Isaac Choua

מאז שאני ילד קטן שנאתי את פסח. בשבילי זה מעולם לא היה חג של חירות, אלא חג של כפייה. כבר שנים אני לא מסוגל לדמיין ליל סדר בלי כוס בירה לצד המצה. אני עד היום זוכר את הפסח הראשון בתל אביב כשלא הייתי צריך כמו ההורים לאגור חמץ לחג. עוצרים את הכפייה, תולשים את הניילון, מעבדות לחירות.

The supersession you're describing is a Pauline reading of Matthew 5:17. “Do not think that I have come to abolish (καταλῦσαι / ܕ݁ܶܐܬ݂ܺܝܬ݂) the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill (πληρῶσαι / ܡܠܐ).” I often hear Christians say, “Jesus fulfilled the covenant,” or something like it. So I looked into what that might actually mean. I’m not a Christian theologian, but I am a Pharisee, a Rabbi, and a Levantine Jew. That places me squarely within the audience Jesus was addressing when he used this phrase in the Sermon on the Mount. I read his words as they would have been heard by a biblically literate Levantine Jew, perhaps even a Pharisee, given how often he speaks favorably of them. Josephus (Antiquities 13.10.6) tells us the common people favored the Pharisees. His audience would have been fluent in Scripture, halakha, and the layered linguistic world of the Second Temple period. Language does not stand alone. The Greek of the New Testament is shaped by the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Tanakh. In it, πληρόω frequently translates the Hebrew מלא (malé): to fill, to complete, to enact. This becomes even clearer in the Peshitta, the early Aramaic version of the Gospels, which uses ܡܠܐ (malé), a direct cognate of מלא. In Biblical Hebrew, malé is rich. It can be literal ("the land was filled with violence"), legal (מִלּוּי יָדַיִם, "filling the hands" in priestly ordination), or poetic ("the earth is full of His glory"). It signals enactment, obligation, sacred duty. It does not suggest repeal. Πληρόω maps to מלא over 70 times in the Septuagint. It means to carry out, to bring to full measure, not to end something. Equally misunderstood is καταλύω, usually rendered "abolish." But in the Septuagint, it overwhelmingly translates the Hebrew לין (loun): to lodge, to pause, to dwell temporarily. Not to destroy. Not to override. The Aramaic strengthens this reading. In the Peshitta, "abolish" is ܕ݁ܶܐܫܪܶܐ (deʾeshre), from ܫܪܐ (sharāʾ), meaning to loosen, to dwell, to begin. It evokes settling in, not dismantling. This is not a statement of rupture. It is a halakhic ruling. Enactment, not expiration. If we remap this into Hebraic idiom, it might read: אַל תַּחְשְׁבוּ כִּי בָאתִי לָלוּן אֶת־הַתּוֹרָה אוֹ אֶת־הַנְּבִיאִים; לֹא בָאתִי לָלוּן כִּי אִם לְמַלֵּא “Don’t suppose I have come to lodge over or complain about the Tora or the Prophets. I have come to bring them to full measure.” This is not the voice of someone setting the Tora aside. It is the voice of someone affirming its authority, taking up its burden, and committing to its realization. “Until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or one keraia will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever loosens the least of these commandments will be least in the Kingdom. Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter.” - Matthew 5:18–20 If he were announcing the expiration of the Tora, this would be a strange way to do it. He affirms the commandments. He affirms halakhic rigor. He even affirms the Pharisaic tradition, though he critiques its hypocrisy: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses. So whatever they tell you, do it. But do not imitate their actions. They speak, but do not act.” - Matthew 23:2–3 This is not the language of rejection of the Tora/Law. This is someone teaching from within the tradition, not against it. Paul, in contrast, writes: Χριστὸς γὰρ τέλος νόμου εἰς δικαιοσύνην “Christ is the telos of the Tora/Law (Nomos) for righteousness.” - Romans 10:4 Telos can mean "end," but also goal, purpose, culmination. Just like πληρόω, it does not mean annulment. It means consummation. Jesus says he came to fulfill the Tora, not abolish it. Paul says Christ is the telos of the Tora/Law (nomos). They might seem aligned. But Jesus speaks halakhically. Paul reframes it teleologically. That is the shift.

KENT: “The last time I saw Charlie Kirk on this earth was in June, in the West Wing… He said, ‘Joe, stop us from getting into a war with Iran.’”

The Israelis bombed the Iranian gas fields without our permission. They knew it would drive up gas prices Americans have to pay, but they did it anyway. Because they never listen to anyone else, or care about anyone but themselves. With allies like this, you don't need enemies.

זה מתחיל בכיסוי ראש ונגמר בכיסוי חמץ. השנה הפסקנו לנרמל את שתי התופעות האלו. כל בית עסק שיכסה חמץ - שיפנים שחילונים יקרעו את זה במיידי. נמאס לנו שאתם מכסים לנו את החיים בשם הדת.

You can argue fungibility and rerouted sales to China, but it’s not frictionless. A lot of that replacement supply either has to move through Hormuz with an American escort or rely on limited alternatives like the Saudi East–West pipeline. That’s not a clean swap. And geopolitics matters. With China’s alignment with Iran, especially material support, it’s not obvious producers will want to fully meet 100% of China’s needs (which was 30% of their daily oil consumption coming from the Gulf), particularly when other Asian buyers depend more heavily on those same routes.