כ״ט סיון ה׳תשפ״ו | June 14, 2026
Controversy Emerges Over ‘Kosher Astrology’ Book
A book claiming to present the authentic astrology of Chazal for the first time has reportedly been largely adapted from non-Jewish and even Christian sources commonly associated with modern astrology. Unfortunately, several podcasts within the frum community fell into this without proper verification.
A book claiming to present the authentic astrology of Chazal for the first time has reportedly been largely adapted from non-Jewish and even Christian sources commonly associated with modern astrology.
Unfortunately, several podcasts within the frum community fell into this without proper verification, heavily promoting the book and effectively encouraging their audience to engage with astrology that is not aligned with a Torah perspective.
The book “Kosher Astrology: A Jewish Guide to Celestial Wisdom,” was written by Yitzchok Aharon Pinkesz, who claims to have discovered the astrology of Chazal for the first time. On various podcasts, he also claimed to have received an endorsement from Rabbi David Cohen, Rabbi of Congregation Gvul Yaavetz in Flatbush.
Because of these claims, he was invited onto numerous frum podcasts, and his book quickly became a bestseller.
Consequently, Rabbi Cohen has explicitly requested that it be made publicly known that the author misrepresented his statements, and that he vehemently opposes both the book and the author’s actions.
Rabbi Yisroel Marelus, a Lubavitcher Chassid who spent years studying astronomy in relation to the Rambam’s Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh, explains in a lecture that Kosher Astrology is, in his view, largely modern gentile astrology mixed with Christian sources.
He adds that this perspective stands in contrast to the Chabad Chassidus understanding of Chochmah, Binah, and Daas, as explained in Tanya by the Alter Rebbe.
While it is established that Chazal discussed celestial influences, he stresses that this is not the same as the systems of modern astrology practiced today.
Because the author presents Chazal’s teachings alongside external astrological systems under one framework, it raises serious halachic questions. One should consult a qualified Rav regarding whether such material is appropriate to keep in a Jewish home.
In his lecture, Rabbi Marelus critiques modern astrological practices and explains why they are considered problematic from a halachic standpoint.
He further explains that, even beyond halachic concerns, this approach conflicts with the Chabad Chassidus emphasis on bitachon in Hashem.
Known for his shiurim on Hebrew months and the astronomy of Chazal, Rabbi Marelus describes extensive research across many sefarim and manuscripts in an attempt to clarify the Torah approach to celestial systems. He presents his conclusions as rooted in classical sources and Chassidus.
The lecture can be viewed here:
A related playlist is available here:
COMMENTS
Rabbi marelus, you say the exodus took place in 1449 bce based on astrological positions, in seemingly complete contradiction to out sages, that it was in 1311 bce (2449)?
Respectfully, mendel baumgarten
You are 100% correct, and I appreciate you bringing this up. This highlights a classic dilemma that seemingly lacks a definitive solution: according to the Talmud, the Second Temple stood for 420 years, whereas modern historians assert it stood for 586 years.
Some suggest that the Talmudic chronology was mistaken, God forbid. This notion is entirely unacceptable, particularly within the framework of Chabad Chassidus. Others argue that historians manipulated the timelines and that the Talmud is literally correct. However, recent years have brought forth substantial evidence supporting the historical duration of 586 years.
I have written a fascinating article demonstrating unequivocally that the Talmud’s account does not refer to the physical, earthly Temple, but rather to its heavenly counterpart (Beis HaMikdash Shel Ma’alah). I even discovered a profound hint to this approach in one of the Rebbe’s Sichos. Through this lens, the contradiction between the Talmud and historical consensus is completely resolved.
The article is currently written in Hebrew and I am ready to share it with the public. In the meantime, you are welcome to watch the video in my playlist titled ‘The Zodiac confirms: The Year of Exodus – 1449 BCE’.
1. Are you not distorting our entire calculation of the Molad? You can claim we count from Creation regardless of the Churban, but will that really resolve the issue? 2. The lecture ignores the references to astrology at the end of Massechet Shabbat. 3. I wonder what the Rebbe would say about pushing the words of the Talmud away from their simple meaning.
Even regardless of my findings, in fact, your question challenges the interpretations of the Rishonim and Achronim themselves, who explicitly hold that the lifespans of the First and Second Temples exceeded 410 and 420 years.
I refer you to two of my articles , which is consistent with the Rebbe’s teachings:
“The Secret of the Calendar of Hillel the Nasi”
“The Years of the Temple Above and the Temple Below”
Dear rabbi marelus:
You display amazing talent in the knowledge of astrology, respectfully, it would be a pity and a shame not to utilize it according to our sages.
For many reasons, It is impossible to say so according to our sages, unless one takes secular history as primary.
There has never been a serious torah sage that has taken the opinion to accept the gentile version of history, and to discard the torah version by saying it only applies in spiritual terms.
although many attempts have reconcile the two versions, any torah observant jew in practice and in belief, is obligated to accept the torah version.
Below are several quick lines of reason:
1) The talmud in yuma 9b clearly states that bayis rishon stood for 410 years.
2) gemara erchin clearly refers to the physical beis hamikdash, as it learns the years of shemita from this. See also Rashi avoda zara for counting shtaros, rambam shemita chapter 10
3) Years of kings in tanach during bayis rishon point to 410 years.
4) if you predate the exodus, by default you predate the creation if you keep with the torah count of being in Egypt 210 years, and the life spans of adam up to yaakov avinu.
In summary, to say the exodus happened in 1449, is basically, according to my understanding, doing the same thing as the author of kosher astrology, taking the words of secular historians, and fitting the torah to them chas vesholom.
Looking forward to see from the rabbi more content explaining the torah, rather rather than alternative interpretations which deviate from the talmud and jewish law.
Best of wishes,
Mendel baumgarten
There is little point in debating this matter before you have reviewed the full article. Every point you have raised and many more is thoroughly and meticulously addressed therein; in fact, these very questions form the core premise of my opening discussion.
With all due respect, the objections you raise suggest a lack of familiarity with the relevant background knowledge, sources, and interpretives employed and rulings of the Rishonim and Achronim on this specific topic. It is well-documented that the majority of classic commentators, including the Ralbag, Radak, Abarbanel, and the Raavad and many more, explicitly maintain that the First and Second Temples stood longer than the standard periods cited in the Talmud (410 and 420 years). Even the Ramban, whose authority is beyond question, presents a timeline that diverges from the literal Talmudic consensus.
The entire purpose of my article is to reconcile these chronological challenges logically and profoundly, drawing heavily on the teachings and worldview of the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT”L.
Regarding your assertion that i am doing the same thing as the author of kosher astrology, taking the words of secular historians, and fitting the torah to them chas vesholom. I completely reject this comparison. While secular scientists and historians present chronological findings (which indeed require address so that contemporary scholars are not left perplexed), none of their proofs can contradict or diminish even a hairsbreadth of our Sages’ sacred teachings, which are holy of holies. My research is founded exclusively on the authentic, Torah-based knowledge of the wisdom of the zodiac (Chochmat HaMazalot) As the sages knew. The fact that these findings align closely with modern historical data is a secondary validation, not the foundation upon which I built my work.
This sacred wisdom is precisely what the Torah refers to in the verse: “For this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations”. I highly encourage you to view my lecture regarding the ‘Chassidic Oushpizin’ and their alignment with the celestial signs. Anyone who watches it will find that it leaves no room for doubt, profoundly strengthening one’s faith (Emunah).
https://youtu.be/uD3KDnAd7Ww
I plan to consult with the Anash editorial board regarding the publication of these specific articles on the website. It may be preferable first to find someone who can translate these articles into English.
Respectfully i still must disagree.
A) years of the first temple: The years of the kings in tanach (melachim and divrei hayamim) are at most – even according to all the pashtanim you mention – 426 years from the building of the first beis hamikdash. Not 586. Saying so would be distorting the verses of tanach.
Our sages reduce from 426 to 410, minus the 15 years of azarya, and 2 from yehoram (not getting into the year here and the year there)
To say “It is well-documented that the majority of classic commentators, including the Ralbag, Radak, Abarbanel, and the Raavad and many more, explicitly maintain that the First and Second Temples stood longer than the standard periods cited in the Talmud (410 and 420 years)” – to support the secular 586 year version is extremely misleading
B) years of the second temple: the meforshim in daniel-ezra speak only about how many persian kings there were, they do not dispute the length if bayis sheini. והדברים עתיקים
C) if you are talking about the meor eynayim – the book was put in cherem and largely denounced on this specific point. Can hardly call that authentic torah based knowledge.
So please explain how “authentic, Torah-based knowledge of the wisdom of the zodiac” can contradict the authentic timeless tradition of tanach and the talmud?
Is there even one lubavitch rov which would sign on such a theory?
Would the rebbe, whom the author himself regards as the leader of the generation – agree to such a thing? (For quick reference- see lekutei sichos vol. 15 p. 368 אבל ידוע היחס לספר זה. See the sicha of 7 adar 5748, lekutei sichos vol. 20 parshas noach).
Why do you bring up the secular version again? I also don’t understand why you concluded that I based my work on Rabbi Azariah dei Rossi, the author of Me’or Einayim. It is a waste of your time, because you completely missed these lines: “My research is founded exclusively on the authentic, Torah-based knowledge of the wisdom of the zodiac (Chochmat HaMazalot) As the sages knew. The fact that these findings align closely with modern historical data is a secondary validation, not the foundation upon which I built my work.”
I see you’re trying to guess what I wrote in my article. You’re not on track at all.
A) Small correction: i misunderstood your 586 years referring to bayis rishon, in fact you were referring to bayis sheini.
This does not change the fact that pushing back the year of yetziyas mitzraim contradicts both torah shebiksav and shebaal peh.
Small example: the gemara in avoda zara daf 9 clearly states when the second temple was destroyed, and tosafos there struggles over the discrepancy of one year! How much more so to say over 100 years
B) To say that all these sugyos are talking beruchniyus, when the rambam and poskim in choshen mishpat 367 quote them lahalacha, is quite ridiculous.
C) In general the attitude to bring pashtanei hamikra against chazal and say that the pashtanim are historically accurate versus chazal are speaking spiritual is very not the torah spirit.
I would also refer you the the challenge of Jewish history by Alexander (Eliezer) Hool, (although i personally do not fully agree with many of his assertions), where he reconciles conventional history with chazal by proving that the later Persian Monarchs were under greek rule.
Rabbi Hull, a talented and a good friend of mine, used to come to me so I could calculate the moladot and solar and lunar eclipses from 2,500 years ago to fit his theory. Even though I don’t agree with him at all, and his entire book only came to fruition because I dedicated many hours to these astronomical calculations, if I can help a fellow Jew, why not? He also mentions me in his book.
First of all, claiming that the Persians forged thousands of archaeological sites just to make us think they had a longer royal dynasty before the reign of Alexander is a bit hard to swallow. The main evidence against his approach is Ptolemy’s Canon, which records solar and lunar eclipses alongside precise details of the specific regnal years of the kings of that era. He claims that Ptolemy also lied, arguing that Ptolemy calculated these eclipses backward in time and simply assigned them to the wrong regnal years.
Furthermore, because there is a contradiction between the Seder Olam and his own theory, he introduced a new concept claiming that there are two distinct approaches among Chazal, one in the Seder Olam and another in the Gemara itself. Later, when he saw that the Elephantine papyri confirm the conventional historical timeline, he made even more adjustments to the Persian kings, and so on and so forth.
I am very pleased that you are interested in this field, especially since so few people are familiar with it. If you’d like, I can email you two articles that will clarify the foundations of my work. its in hebrew.
Please do, thanks!
[email protected]