no judaism believes in mass superiority, similar to islam.
Judaism believes that all non jews are simply just cattle and can be manipulated and taken advantage of for jewish gain.
Similar to how islam allows non muslims to be second class.
But if this is so, it can be said that as a vicious ox is not guilty unless he gores the fourth time, so also should it be with the hazakah, that it shall not be considered until the fourth year. Nay, that is no comparison. An ox which gores three times becomes vicious; but even then, if he has not gored oftener, what shall he pay? But here, when one has occupied any property for three years, it becomes his. But according to this, let an occupancy for which no reason can be given by the occupant be considered; and this is not permissible, since a Mishna further teaches that such is not to be considered? The reason that three years are considered a hazakah is because it approves the claim of the occupant-- e.g. , if the plaintiff claims, “You have stolen it,” and the defendant says, “I have bought it,” the occupancy of three years approves the fact that the defendant tells the truth. But if to the question, “What are you doing on my property?” he has no answer, what shall the hazakah approve? Shall the court make for him such a claim as he himself does not? R. Avira opposed: If hazakah is inferred from a vicious ox, then a protest not made in the presence of an occupant should not be considered, as concerning a vicious ox the maiming must be in his presence [Ex. xxi. 29]? Nay; in this respect, there is no comparison, as there the Scripture directs that the warning shall be in the presence of the owner. But here the protest is only to show that he had not relinquished his ownership, and if he has protested for other people it suffices, as he (who has heard the protest) has a colleague, and his colleague has another, etc.; and if it is said in public, it will certainly reach the ear of the occupant. According to this, if he has occupied it three months and consumed the fruit which grew each month-- e.g. , a pastio --let it be considered a hazakah? Was not R. Ishmael 1 of the Sanhedrin of Usha? And according to him this law holds good; as it is stated in our Mishna that if he has harvested his grain, etc., it is considered three years, according to R. Ishmael. But what is the reason of the decision of the rabbis? Said Rabha: Because for the first three years one usually takes care of his deed; but not for more than this. Said Abayi to him: According to your theory, let a protest which is not in his presence not be considered; as the occupant might claim, “If you gave the protest to me, I would take care of the bill of sale,” this claim cannot be considered for the reason stated above, “that your colleague has a colleague,” etc.
but maybe they were chosen to spread monotheism 
הראשונות ואחרונות שלא לעשות מלאכה בשבת שנא’ וביום השביעי שבת לה’ אלהיך לא תעשה כל מלאכה והזהיר גם באמור אל הכהנים ששת ימים תעשה מלאכה וביום השביעי שבת שבתון מקרא קדש כל מלאכת עבודה לא תעשו וענש בפ’ ויקהל וביום השביעי יהיה לכם קדש שבת שבתון לה’ כל העושה בו מלאכה יומת ומיתה (ב) זו נתפרשה בפר’ מקושש שהיא בסקילה בזמן שיש שם עדים והתראה אין שם עדים והתראה הן בכרת ואם עשה בשגגה חייב קרבן חטאת קבועה, ומה (ג) הן המלאכות שנינו במסכת שבת אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת ואלו הן החורש, הזורע, הקוצר, המעמר, ה
יָה עוֹמֵד בְּאַחַת מִשְּׁתֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת אֵלּוּ וְנָתַן חֲבֵרוֹ חֵפֶץ בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ עַל גַּבָּיו וְיָצָא בְּאוֹתוֹ הַחֵפֶץ לִרְשׁוּת שְׁנִיָּה וְעָמַד שָׁם חַיָּב. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֲקִירַת גּוּפוֹ בַּחֵפֶץ שֶׁעָלָיו כַּעֲקִירַת חֵפֶץ מֵאוֹתָהּ רְשׁוּת וַעֲמִידָתוֹ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַחֵפֶץ כְּהַנָּחַת הַחֵפֶץ בַּקַּרְקַע שֶׁעָמַד בָּהּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם יָצָא בַּחֵפֶץ שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ אוֹ עַל גַּבָּיו וְלֹא עָמַד בִּרְשׁוּת שְׁנִיָּה אֶלָּא חָזַר וְנִכְנַס וְהוּא בְּיָדוֹ אֲפִלּוּ יָצָא וְנִכְנַס כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּצָא הַיּוֹם פָּטוּר. לְפִי שֶׁעָקַר וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ. וַאֲפִלּוּ עָמַד לְתַקֵּן הַמַּשּׂאוֹי שֶׁעָלָיו עֲדַיִן הוּיָה עוֹמֵד בְּאַחַת מִשְּׁתֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת אֵלּוּ וְנָתַן חֲבֵרוֹ חֵפֶץ בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ עַל גַּבָּיו וְיָצָא בְּאוֹתוֹ הַחֵפֶץ לִרְשׁוּת שְׁנִיָּה וְעָמַד שָׁם חַיָּב. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֲקִירַת גּוּפוֹ בַּחֵפֶץ שֶׁעָלָיו כַּעֲקִירַת חֵפֶץ מֵאוֹתָהּ רְשׁוּת וַעֲמִידָתוֹ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַחֵפֶץ כְּהַנָּחַת הַחֵפֶץ בַּקַּרְקַע שֶׁעָמַד בָּהּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם יָצָא בַּחֵפֶץ שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ אוֹ עַל גַּבָּיו וְלֹא עָמַד בִּרְשׁוּת שְׁנִיָּה אֶלָּא חָזַר וְנִכְנַס וְהוּא בְּיָדוֹ אֲפִלּוּ יָצָא וְנִכְנַס כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּצָא הַיּוֹם פָּטוּר. לְפִי שֶׁעָקַר וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ. וַאֲפִלּוּ עָמַד לְתַקֵּן הַמַּשּׂאוֹי שֶׁעָלָיו עֲדַיִן הוּ
inshallah
allahu ackbar DEATH TO AMERICA DEATH TO ISRAEL INSHALLAH
DEATH TO ISRAEL AND AMERIKKKA INSHALLAH
so refpsi is team christian
יָה עוֹמֵד בְּאַחַת מִשְּׁתֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת אֵלּוּ וְנָתַן חֲבֵרוֹ חֵפֶץ בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ עַל גַּבָּיו וְיָצָא עָלָיו עֲדַיִן הוּ
No, if anything they have succeeded because of usury, which was illegal for Christians to practice.
thats a self imposed limit tho
11 [If] a reed or a spear or something similar to it was laying on the ground and one lifted up one end while the other end was [still] laying on the ground and he flung [the first end over] in front of him and proceeded to raise the second end which was laying [unmoved] on the ground and flung it in front of him in the same way [and so on], until he moved the object several mil , he is exempt. For he did not pick up the whole object from upon the ground. But if he pulled the object and dragged it on the ground from the beginning of four [ells] to [their] end, he is liable. For one who rolls [an object is as if] he is picking [it] up.
Christians are the more tame, however their most recent productions have fallen far from the original words.
They completely forget the teaches and extremes jesus went through and did but they just use the love quotes.
one day a christian is pushed to fight, and he may lay down and die due to confusion. No god lets his people die, because no god hasnt granted his people the strength to fight when needed.
14 One who throws an item from one domain to [another], but it was tied to a rope that is bunched in his hand: If he is able to pull the object [back], he is exempt. For there is no full putting down here; and it comes out that he is like one who picks [it] up, but does not put [it] down.
it is baffling how anyone can read the history of jews in christian europe and believe in the conspiracies lmao there is pretty obvious historical explanations for certain types of people holding the positions they do in society and its just not conspiratorial
is conspiratorial a word
it was also a legal restriction at the time due to the kings controlling the church and law.
so the jews didnt do it
הַזּוֹרֵק מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בָּאֶמְצַע אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָבַר הַחֵפֶץ בַּאֲוִיר רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים פָּטוּר. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּעֲבֹר לְמַעְלָה מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים אֲבָל אִם עָבַר בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה סָמוּךְ לָאָרֶץ וְנָח עַל גַּבֵּי מַשֶּׁהוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר אוֹ נִתְגַּלְגֵּל וְיָצָא הַחֵפֶץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אַחֶרֶת הֲרֵי הוּא כְּמִי שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר עוֹמֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּלְפִיכָךְ חַיָּב. וְכֵן הַזּוֹרֵק מֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד בָּאֶמְצַע פָּטוּר. וְאִם עָבַר הַחֵפֶץ בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה סָמוּךְ לָאָרֶץ וְנָח עַל גַּבֵּי מַשֶּׁהוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וְנִתְגַּלְגֵּל וְיָצָא לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים הַשְּׁנִיָּה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּמִי שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר עוֹמֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וּלְפִיכָךְ חַיָּב: