King Shlomo the Civil War curse the prophet Natan placed upon David for his failure to trial the capital crimes case of Uria before a Sanhedrin court! King David once he had defeated all foreign kings from off the land he should have immediately established from the Torah the mitzva of Yovel and immediately thereafter restored the Cities of Refuges with their small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Courts. The window of opportunity of anointing a king to fight the necessary wars for all the 12 Tribes to celebrate the Yovel liberty slammed shut when שישק conquered Yerushalem and profaned the Holy of Holies by stealing the golden shields. NaCH commands mussar it does not teach history; based upon the Torat Moshe whose written Torah ideally functions as the Constitution of the republic and directly mandates Sanhedrin common law courts.

Hence the Book of Shmuel and D’ray Ymin/11:10–47 & 12:1–40 lists Uriah as one of the mighty men; and likewise Tehillem 51 makes reference to Uriah. The purpose of the Moshiach to fully conquer the land that all 12 Tribes can keep the Pesach based mitzva known as Yovel: proclaim liberty across the land; establish as the “Temple” the Federal Sanhedrin common law Court system across this land. Herein defines the mitzva of Moshiach by which the prophet Shmuel anointed first Shaul and later David; again with a Torah curse of causing it to rain during the dry season, because the oath to the Avot had already blessed their seed to conquer these lands. But the people rebelled and demanded a king to fight their wars.

How does Oral Torah common law affix/interpret 2 Shmuel 11 to David failed to try Uriah before a Sanhedrin court for capital crimes? Torah common law stands upon precedents. The precedents for this basic fundamental the vertical court of Par’o which vindicated the beating of Hebrew slaves despite Par’o orders to withhold the necessary straw required to make bricks. Yitro’s rebuke to Moshe – some say made before the revelation of the Torah, some opinion say that rebuke came after the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

Yovel vs Pesach learns from the prophet Yehoshua. How do the generations remember the liberation from Egyptian slavery – through the mitzva of the Yovel; furthermore the precedent of acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven requires remembering Egyptian judicial oppressions. Chazal teaches that for the Yovel to apply as a Torah mitzva that all 12 tribes dwell in liberty in the land.

If so, why do most rabbinic readings of 2 Shmuel 11-12 fail to directly frame this requirement? Answer: Oral Torah which learns from prior בניני אבות a kabbalah. Torah common law not a statute law legalism. The latter persons can read law decrees codified in legal codes. Examples: of this non kabbalah assimilated Jewish scholarship, the Rambam Yad, the son of the Rosh Tur, and Karo’s commentaries on the Tur Beit Yosef with the Shulkan Aruch cliff notes.

The common law codes on Talmudic common law B’HaG, Rif, Rosh they fundamentally understand the kabbalah of common law, (Also concealed – meaning not directly mentioned. Why? Torah wisdom commandments require common law precedents – this wisdom concealed from Goyim foreigners who worship other Gods.), as did the Baali Maor commentary on the Rif and the French school of Talmudic common law – the Baali Tosafot.

Why did the RambaN so strongly dispute with the Baali Maor objections to the Rif common law code? During the Dark Ages Ashkenazi Jewry but Sephardi Jewry too (Rambam had to flee Spain or convert, the son of Ibn Ezra converted to Islam.), experienced extreme distress during the Dark Ages, when the Roman road system had collapse and people stopped almost all international trade due to the chaos and anarchy of those times. Therefore the isolated pockets of exiled Jewish communities requires a simple “so to speak” kitzer shulkan aruch to quickly inform them of Torah culture and customs.

Chazal rabbis lived during g’lut. G’lut Jewry post the codification of the Mishna (Post the Bar Kochba revolt crushing defeat where the Romans changed the name in 135 from Judea to Palestine.), and Gemara; restricted interpreting the Talmud limited only to morality and religious halachic ritual observances. Chazal – stuck in g’lut did not read the Mishna-Gemara/Talmud as a blue-print for the time when Jews would reconquer the homeland and keep the Yovel. Even the sages of the Talmud openly admit to this fact. Jews during the 2nd Commonwealth never observed the Yovel as a Torah commandment.

Sanhedrin Capital Crime Courts have jurisdiction only within the borders of the Jewish State free from foreign rule. Hence no real Sanhedrin court existed during the Babylonian Persian Greek and Roman occupations of the land. Just as the Sanhedrin court established by Napoleon a sham Sanhedrin court!

The Baali Tosafot chief criticism of Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash, his failure (post the 1st Crusades slaughter of almost all the Jews of Germany) to write a common law commentary on the Talmud. Many commentaries on Talmudic aggada as well as upon the Baali Tosafot! But not one of them, no different than the commentaries written on the Yad Rif or Rosh learns the halachot tied to a specific sugya of Gemara which reinterprets a phrase of the Mishna based upon the precedent of Halacha within the Dof (and how much more so off the Dof) of the Gemara. Rather all the commentaries treat halacha as if it stands upon its own two feet rather than as a precedent which views the language of a specific Mishna phrase viewpoint; attempting to duplicate eye witness courtroom testimony.

The kabbalah of rabbi Yishmael amplifies the 7 middot of Hillel and 10 middot of Akiva. בנין אב means precedent. Precedents apply strictly to common law courtrooms not to statute law religious decrees. The kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט opens with a broad assumption and then restricts the din. For example the Gemara learns the opening Mishna of קידושין – אישה נקנית through the precedent of etrog. Just as an immature etrog invalid for the 4 species on Chag Sukkot, so too a young girl does not qualify as אישה. Common law (T’NaCH & Talmudic) stand upon precedents. Statute law does not stand upon precedents.

A classic proof, hence the Baali Tosafot appear to dispute the Rashi comment, where the latter said that of the 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael – only the kal v’homer valid for g’lut Jews to use. Absurd, Rashi in his commentary to the NaCH employs a g’zrah shvah! The Baali Tosafot rebuked the טיפש פשט reading of Rashi’s commentary divorced from the context of Rav Ashi sealing the Gemara! Once the Talmud sealed, it became the fixed masoret for all generations of Israel. Hence just as the sages in both the Mishna and Gemara relied on the rabbinic kabbalah of middot so to all generations of Israel could employ a middah employed on a dof of Gemara and by means of a Kal v’homer use it to re-interpret another sugya of gemara!

The situation of David and Uriah according to Shabbat 56a and Sanhedrin 107a.: “כל האומר דוד חטא אינו אלא טועה”. Batsheva is at least a safek eshet ish, possibly already divorced on condition, which softens the accusation of full-fledged adultery. Tosafot wrestle with the details of this in Bava Metzia 59a. So already in Chazal, the legal axis is not “David skipped a Sanhedrin trial,” but “Uriah was halachically liable as a rebel, and Batsheva’s marital status was halachically complex. However the Talmud clears David but fails to address the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach. Based upon the anarchy and chaos post the generation of Yeshua who conquered the land and established the Yovel through keeping Pesach and brit melah – the sign of the brit of liberty which HaShem and Avram cut at the brit of pieces, once David achieved piece in the land, then his Moshiach anointing required that he establish first the Yovel and then the Temple (not a building of wood and stone), but Federal common law courts like the spokes on a wheel as visioned by the prophets – Jerusalem as the central hub and the cities of refuge as the small sanhedrin spokes.

King Shlomo the Civil War curse the prophet Natan placed upon David for his failure to trial the capital crimes case of Uria before a Sanhedrin court! King David once he had defeated all foreign kings from off the land he should have immediately established from the Torah the mitzva of Yovel and immediately thereafter restored the Cities of Refuges with their small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Courts.

Hence the Book of Shmuel and D’ray Ymin/11:38 one of the mighty men; 18:17 \, and Tehillem 7,31, 32, 51. The purpose of the Moshiach to fully conquer the land that all 12 Tribes can keep the Pesach based mitzva known as Yovel: proclaim liberty across the land; establish as the “Temple” the Federal Sanhedrin common law Court system across the land. Herein defines the mitzva of Moshiach by which the prophet Shmuel anointed first Shaul and later David; again with a Torah curse of causing it to rain during the dry season.

How does Oral Torah common law affix/interpret 2 Shmuel 11 to David failed to try Uriah before a Sanhedrin court for capital crimes? Torah common law stands upon precedents. The precedents for this basic fundamental the vertical court of Par’o which vindicated the beating of Hebrew slaves despite Par’o orders to withhold the necessary straw required to make bricks. Yitro’s rebuke to Moshe – some say made before the revelation of the Torah, some opinion say that rebuke came after the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

Yovel vs Pesach learns from the prophet Yehoshua. How do the generations remember the liberation from Egyptian slavery – through the mitzva of the Yovel; furthermore the precedent of acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven requires remembering Egyptian judicial oppressions. Chazal teaches that for the Yovel to apply as a Torah mitzva that all 12 tribes dwell in liberty in the land.

If so, why do most rabbinic readings of 2 Shmuel 11-12 fail to directly frame this requirement? Answer: Oral Torah which learns from prior בניני אבות a kabbalah. Torah common law not a statute law legalism. The latter persons can read law decrees codified in legal codes. Examples: of this non kabbalah assimilated Jewish scholarship, the Rambam Yad, the son of the Rosh Tur, and Karo’s commentaries on the Tur Beit Yosef with the Shulkan Aruch cliff notes.

The common law codes on Talmudic common law B’HaG, Rif, Rosh they fundamentally understand the kabbalah of common law, (Also concealed – meaning not directly mentioned. Why? Torah wisdom commandments require common law precedents – this wisdom concealed from Goyim foreigners who worship other Gods.), as did the Baali Maor commentary on the Rif and the French school of Talmudic common law – the Baali Tosafot.

Why did the RambaN so strongly dispute with the Baali Maor objections to the Rif common law code? During the Dark Ages Ashkenazi Jewry but Sephardi Jewry too (Rambam had to flee Spain or convert, the son of Ibn Ezra converted to Islam.), experienced extreme distress during the Dark Ages, when the Roman road system had collapse and people stopped almost all international trade due to the chaos and anarchy of those times. Therefore the isolated pockets of exiled Jewish communities requires a simple “so to speak” kitzer shulkan aruch to quickly inform them of Torah culture and customs.

Chazal rabbis lived during g’lut. G’lut Jewry post the codification of the Mishna (Post the Bar Kochba revolt crushing defeat where the Romans changed the name in 135 from Judea to Palestine.), and Gemara; restricted interpreting the Talmud limited only to morality and religious halachic ritual observances. Chazal – stuck in g’lut did not read the Mishna-Gemara/Talmud as a blue-print for the time when Jews would reconquer the homeland and keep the Yovel. Even the sages of the Talmud openly admit to this fact. Jews during the 2nd Commonwealth never observed the Yovel as a Torah commandment.

Sanhedrin Capital Crime Courts have jurisdiction only within the borders of the Jewish State free from foreign rule. Hence no real Sanhedrin court existed during the Babylonian Persian Greek and Roman occupations of the land. Just as the Sanhedrin court established by Napoleon a sham Sanhedrin court!

The Baali Tosafot chief criticism of Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash, his failure (post the 1st Crusades slaughter of almost all the Jews of Germany) to write a common law commentary on the Talmud. Many commentaries on Talmudic aggada as well as upon the Baali Tosafot! But not one of them, no different than the commentaries written on the Yad Rif or Rosh learns the halachot tied to a specific sugya of Gemara which reinterprets a phrase of the Mishna based upon the precedent of Halacha within the Dof (and how much more so off the Dof) of the Gemara. Rather all the commentaries treat halacha as if it stands upon its own two feet rather than as a precedent which views the language of a specific Mishna phrase viewpoint; attempting to duplicate eye witness courtroom testimony.

The kabbalah of rabbi Yishmael amplifies the 7 middot of Hillel and 10 middot of Akiva. בנין אב means precedent. Precedents apply strictly to common law courtrooms not to statute law religious decrees. The kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט opens with a broad assumption and then restricts the din. For example the Gemara learns the opening Mishna of קידושין – אישה נקנית through the precedent of etrog. Just as an immature etrog invalid for the 4 species on Chag Sukkot, so too a young girl does not qualify as אישה. Common law (T’NaCH & Talmudic) stand upon precedents. Statute law does not stand upon precedents.

A classic proof, hence the Baali Tosafot appear to dispute the Rashi comment, where the latter said that of the 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael – only the kal v’homer valid for g’lut Jews to use. Absurd, Rashi in his commentary to the NaCH employs a g’zrah shvah! The Baali Tosafot rebuked the טיפש פשט reading of Rashi’s commentary divorced from the context of Rav Ashi sealing the Gemara! Once the Talmud sealed, it became the fixed masoret for all generations of Israel. Hence just as the sages in both the Mishna and Gemara relied on the rabbinic kabbalah of middot so to all generations of Israel could employ a middah employed on a dof of Gemara and by means of a Kal v’homer use it to re-interpret another sugya of gemara!

The situation of David and Uriah according to Shabbat 56a and Sanhedrin 107a.: “כל האומר דוד חטא אינו אלא טועה”. Batsheva is at least a safek eshet ish, possibly already divorced on condition, which softens the accusation of full-fledged adultery. Tosafot wrestle with the details of this in Bava Metzia 59a. So already in Chazal, the legal axis is not “David skipped a Sanhedrin trial,” but “Uriah was halachically liable as a rebel, and Batsheva’s marital status was halachically complex. However the Talmud clears David but fails to address the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach. Based upon the anarchy and chaos post the generation of Yeshua who conquered the land and established the Yovel through keeping Pesach and brit melah – the sign of the brit of liberty which HaShem and Avram cut at the brit of pieces, once David achieved piece in the land, then his Moshiach anointing required that he establish first the Yovel and then the Temple (not a building of wood and stone), but Federal common law courts like the spokes on a wheel as visioned by the prophets – Jerusalem as the central hub and the cities of refuge as the small sanhedrin spokes.

Clearly the prophet Yermia conditioned a blessing from g’lut to keeping the Yovel. The mitzva of Moshiach a mitzva from the Torah, not the later prophets. The 13 tohor middot (“אל רחום וחנון”) in g’lut liturgy in the Jewish state institutional design which the prophet Yermia referred to as ברית חדש; to make the middot of HaShem the DNA of courts, land tenure, debt release, refuge, and royal power etc. To ensure that no din melech exists without Sanhedrin משנה תורה legislative review.

Yovel defined through the opening mussar Books of NaCH

Kedesh – one of the six cities of refuge – located in the territory of the Tribe of Dan. Shimshon acted as a judge during his lifetime, but did not sit as a judge within Kedesh. Rather he served as a judge embodied to resolve the inter-state conflict between Yechuda/Shimon against Philistine dominance and oppression. This implies that while the wars remained that Israel could not keep the Yovel. This would explain why not till king David destroyed the Philistines from off the land, that Israel could only there after keep the Yovel.

Why did king Shlomo confuse building a cathedral of wood and stone rather than establish the Federal Sanhedrin court system as the Torah constitutionally בית המקדש? Confusing the priorities of constructing a Central Place of worship for the Torah mandated Sanhedrin court system – a fundamental av tuma avoda zarah. The revelation of the Mishkan at Sinai centered not on leather skins and gold plated vessels but rather תורה לא בשמים היא. תפילה הדבר שבלבב.

The prophetic mussar of Natan rebuked David over Uriah not brought before a Sanhedrin court. The mussar of the prophet Natan employed “the blood on David’s hands which caused the curse of eternal civil war within the house of David. Just as king Shlomo ignored the elder advice of Natan concerning construction of the בית המקדש so too Rehova’am placed no weight upon the advice given by Shlomo’s elder advisors.

No prophetic commandment to build a House of Cedar. A direct Torah commandment to righteously pursue justice among our people. King Shlomo did not pursue justice, he prioritized pursuing women. Torah defines faith as pursuit of justice. Avoda zarah defines faith as belief in some theological creed which shapes and defines the Gods worshipped in other societies and religions. The mitzva of Moshiach, a wisdom time-oriented positive Torah commandment to rule the conquered land of Canaan with justice. Confusing the reactionary death of Uriah with the strategic error – David’s failure, once shalom ruled in the land, to affix and establish 1. The Yovel and 2. The Federal Sanhedrin Court system.

Hence the prophetic mussar of Shoftim/Shimshon functions to show how AFTER the first generation of Israel conquered the land and established the Yovel – starting with Yehoshua keeping Pesach and brit melah – both Torah mitzvot directly linked to keeping the Yovel – and established the Six Cities of Refuges/small Sanhedrin Federal court system which ideally judge Capital Crimes cases among and between the 12 Tribes of our people.

The Talmud teaches, during the first 6 years of the wars of invasion Israel did not keep koshrut. The language 6 years לאו דוקא. Not till king David did Israel fully conquer the land of Canaan. As such assuming that king David understood the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach, when he commanded Shlomo to build the בית המקדש – based upon the mussar rebuke of Natan/2nd Sinai commandment – David called upon his son to establish the Yovel and permanently affix the Sanhedrin Federal Court system of the Republic of 12 Tribes.

The av tuma avoda zara of king Shlomo, no different from the generation that ruled Israel after the generation of Yehoshua passed. King Shlomo serves as a פרט to the כלל, of Israel pursuing avoda zarah rather than righteous justice among our people within the borders of the eternal inheritance lands of the chosen Cohen people. NaCH prophets command mussar – they do not teach history. This mussar by Natan’s interpretation of the 2nd Sinai commandment equally applies to all Israelis now that our people has conquered once again the land of Canaan.

The Book of בראשית introduces Av wisdom commandments called תמיד מעשה בראשית\זימן גרמא מצוות. Avoda zarah worships the chosen God of a particular Creed/theology belief system. Justice לא בשמים היא – the revelation of the Torah at Sinai לשמה. A man does not wake up from out of the blue and the pursuit of justice burns hot in his blood. Yovel justice first and foremost domestic, within and among the society of our people. Yovel means absolutely nothing to Goyim who never came out of the judicial oppression of Egypt!

The revelation of the Mishkan at Sinai compares to fruit which has an external klippah. The בראשית mussar which rejects the korban of Cain, the identical mussar where the Fire from Heaven consumed the strange fire of the two sons of Aaron. Korbanot as a barbeque to heaven a direct Torah abomination. Korbanot as a wisdom time-oriented positive commandment which requires prophetic mussar that interprets Oral Torah middot which chazal labels as מלכות לשמה as the dedication of the Yatzir Ha-Tov spirits within the heart as Torah wisdom which chazal labels as k’vanna.

Avoda zarah – the tuma middot of the Yatzir Ha-ra within the heart – confuses form for substance. Not the revelation of the Mishkan at Sinai. But the vision that the tohor middot spirits of the שם השם breath life within the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of our people who live within the Yovel lands of conquered Canaan. The avoda zarah of king Shlomo prioritized the tuma klippah of constructing a House of wood and stone and despised the dedication k’vanna of Oral Torah spirits/middot within the Ya’tzir Ha-Tov hearts/לבב of our people. The spelling לבב teaches the משמע mussar that the tohor spirits of our people live within our national hearts.

The יסוד of faith stands upon יראת שמים. Av tumah avoda zarah worships Gods in the Heavens. Torah faith does not exist in the heart of any man who despises the burden of obligation to protect his ‘Good Name’ reputation. Avoda Zarah prays to Gods in the heavens to cover and conceal the sins which profane this world. Justice לשמה pursues fair restitution of damages inflicted upon others among our people.

Just as Jefferson’s ‘Bill of Rights’ apply only to citizens of the American Republic. So too and how much more so judicial justice stands upon keeping the Yovel within our homeland. Yovel as a mitzva does not apply to Goyim in any land or country across the Planet Earth. The ‘son of God’ or ‘Arab prophet’ can proclaim declarations in ancient Harry Potter books of fiction. But where was JeZeus during the Shoah? Where was Allah during the murder of Ali ibn Abi Talib … the disgrace of ’48 Nakba? Fiction stories tell a good narrative that many fervently believe. But ‘fear of heaven’ confused as ‘fear of God(s)’; goyim theologies of fiction do not prioritize Torah constitutional Sanhedrin common law courts.

Mikdash has no meaning by its ornate or ritualized ‘forms’ alone. Any more than a dead body buried in a grave has life. Sanhedrin courtroom common law breaths the Oral Torah tohor spirits, first heard at Horev on Yom Kippur, which move and inspire Men – to pursue and rule the land through justice; meaning fair compensation for damages inflicted upon our people. Natan’s rebuke over Uriah, not primarily about adultery and murder—but rather bypassing the Sanhedrin, acting as a “cult” king -oblivious to the k’vanna mitzva of moshiach. The latter always chooses architecture, aesthetics, and ritual over Yovel, Sanhedrin and mishpat justice.

The Torah blessing/curse brit absolutely and most fundamentally requires that bnai brit Man accepts responsibility for his actions in this world. Avoda zarah trumpets ideal life in the world to come. Any talk of Mikdash, geulah, or “Jewish values” without a serious project of Yovel‑rooted justice and a binding Sanhedrin‑like legal framework repeats Shlomo’s av tuma avodah zarah.

Confusing ועשו לי מקדש as Shekinah as absurd as declaring the Universe created in 6 days! The בראשית Creation aggada introduces wisdom time-oriented commandments through the משל of creation. Literally believing Genesis – a theological fabrication known as religious rhetoric.