Yermia 1:1–10, a mussar commissioning narrative, while the others incline toward poetic reflections (Tehillim, Iyov) or wisdom exhortation (Mishle). Different genres = different aims. Tehillim 40:1–3, Mishle 1:20–23, and Iyov 14:1–4, which explains why they don’t “compare” in any meaningful literary or theological way. Yermia 1:1–10, a mussar-prophetic prose, not poetry. Tehillim 40:1–3, a personal expression of gratitude for deliverance from suffering. It communicates this “vision” through a poetic, emotional, and liturgical language. Mishle 1:20–23, speaks as a rebuking teacher calling the simple to “remember” as the basis of t’shuva. It qualifies as instructional wisdom literature, not narrative. Iyov 14:1–4, laments the brevity and impurity of human life; existential poetry, not instruction or thanksgiving.
Tehillem 130 despite its plea for help and yearns for tohor middot revealed in this world and therefore superficially reflects the Yermia 1:1-10 theme of longing for tohor middot within the Yatzir Ha’Tov to guide and direct how a man interacts with his oath alliance Cohen people in the faith: pursuit of judicial justice – which witnesses a common law court imposed fair restitution of damages to victims. 130 differs from the mussar of the opening verse of Yermia, whose mussar applies straight across the board to all generations of the chosen people while Tehillem, specifically in this particular case, reflects a personal supplication and trust for guidance rather than defined Oral Torah tohor middot (אל רחום חנון וכו) which defines prophetic mussar in all the Books of the NaCH prophets.
Mishle 2:15 invites the generations to seek wisdom. Torah wisdom defined as מלאכה. The refinement of tohor middot within the Yatzir Ha-Tov Mishkan-heart separates לא בשמים היא from the Book of בראשית which perceived אל שדי, או אלהים, או אל in the Heavens rather than post Sinai where all prophetic mussar rebukes Israel over and again not to search for our local Sinai tribal god anywhere outside of our Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts.
Eikhah has a traditional association with Yermia – both Books express sorrow and mourning for Jerusalem’s destruction. Shir HaShirim communicates a heart felt relationship with the revelation of the שם השם לשמה through the Horev revelation of 13 tohor middot.
Yermia 1:1–10 = Prophetic Mussar for the Entire Nation not a personal prayer which separates and catagorizes all Tehillem as שבח rather than ברכות. A Torah blessing requires שם ומלכות the essential conditions required to swear any & all Torah oath alliances known as “brit/britot”. This an absolutely critical מאי נפקא מינא definition of the 7th tohor Oral Torah midda רב חסד. The revelation at Horev of the 13 tohor middot define the required k’vanna of any and all wisdom commandments from the Torah known collectively as “time-oriented commandments”.
Therefore which Holy Writing Primary “Gemara” source surpasses in tohor middot depth comparison to Yermia 1:10/”Mishna”? Eikhah. Due to it expresses national, not personal, the brit faith of blessing/curse justice – the central theme of acceptance of the Torah at Sinai as defined by the first Sinai commandment. HaShem libertated Israel from Egyptian slavery for Israel to obey the oath brit to rule Canaan with judicial common law Sanhedrin courtroom justice. Eikha communicates the curse of g’lut prophetic mussar; it functions as the case law to Yermia’s legal themes.
Eikha addresses the consequences of worshipping Av tuma avoda Gods Universal Monotheism or otherwise who live in the Heavens above and therein denies and rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; the revelation of the post Calf 13 middot defines the Torah concept of רוח הקודש. No other Ketuvim textual sources surpass how Eikhah serves as the Case/Rule best בנין אב precedent for Yermia 1:1-10.
Jewish tradition, as reflected in Bava Batra 15a and various Targumim, links Eikhah to Jeremiah, sometimes viewing the five poems as his emotional outpouring following the consequences of the Moshe oath brit alliance cut in the Book of D’varim. Prophets do NOT foretell the future as defines the tuma nature of witchcraft from the Torah and also expressed through the av tuma gospels declarations “fulfilled the words of the prophets”.
Psalm 130, while yearning for redemption and tohor qualities, remains a personal plea (“Out of the depths I call to You”), differing from the transgenerational prophetic mussar in Yarmia. Certain approaches emphasize the 13 tohor middot (revealed at Horev post-Golden Calf) as defining prophetic mussar and Oral Torah logic, distinguishing heart-centered covenantal wisdom (“לא בשמים היא”) from external searches. Within such lenses, Eikhah functions as a national “case” illustrating blessing/curse dynamics tied to Sinai acceptance, serving as precedent for Yarmia 1:1-10’s themes.
This view draws on traditional associations while advancing a specialized framework centered on the 13 tohor middot as the logic system of Oral Torah revelation, the Yatzir Ha-Tov as the internal Mishkan-heart locus of wisdom (מלאכה), and time-oriented commandments requiring k’vanna defined by these middot (e.g., the single simplified example of רב חסד linked to oath alliances with שם ומלכות).
Eikhah portrays the events as the national outworking of ignored prophetic warnings, functioning as emotional “case” material to Yarmia’s legal-prophetic mussar themes of judicial common law, fair restitution, Sanhedrin courtroom rule in Canaan as the purpose of liberation from Egyptian slavery. T’shuva spins around the central axis of remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot to eternally father the chosen Cohen people.
The revelation of the Oral Torah 13 tohor middot spirits defines the k’vanna of the revelation of the first Commandment שם השם לשמה – the greatest Torah commandment upon which all other Torah commandments stand or fall. Eikhah, as national lament over g’lut consequences of rejecting Sinai’s first commandment (liberation for judicial brit justice), illustrates blessing/curse dynamics and serves as paradigmatic (a paradigm, one word can be replaced by another that fulfills the same grammatical role) precedent (בנין אב) for heart-centered oath brit alliances (Based upon the pre-conditions of שם ומלכות, where the latter term restricted to the dedication of Oral Torah middot as the guide and direction of the Yatzir Ha-Tov within the heart.) blessed to prevail over all av tuma avoda zara spirits – based upon the 10 plagues of Egypt.
Its an error to say that Eikhah explicitly functions as the “best case law”/”Gemara source” for the Prophetic Primary source of Yarmia 1:1-10 simply because both the Mishna and Gemara followed after the sealing of the T’NaCH early in the days of the 2nd Commonwealth. Rather then to say that the T’NaCH serves as the “av model” for the later Mishna/Gemara\Talmud; akin to the Bavli came about 150 years after the sealing of the Yerushalmi. Anachronistic – out of its proper historical or chronological context – to compare T’NaCH literature with the much later Talmudic literature, except that both this and that exist as משנה תורה common law legalism. The former mussar common law while the latter halachic ritual common law; specifically the framers of the Talmud sealed the k’vanna for this common law scholarship to serve as the model in its own right to the day when Jews reconquered our homeland from the clutches of the Goyim.
Its an error to say that Eikhah explicitly functions as the “best case law”/”Gemara source” for the Prophetic Primary source of Yarmia 1:1-10 simply because both the Mishna and Gemara followed after the sealing of the T’NaCH early in the days of the 2nd Commonwealth. Rather then to say that the T’NaCH serves as the “av model” for the later Mishna/Gemara\Talmud; akin to the Bavli came about 150 years after the sealing of the Yerushalmi. Anachronistic – out of its proper historical or chronological context – to compare T’NaCH literature with the much later Talmudic literature, except that both this and that exist as משנה תורה common law legalism. The former mussar common law while the latter halachic ritual common law; specifically the framers of the Talmud sealed the k’vanna for this common law scholarship to serve as the model in its own right to the day when Jews reconquered our homeland from the clutches of the Goyim.
Eikhah exemplifies national brit dynamics: the lived curse of g’lut stemming from av tuma worship or rejection of Sinai’s commandments against witchcraft and Yosef’s divination fraud with his brothers! The T’NaCH – sealed through a gradual process spanning the Second Temple era, with traditional credit to the Men of the Great Assembly (early Second Commonwealth) for significant organization, though full consensus extended into the early rabbinic period after Daniel’s composition (~164 BCE). The Mishnah – redacted ~200 CE; the Yerushalmi Gemara reached completion in the late 4th to early 5th century CE; the Bavli followed roughly 100–180 years later (mid-6th to early 7th century CE), if the Sovaraim included as the final redactors.
Tanach therefore stands as the primary “av model”—providing precedents via hermeneutics such as binyan av—for the Mishna/Gemara structure, exactly as the Yerushalmi models the expansive Bavli. This avoids anachronism while preserving Tanach’s primacy in defining mussar, justice, and middot refinement as the substance of Torah faith to pursue righteous justice among our people.
The Talmud compares to that of a warp/weft loom which weaves aggadic דרוד\פשט threads of T’NaCH mussar with רמז/סוד threads of halachic ritualism. This latter “thread” conceals the judicial justice most essential nature of Talmudic hope and vision for the future with the kabbalah of halacha which dresses the Talmud as religious ritual Jewish law. Av tuma avoda zara by definition worships their Gods (Monotheism or otherwise) in the Heavens above and not as faith in righteous judicial courtroom common law justice below.
Judicial justice, in point of fact, abhors religious belief systems, theologies and Creedal dictates from god-like saints and cult figures as something disgusting on par with how the brothers of Yosef groveled before him. Cults of personality practically the sole definition of avoda zara; Muhammad and his silly Koran serve as stark witness. The wisdom of weaving prophetic mussar based upon tohor prophetic middot as the k’vaana of doing halachic ritual observances changes these toldot-secondary commandments/mitzvot which do not require k’vaana to wisdom Torah commandments which dedicate – like a korban – Oral Torah tohor middot – the revelation of k’vanna of the 1st Sinai commandment sanctified לשמה. Simply stated: Judicial justice vs. Religious belief in God or Gods — compares to a person who enters a mikveh while holding a dead rat in his hand. This comparison taught in mesechta Yevamot expresses the deep revulsion and utter contempt for the Pauline graphted on to, Goyim don’t require brit melah, not under the law av tuma avoda zara; or the Muhammad the last prophet lie – the Torah forbids camel before pig.
Earthly Sanhedrin courtroom justice—rooted in the first Sinai commandment—as the living “mikveh” of the nation, while heavenly-focused belief systems contaminate it like the dead rat. This shabbat like הבדלה emphasizes heart-centered tohor middot refinement over creedal religion, aligns with T’NaCH prophetic mussar. The משל of holding a dead sheretz (rat), all theology based Creedal Ego-I belief systems fundamentally define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai negative commandment. The רמז\סוד threads of Talmudic halacha conceal the substance of Torah courtroom justice from the forms of religious belief in Gods in heaven or earth – the latter expressed through physical Temple-idols.
The revelation of the Torah through the רמז\סוד of the Mishkan – the sin of the Golden Calf functions as its logical דיוק/inference. The bark of a tree does not compare to the fruit it produces. Avoda zara confuses the bark for the fruit; the ערב רב did not worship a Golden Calf “bark” but rather they foolishly worshiped the word name substitute theology which replaced אלהים for the Sinai first commandment שם השם לשמה – which the Oral Torah further clarified as רוח הקודש מידדות. No word, regardless of its spoken language, can substitute or replace רוח הקודש middot Spirits – the substance of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai which all Goyim reject to this very day.
Conflict Resolution 