pursuing specific areas of focus that don't necessitate foreign language use.
• Effectiveness of current requirements: Some argue that the typical foreign language proficiency exams, often involving timed translation of short passages with dictionaries, may not accurately reflect the ability to conduct research in another language. Students may pass these requirements without truly acquiring practical skills for engaging with extensive foreign-language texts.
• Elitism and gatekeeping: Some argue that foreign language requirements create an unnecessary hurdle for students, particularly those from working-class backgrounds, and can be seen as a form of academic gatekeeping that favors certain educational experiences over others.
• Alternative skills: It is suggested that other skills, such as programming languages for digital history projects, could be more valuable than foreign language proficiency for certain career paths in American history, according to the Society for US Intellectual History


Whenerver other kids were reading Dick and Jane books..I was reading High School literature  {John Steinbeck; Edgar Allan Poe}

I didnt take A degree for English leterature  but again the old foreign Langage requirement
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-colleges-ma...20flexible.

Limited impact on proficiency: Some studies suggest that a few semesters of foreign language instruction don't significantly improve language proficiency, questioning the practical value of the requirement.
• Focus on English literature: Critics argue that the requirement distracts from the core focus of an English literature degree and could be replaced with more relevant coursework.
• Cost and time: Foreign language courses add to the overall cost and time commitment of a degree, which can be a burden for some students.
• Accessibility and elitism: Some believe that foreign language requirements create barriers for students from certain backgrounds and perpetuate academic elitism.
• Ineffectiveness of Short-Term Study: Critics argue that the typical requirement of a few semesters of foreign language instruction is often insufficient to achieve true proficiency. This limited exposure may not lead to a meaningful ability to engage with foreign texts or cultures and may be seen as a mere bureaucratic hurdle rather than a valuable learning experience.
• Time and Resource Allocation: Requiring foreign language study may detract from the time and resources that could be dedicated to other aspects of an English Literature degree, such as specialized coursework or developing critical thinking and writing skills that are directly relevant to their chosen field.
• Focus on English: Some argue that English Literature programs should prioritize an in-depth understanding of English language and literature without diverting resources to foreign language acquisition, which might be perceived as a less relevant skill for future careers in this field.
• Alternative Pathways: Some educators propose that instead of mandatory language classes, students should be offered alternative ways to demonstrate cross-cultural understanding or specialized knowledge, such as focused study abroad programs or coursework emphasizing globalization and cultural diversity

also found out the following:
relatively small percentage of US colleges and universities require students to study a foreign language for a bachelor's degree. While the exact number varies by study, it's generally reported that around 12% of institutions have such a requirement. This means the majority of institutions do not mandate foreign language study for graduation.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Declining Trend:
While historically, a larger proportion of colleges had foreign language requirements, the trend has been downwards. Some studies indicate that in the past, over two-thirds of institutions required foreign language study, but this number has decreased significantly.
Variations Among Institutions:
Some universities may have specific language requirements for certain majors or programs, even if not across the board for all bachelor's degrees.
Focus on Competency:
While formal requirements might be less common, many institutions encourage or recommend foreign language study, and some focus on demonstrating competency rather than simply completing a set number of courses.
Globalized World:
Despite the declining trend, the importance of multilingual skills in a globalized world is increasingly recognized, with some arguing for a stronger emphasis on foreign language education.

• Time and Financial Burden: Critics suggest that the additional time and expense of fulfilling a language requirement, especially if it doesn't align with a student's interests or future career goals, can be a significant obstacle, particularly for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
• Focus on "Cultural Capital": Some argue that foreign language requirements are sometimes used to signal a certain level of "cultural capital" or intellectual breadth, which may not always be equitable or necessary for all graduates. This is rooted in a historical view of university education as a privilege for those who could afford to pursue "impractical" knowledge for self-betterment, according to a Quora discussion.
• Practical vs. Broad Education: There can be tension between the desire for a broad, liberal education (which often includes language study to foster cultural understanding and critical thinking) and the demands of increasingly specialized and career-focused degree programs.
• Critics of mandatory foreign language study for all degrees sometimes argue that it may not be directly relevant to every career path, particularly in fields with a strong focus on technical or specific vocational skills.
• For example, it's been argued that learning a programming language might be more beneficial for some students than a foreign language, depending on their chosen field
Also
The most damning argument against mandatory language education lies in the stark disconnect between time invested and proficiency achieved. Despite years of study, the vast majority of American students fail to develop functional language skills.
The statistics are sobering. Less than one percent of American adults are proficient in a foreign language they learned in a U.S. classroom. According to the Center for Applied Second Language Studies, only 15% of high school students reach proficiency advanced enough to converse on everyday topics easily, even after four years of instruction.

The broader picture is even more discouraging. Of approximately 50 million current U.S. high school graduates who received foreign language instruction, only 10 million (20%) claim any ability to communicate in the language they studied. Even more telling, “just a few million” report being able to speak the language reasonably well, meaning more than 90% do not achieve functional fluency.
Implementation Nightmare: Costs, Shortages, and System Failures
Even if mandatory language education were theoretically beneficial, practical implementation faces overwhelming challenges that make success unlikely under current conditions.
The financial implications are staggering. Successful language programs require substantial funding, with dual language education costing $896 to $1,568 per student — representing 10% to 16% increases in overall school expenditures. The majority of costs stem from staff time for administrator planning, family communication, and crucial teacher certification and professional development, plus expenses for specialized textbooks and substitute teachers.
These costs disproportionately burden already-struggling districts. Districts with high proportions of English Language Learners often receive approximately 1% less state and local funding than similar low-ELL districts, creating an equity crisis where those most needing language support receive less resources.
The teacher shortage crisis is even more severe. The U.S. Department of Education identifies foreign language as a high-need field, with 2013–2014 data showing 36 states reporting K-6 shortages and 39 states reporting 7–12 shortages. The situation has likely worsened since then.
Even existing teachers often lack adequate proficiency. Only just over half of teacher candidates reach the “Advanced Low” proficiency level on the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Scale — the minimal target for most languages. This combination of severe shortages and inadequate preparation among current educators points to a workforce pipeline crisis.
A national mandate would drastically increase demand for qualified teachers that the current system cannot meet, likely leading to even lower-quality instruction and perpetuating the cycle of ineffective programs.
Student Motivation and Cultural Resistance
Perhaps the most fundamental challenge involves student engagement and broader cultural attitudes toward multilingualism in America.
Foreign language study is often perceived as a school requirement with limited personal relevance, leading to lack of investment from students. When students engage with material out of obligation (extrinsic motivation) rather than genuine interest (intrinsic motivation), learning effectiveness plummets, particularly for skill acquisition like language learning.
Anecdotal evidence suggests many students learn only basic phrases even after years of study, indicating fundamental lack of engagement and deep learning. This raises questions about the efficacy of mandating subjects when intrinsic motivation is crucial for success.
The broader cultural context compounds these challenges. The United States maintains what scholars call “normative monolingualism” — a cultural ideology where bilingualism is often viewed with suspicion rather than appreciation. This cultural resistance manifests in policy: currently only 11 states have mandatory foreign language graduation requirements, while many others accept alternatives like computer coding.
This lack of cultural support for multilingualism suggests that national mandates would face significant political resistance, potentially leading to underfunded, poorly implemented programs that further entrench current problems rather than solving them.
The combination of student disengagement, inadequate resources, and cultural resistance creates conditions where mandatory requirements may actually harm rather than help language education by forcing participation without providing conditions for success.
This “proficiency paradox” — significant time and resources invested with minimal measurable outcomes — suggests that simply mandating language study without fundamental changes to teaching methods will not yield desired results.
The low success rates stem from systemic pedagogical problems. Students often remain passive participants, viewing language learning as the teacher’s responsibility rather than developing personal agency crucial for acquisition. Languages are frequently treated as academic subjects — collections of facts to be memorized from books — rather than skills to be actively acquired through practice and communication.
https://medium.com/future-of-school/shou...0fe18438a3
•