The Ripple Effect of Human Error

Sandra Cruz

SA Examiner

Sandra Cruz·saexaminer.org·

Mysticism for the Modern Seeker: A Review of ‘Embodied Kabbalah’ by Matthew Ponak

Matthew Ponak is a rabbi, a teacher of Jewish Mysticism, and a spiritual counselor. His book “Embodied Kabbalah: Jewish Mysticism for All” is a collection of 42 mystical texts with commentary that presents the essential teachings from Kabbalah and places them side-by-side with profound inspirations from our era and the world’s great wisdom traditions.
The never before translated texts shed light on unknown traditions of mystical enlightenment. Fascinating descriptions of the paradoxical nature of reality are placed next to cautionary guidance against travelling too quickly on the road to expanded consciousness. Spiritual practices for dealing with depression and sadness come along with illuminated poetry of what our world could look like if we all tried to be truly loving. Using the stunning visual layouts of traditional Torah commentary, Ponak opens the gateway for Judaism to add its much needed voice to the universal quest for meaning, inner knowing, and rooted transcendence. (Barnes & Noble, 2025)
______________________________________________
______________________________________________

How Error progresses throughout the course of Human history.

Israel Information Center Ithacainternationalscholars·israelinformationcenterithaca.wordpress.comOnce the focus is the connection between The Torah and the real necessity for the endowed title of an existing National Israeli State, Karaites are an unity opportunity .There is no presumptions of against the family circles of the Cohens which evolved into the various, and even those names of Levy, assuming all efforts to reestablish their…



Historical Narrative: Timeline of Key Events and Figures

Tzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.

Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.

Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.

Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.

Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.

David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.

Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument: Key Concepts

Pardes vs Greek logic:

Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).

Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence.

Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.

Common Law vs. Statute Law:

Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written Legislative statute decrees, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.

Statute Law: A legal system based on written government laws usually enacted by some legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review. Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.

The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH, as taught through Talmudic Aggadah – as binding mussar precedents which shape the k’vanna of mitzvot elevated to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.

Theological Critique: Key Issues

Assimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding alien Goyim cultures & customs; potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish Cohen-identity and practice.

Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; as as similarly does NT Xtians and Muslims. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law – as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive sh’itta\methodology—the (so to speak) loom that weaves warp and weft into a common cultural fabric which shapes and defines the identity of the chosen Cohen people and equally separates Talmudic law from Avoda Zara.

(Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.



First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites, like their predecessor Tzeddukim, they reject the revelation of the Oral Torah. The After meal blessing, remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim — remembered through the mitzva of lighting the Lights of Hanukkah — their ignoble disgrace, of a pre-New Testament Civil War which also rejects the Oral Torah revelation of Horev, just as much as does the church today; and the later Dark Ages European Karaites – who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither during in ancient times, nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages – from about 900 CE, which famously aroused the indignation of Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE), and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204). These two influential “Orthodox Jewish scholars”, likewise erred and reached assimilated avoda zara ideas which, in their own unique ways, perverted the Horev revelation of the Oral Torah. Both these “Orthodox” men, raped the 2nd Sinai commandment – highly assimilated and wholeheartedly embraced the rediscovery of ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient world which witnessed the P’rushim/Tzeddukim Civil War remembered every year when Jews light the lights of Hanukkah. Assimilation to alien foreign cultures or customs fundamentally rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, and the Legislative Review Torah mandate of Sanhedrin common law courtrooms through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive logic reasoning.

Nonetheless both of the Gaonic and Reshonic “orthodox” Era scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical theology belief system. None the less the error of personal belief in some theologically defined God, this foreign assimilated error trapped both “orthodox” scholars. Both men, similar to the Tzeddukim and Karaite errors, likewise rejected the Courtroom authority of Sanhedrin common law to rule the Jewish Republic through the mandate of Legislative Review, as established through the Talmud Oral Torah codification. Both these famous rabbinic authorities placed the Karaite Tweedle Dee Tweedle Dumb supporters into a charem excommunication, just as did the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.

Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods – no different than as did the kingdom of Shlomo, the pre Ezra Samaritans, the post Ezra Tzeddukim, the messiah crazies New Testament and the Dark Ages Karaites and modern Reform Judaism of the early 19th Century. This classic error traced through the generations, commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”\”AVODA ZARA”.

The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts consequent to the Muslim invasion of Spain, reopened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights … the Rambam embraced Roman statute law which effectively abandoned the study of Talmudic common law and the logic sh’itta of Pardes introduced by rabbi Akiva. Cults of personality, famous rabbinic personalities, like for example Yosef Karo author of the Shulkan Aruch, post the Rambam Civil War, they dominated the determination of halacha. This new “replacement theology” supplanted the Sanhedrin courts-room common law jurisprudence “faith”, which stands upon the foundation of judicial precedents rather than personalized belief systems in some theologically defined God as an act of “faith”.

The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah – known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the Aristotle model, his 3-Part syllogism format. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah – rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic. This Pardes system of logic – it manifests itself through the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its ensuing Gemara commentary, based upon the working model of a LOOM. Talmudic scholarship seeks to “cement” the culture and customs practiced by all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Herein defines the purpose & scope of the Horev Oral Torah revelation.

As a loom has warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud and Gaonic Midrashim, seek to employ the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva and rabbi Yishmael’s Pardes inductive precedent based learning & 13 middot corollaries, as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, common law cultural identity which shapes and defines the Cohen people seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov.

The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism, Samaritans and New Testament Xtians all universally reject this definition of faith, which commands the pursuit of judicial justice. The Book of D’varim expresses the comprehension: the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, (think korban), the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins, which strive to make fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people – throughout all the generations which the Chosen Cohen people experience a Torah blessing and govern the sworn oath brit lands.

Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim, instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God personal I-believe- belief systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into bureaucratic categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen.

T’NaCH & Talmudic common law shaped rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s common law Mishna; all based D’varim common law; consequent to its second explicit re-defining Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, (a common law judicial system) premised upon D’varim judicial Sanhedrin common law. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to exert their Torah constitutional mandate of Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Princes which rule governments as Judges. Like the T’NaCH Book of Judges portrays.

Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Hence small wonder that the new testament revolt likewise in this same vein rejects the revelation of Oral Torah pursuit of judicial common law justice. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of judicial justice-Faith; that later courtroom Judicial rulings stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts’ judicial rulings – as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.

The later Karaim did not go as far as the ancient Samaritans. The latter replaced the 10 Tribal kingdom known as Israel. These ‘latter-day saints’, established their own Mormon like religion, they too rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! The later Karaim did not reject the masoret of the NaCH. They restricted their rejection of the Oral Torah only to their rejection of the authority of the Talmud and rabbinic Midrashim.

However, lacking the Pardes Kabbalah their “Torah wisdom” skills lacked the will to do mitzvot L’shma, a fundamental requirement to affix prophetic mussar precedents as the Aggadic basis to determine the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments – the key revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. The Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment toldoth precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar, their Mormon like new religion simply could not grasp. The public sanctification of the Name – only achieved when Jews elevate toldoth Torah commandments unto Av tohor time-oriented commandments by making precedent case/rule comparisons.

The much later Talmudic common law codification employs, so to speak, a 70 faces to the Torah — blue-print, diamond faceted, re-interpretation of the original Mishnaic language. Through employment of halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to make a critical different perspective “view” of the language of the Mishna, based upon an all together different sugya of Gemara- halachic “facet” perspective.

Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara, to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya, viewed from a wholly different sugya perspective. This common law commentary seeks to duplicate the sh’itta of how the Gemara learns the language of any given Mishna. Much like and similar to how a building contractor reads a blue-print, which contains front/top\side view perspectives. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclid’s 5th Axiom of plain geometry.

Both the Samaritans, the assimilated Tzeddukim, the NT Xtians, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – One & all they rejected, or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic taught by rabbi Akiva. The warp/weft loom, the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah, as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. However this most essential conflict, pre-dates itself back to kings David and Shlomo, and even to the Judges who ruled following the Yehoshua conquering of Canaan, long before the introduction of the Samaritans, after the fall of the kingdom of Samaria by the Assyrian empire!

The prophet Natan warns David not to copy the ways of the Goyim. Not to build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud debates a 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute. This famous Yerushalmi debate questions the central issue -Did king David, after conquering Damascus, established that city – as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom. The pro opinions argue that Israel has a claim to Syria as part of the post Balfour/League of Nations Jewish state. The negative opinions reject the idea that Israel has a claim to nationalize Syria as part of the Jewish state.

Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advice given by the elder advisors to king Shlomo; so too young king Shlomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes – dead baby – before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.

The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views downstream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions which rejected the revelaltion of the Oral Torah at Horev, all later generation followed the identical error.

King Shlomo prioritized duplicating how the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud (not into a polis city state) but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice — which strives to make fair restitution of damages. Unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah and thereby perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheistic god. Monotheism, by definition, profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein traces Human error made throughout the Ages where upon Man has walked the Face of this Earth.

How Error progresses throughout the course of Human history.

internationalscholars

Israel Information Center Ithaca

internationalscholars·israelinformationcenterithaca.wordpress.com

Once the focus is the connection between The Torah and the real necessity for the endowed title of an existing National Israeli State, Karaites are an unity opportunity .

There is no presumptions of against the family circles of the Cohens which evolved into the various, and even those names of Levy, assuming all efforts to reestablish their…
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

Historical Narrative: Timeline of Key Events and Figures

Tzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.

Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.

Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.

Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.

Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.

David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.

Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument: Key Concepts

Pardes vs Greek logic:

Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).

Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence.

Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.

Common Law vs. Statute Law:

Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written Legislative statute decrees, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.

Statute Law: A legal system based on written government laws usually enacted by some legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review. Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.

The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH, as taught through Talmudic Aggadah – as binding mussar precedents which shape the k’vanna of mitzvot elevated to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.

Theological Critique: Key Issues

Assimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding alien Goyim cultures & customs; potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish Cohen-identity and practice.

Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; as as similarly does NT Xtians and Muslims. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law – as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive sh’itta\methodology—the (so to speak) loom that weaves warp and weft into a common cultural fabric which shapes and defines the identity of the chosen Cohen people and equally separates Talmudic law from Avoda Zara.

(Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.



First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites, like their predecessor Tzeddukim, they reject the revelation of the Oral Torah. The After meal blessing, remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim remembered through the mitzva of lighting the Lights of Hanukkah; their ignoble disgrace, of a pre-New Testament Civil War which rejects the Oral Torah revelation of Horev just as much as does the church today; and the Karaites who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither the in ancient times, nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages from about 900 CE, which aroused the indignation of Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE), and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204) – likewise both heretics who in their own way perverted the Horev revelation of the Oral Torah – both men highly assimilated following the rediscovery of ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient Tzeddukim, to reject the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, and the Legislative Review Torah mandate of Sanhedrin common law courtrooms.

Nonetheless both scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical but similar rejection of the Courtroom authority of Sanhedrin common law to rule the Jewish Republic through the mandate of Legislative Review. Both rabbinic authorities placed the Karaite supporters into a charem excommunication just as did the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.

Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods. Commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”\”AVODA ZARA”. The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts by the Muslim invasion of Spain reopened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights … the Rambam embraced Roman statute law which effectively abandoned the study of Talmudic common law. Cults of personality rabbinic personalities, like for example Yosef Karo, dominated the determination of halacha rather than Sanhedrin courts room common law jurisprudence which stands upon the foundation of judicial precedents.

The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah – known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the model of the 3-Part syllogism. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic. This Pardes system of logic – it Organized both the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its Gemara commentary made there after, based upon the working model of a LOOM.

A loom has warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud seeks to employ Pardes inductive precedent based learning as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, common law as the chosen cultural identity that the Cohen people choose to define their unique cultural identity as the people of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov.

The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism, Samaritans and New Testament Xtians all universally reject the definition of faith: Book of D’varim comprehension: the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, (think korban), the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins making fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people.

Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God personal I-belief- belief systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into judicial categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen.

T’NaCH & Talmudic common law shaped rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s common law; all of which base Torah common law upon the Book of D’varim; consequent to its second defining Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, a common law judicial system. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to exert their Torah constitutional mandate of Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Prince lead governments of Judges.

Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Hence small wonder that the new testament revolt likewise in this same vein rejects the revelation of Oral Torah pursuit of judicial common law justice. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of law, that later court Judicial ruling stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts judicial rulings – like as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.

The later Karaim did not go as far as the ancient Samaritans. Who replaced the 10 Tribal kingdom known as Israel. These latter-day saints, they too rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! The Karaim did not reject the masoret of the NaCH. The restricted their rejection of the Oral Torah restricted only to their rejection of the authority of the Talmud. However, lacking the Pardes Kabbalah they lacked the wisdom skills required to affix prophetic mussar precedents to determine the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments; they lacked the wisdom to do mitzvot L’shma. The Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar. The public sanctification of the Name – only achieved when Jews elevate toldoth Torah commandments unto Av tohor time-oriented commandments.

The much later Talmudic common law codification employs, so to speak, a 70 faces to the Torah — blue-print, diamond faceted, re-interpretation. Through employment of halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to view the language of the Mishna, based upon an all together different sugya of Gemara- halachic perspective.

Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara, to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya, viewed from a wholly different sugya perspective. Much like and similar to a building contractor reads a blue-print which contains a front/top\side view. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclid’s 5th Axiom of plain geometry.

Both the Samaritans, the assimilated Tzeddukim, the NT Xtians, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – they all rejected, or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic taught by rabbi Akiva. The warp/weft loom, the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah, as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. This conflict even dates back to kings David and Shlomo, before the introduction of the Samaritans! The prophet Natan warns David not to copy the ways of the Goyim and build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud carries this 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute, which debates the issue whether king David after conquering Damascus established that city as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom.

Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advice given by the elder advisors to king Shlomo; so too young king Shlomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes – dead baby – before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.

The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views downstream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions. Shlomo prioritized duplicating how the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud (not into a polis city state) but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice — which strives to make fair restitution of damages. Unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah and thereby perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheistic god. Monotheism, by definition, profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment.

How Error progresses throughout the course of Human history.

internationalscholars

Israel Information Center Ithaca

internationalscholars·israelinformationcenterithaca.wordpress.com

Once the focus is the connection between The Torah and the real necessity for the endowed title of an existing National Israeli State, Karaites are an unity opportunity .

There is no presumptions of against the family circles of the Cohens which evolved into the various, and even those names of Levy, assuming all efforts to reestablish their…
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

Historical Narrative

📅 Timeline of Key Events and Figures

  • Tzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.
  • Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.
  • Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.
  • Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.
  • Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.
  • David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.

Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument

⚖️ Key Concepts

  • Pardes vs. Greek Logic:
    • Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).
    • Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence. Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.
  • Common Law vs. Statute Law:
    • Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written statutes, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.
    • Statute Law: A legal system based on written laws enacted by a legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review authority.
    • Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.
    • The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH as binding precedent.

Theological Critique

Key Issues

  • Assimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding cultures, potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish identity and practice. Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, reject the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive method—the loom that weaves warp and weft to form Talmudic law.
  • Avoda Zara (Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.
    __________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________

    First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites like the Tzeddukim reject the revelation of the Oral Torah which the After meal blessing remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim of the Lights of Hanukkah ignoble disgrace of that pre-New Testament Civil War; and the Karaites who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither the ancient nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages from about 900 CE which aroused the indignation of:
  • Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE) and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204) heretics – both men highly assimilated to the rediscovery of the recently rediscovered ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient Tzeddukim to originally reject the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; nonetheless both scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical movement and placed the Karaite supporters into a charem excommunication just as did the ancient P’rushim to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.
  • Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods. Commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”. The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts by the Muslim invasion of Spain re-opened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights.
  • The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the model of the 3-Part syllogism. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic, Ordered both the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its Gemara commentary thereon based upon the working model of a LOOM.
  • A loom as warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud seeks to employ Pardes inductive precedent based learning as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, cultural identity as a people. The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism rejected the definition of faith as the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, think korban, the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins\ making fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people.
  • Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God belief-systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into judicial categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen. T’NaCH & Talmudic common law bases itself upon rabbi Yechuda Sha’s common law upon the Book of D’varim having a second Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, a common law judicial system. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to have Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Prince lead governments.
  • Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of law that later court Judicial ruling stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts judicial rulings – like as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.
  • The later Karaim did not go as far as did the ancient Samaritans. The latter rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! None the less, the Karaim rejected the masoret of the NaCH as prophetic mussar precedents which make a Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar. The much later Talmudic common law codification employs a 70 faces to the Torah blue-print diamond facet re-interpretation of employing halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to view the language of the Mishna based upon a different Gemara halachic perspective.
  • Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya views from a wholly different sugya perspective. Much like and similar to a building contractor reads a blue-print which contains a front/top\side views. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclids 5th Axiom of plain geometry.
  • Both the assimilated Tzeddukim, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – they all rejected or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic. The warp/weft loom of the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. This conflict even dates back to kings David and Shlomo! The prophet Natan warned David not to copy the ways of the Goyim and build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud carries this 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute over the issue whether king David after conquering Damascus established that city as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom.
  • Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advise given by king Shlomo’s elder advisors, so too young king Sholomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes dead baby before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.
  • The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views down stream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions. Shlomo prioritized duplicating who the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud not into a polis city state but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice which makes fair restitution of damages unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah which perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheisist god. Monotheism, by definition profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment.

New Research

The recent study published in Nature on August 6, 2025, presents groundbreaking findings regarding the potential role of lithium in combating Alzheimer’s disease. Here’s a detailed overview of the key points from the study and its implications.

Key Findings of the Study

Lithium and Cognitive Function

  • The research indicates that replenishing lithium levels in the brain may protect against and even reverse the effects of Alzheimer’s disease.
  • Analyses of human brain tissue and experiments conducted on mice revealed a consistent correlation: lower lithium concentrations in the brain are associated with memory loss and the development of Alzheimer’s-related neurological features, such as amyloid plaques and tau tangles.

Effects of Lithium Supplementation

  • The study identified a specific type of lithium supplement that appears to undo neurological changes associated with Alzheimer’s and restore memory function in mice, effectively rejuvenating the brain to a healthier state.

Implications for Alzheimer’s Treatment

Potential Breakthrough

  • If these findings are confirmed through clinical trials, they could represent a significant advancement in Alzheimer’s treatment. Current anti-amyloid therapies may slow cognitive decline but do not restore lost functions. Lithium supplementation could potentially change that narrative.

Global Impact

  • With over 55 million people affected by dementia worldwide, the implications of a successful lithium treatment could be profound, offering hope to millions suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.

Understanding Lithium’s Role

What is Lithium?

  • Lithium is a metal commonly known for its use in batteries, but it also plays a role in various biological processes. Its presence in the brain may be crucial for maintaining cognitive function and overall neurological health.

Irony of Lithium’s Dual Role

  • The irony lies in the fact that while lithium is essential for powering modern technology, it may also be a key player in the functioning of the human brain, suggesting a fascinating intersection between technology and biology.

Challenges and Considerations

Funding and Research

  • The study’s co-author, Bruce Yankner, faces challenges due to funding cuts to his research, which highlights the ongoing struggles researchers encounter in securing financial support for critical studies.

Future Research

  • Further research is necessary to confirm these findings in human clinical trials and to understand the mechanisms by which lithium affects brain health.

The study opens up exciting avenues for Alzheimer’s research and treatment, potentially shifting the paradigm in how we approach cognitive decline and dementia.

Its important for non T’NaCH “readers” of sophomoric translations of the bible to understand that the T’NaCH commands prophetic mussar – applicable to all generations of Israel. Therefore the T’NaCH does NOT teach history. A huge but subtle distinction, and expression of ancient scholarship skills.

Kingdom of Edom

Michael Ruark

Edom (“red”) was an ancient kingdom that stretched across areas in the south of present-day Jordan and Israel. Edom and the Edomites appear in several written sources relating to the late Bronze Age and to the Iron Age in the Levant, including the list of the Egyptian pharaoh Seti I from c. 1215 BC as well as in the chronicle of a campaign by Ramesses III (r. 1186–1155 BC), and the Hebrew Bible….
__________________________________________
__________________________________________



Qos — a significant deity in the pantheon of the Edomites, representing a key aspect of their polytheistic beliefs. As a god associated with various elements of life, Qos played a vital role in the spiritual and cultural practices of the Edomite people. Qos is often associated with war and protection, serving as a guardian deity for the Edomites. His role as a warrior god reflects the martial culture of the Edomites, who frequently faced conflicts with neighboring tribes and kingdoms.

Qos was also considered a mountain god, which is significant given the geographical landscape of Edom. The Edomites inhabited rugged terrains, and mountains were often seen as sacred spaces where deities resided. This connection to the mountains symbolized strength and stability. Worship of Qos likely involved various rituals, including sacrifices and offerings. These acts were intended to appease the deity and seek his favor in matters of war, agriculture, and daily life.

Archaeological evidence suggests that the Edomites built shrines and possibly temples dedicated to Qos. These sites would have served as focal points for communal worship and religious gatherings. The worship of Qos reflects the broader context of ancient Near Eastern religions, where deities often shared attributes and functions. The Edomites, like many other cultures, adapted their religious practices based on interactions with neighboring peoples, including the Israelites and Moabites.

The 2nd Sinai commandment the Torah revelation acknowledges that other Gods live. The theology surrounding Qos illustrates the complexity of Edomite religious beliefs and their connection to the natural world and societal needs. Understanding Qos and his significance provides insight into the cultural identity of the Edomites and their interactions with surrounding civilizations.

Edomites and their interactions with neighboring cultures – complex and should not be oversimplified, like as Michael Ruark has perverted in his text quoted above. The Edomites according to many biblical historians – a joke because the T’NaCH does not teach history – an ancient Semitic people who inhabited the region south of the Dead Sea, primarily in southern Jordan. Their history, intertwined with that of neighboring groups, including the Israelites, Moabites, and Nabateans. The Edomites controlled key trade routes that connected the Arabian Peninsula with the Mediterranean. This strategic position allowed them to engage in commerce with various civilizations, including the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and later the Romans. The strategic importance of these trade routes bears emphasis. These critical trade routes connect Africa with Europe and Asia. Herein explains why the Romans and the British made control of these trade routes the “Crown Jewel” of their respective World Empires. The Edomites have a famous reputation, known for their rock-cut architecture, particularly in the city of Petra, which later became a major Nabatean city. This architectural style influenced subsequent cultures and remains a significant tourist attraction today.

The Edomites practiced a polytheistic religion, worshipping deities, such as Qos, introduced above. Their religious practices and beliefs influenced neighboring cultures, contributing to the region’s spiritual landscape. The Edomites historically known for their mining activities, particularly in copper and other minerals. This resource extraction played a crucial role in their economy and provided materials for trade.

Over time, the Edomite civilization descended unto decay chaos and anarchy. Better organized civilizations then absorbed and assimilated Edomite cultures and customs into their larger, better organized empires, such as the Nabateans and later the Romans. This integration/assimilation facilitated the continuation of their cultural and economic contributions within a broader imperial context. Their contributions to trade, architecture, and cultural exchange highlight the interconnectedness of ancient societies and the importance of understanding these relationships in the broader historical narrative.

Determination of scholarship research vis-a-vis the authors rubbish narishkeit of Michael Ruark, simply requires a tad of research. Recommend The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000-332 BCE” edited by Margreet L. Steiner and Ann E. Killebrew. This handbook provides a broad overview of archaeological findings across the Levant, including Edom, and situates them within the larger context of ancient Near Eastern history. It includes contributions from various scholars who are experts in their respective fields, ensuring a well-rounded and scholarly approach to the subject matter. It underwent serious scholastic rigorous academic scrutiny, enhancing its good name credibility.

This source, it seems to me, particularly valuable for understanding the Edomites within the broader archaeological and historical framework of the region. Thomas E. Levy, an archaeologist known for his work in the southern Levant, particularly in Edom. Margreet L. Steiner, mentioned above, edited the “Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant.” His scholarship has contributed to the understanding of the cultural and historical context of Edom and its neighbors.

This blog paper, by stark contrast, contains several claims about the Edomites that reflect a biased or oversimplified view of their history and interactions with other groups. The Edomites simply not a monolithic group; their society – diverse in terms of social structure, culture, and interactions. Archaeological evidence indicates that Edomite society included various clans and tribes, each with its own customs and practices. This diversity historically reflected in the different archaeological sites and artifacts found in Edom, which strongly supports the theory that this civilization existed as a complex society with varying degrees of interaction with neighboring cultures.

While scholarly debate flourishes about the nature of Edomite conversion, especially among Xtians who base their “opinions” solely upon secondary or tertiary sources, essential actual scholarship recognizes, that the conversion forced conversion of Esau to Judaism, a minor non biblical reference. The Hasmonean dynasty’s forced conversion represented an exceptionally complex process influenced by various factors, including political alliances, cultural exchanges, and individual choices. Many Edomites may have embraced Judaism for personal, social, or economic reasons, reflecting the fluidity of cultural identity in the ancient world.

Edomite history in point of fact, characterized by its resilience and adaptation. After the fall of their kingdom, Edomites migrated and integrated into surrounding societies, including Judah. The fall of the 10 Tribe kingdom of Israel to the Assyrian empire likewise witnessed mass assimilation. Their ability to adapt to changing political landscapes demonstrates the complexity of their identity and the shared histories with neighboring groups. Simply crucial to challenge stereotypes and generalizations about the Edomites and related groups. The Edomites do not compare to Moavites. The latter qualify merely as adversaries of the Israelites; the society of Edom reflects a complex society with their own traditions, beliefs, and contributions to the region’s history. Emphasizing their individuality and complexity generally helps to combat oversimplified narratives.

Throughout history, various groups have faced displacement, conflict, and cultural change. The Jews the only civilization which experienced repeated g’lut/exile and following 2000+ years which witnessed the bankruptcy of the Xtian and Muslim civilizations, did the Jewish people raise our dead civilization from the grave and begin our National self determination to restore the Torah Constitutional Republic built around Sanhedrin lateral common law courts with the mandate to establish law through ‘Legislative Review’ of all Governmental statute laws. By acknowledging the shared human experiences of struggle, adaptation, and resilience, we can promote empathy and understanding among different cultural and ethnic groups. By recognizing the diversity within Edomite society, challenging stereotypes, and fostering discussions that highlight shared histories and commonalities, we can promote a more nuanced understanding of the Edomites and their interactions with other groups, most especially with the Jewish people. This approach encourages empathy and appreciation for the rich tapestry of human experiences that transcend cultural and historical differences.

The article 2nd article written by Mike Ruark, it similarly presents a narrative that attempts to outline the differences and historical context between Judaism and Samaritanism. However, it contains several inaccuracies, oversimplifications, and potentially biased interpretations that warrant a critical examination. Literal vs. Allegorical Interpretation: The claim that Samaritans believe in a literal interpretation of the Torah while Jews interpret it allegorically represents a gross distortion and perverted oversimplification. Both groups have diverse interpretations of their respective texts, and Jewish tradition, obviously does not limit itself to the Written Five Books of the Torah, as does the Samaritan tradition. The kabbalah known as Pardes, defines the various methods of interpretation which interpret Torah law as examined through prophetic mussar and halachic precedents.

The Samaritans rejected Torah law as a common law legal system. Their rejection of T’NaCH common law goes hand-in-glove with their equal rejection of Talmudic common law. Michael Ruark your complete and total ignorances of PARDES Oral Torah kabbalah places you squarely within the camp of the Samaritans.

Your shallow perverted article suggests a linear progression of conflict between Jews and Samaritans without adequately addressing the complexities of their historical interactions. The relationship has been influenced by various political, social, and religious factors over centuries, and the narrative presented lacks nuance.

Phrases like “the vast majority of the nine tribes’ members were captivated and carried away abroad” can be seen as pejorative. The language used throughout the article often implies a negative connotation towards the Samaritans, which may not reflect an objective historical perspective. Your shallow researched article mentions conflicts such as the Samaritan Revolt of 740 CE but does not provide sufficient context or detail about the causes and consequences of these events. This lack of depth can lead to misunderstandings about the nature of the relationships between the two groups.

Your absurd declaration that “Samaritans generally do not recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel” is vague and lacks supporting evidence. It is essential to clarify that views within the Samaritan community may vary, and not all Samaritans hold the same political opinions. Your pathetic attempt to promote conflict between Jews and the tiny sect of surviving Samaritans merits nothing but utter derision and contempt. Your use of pejorative terms – utterly disgusting.

While your poorly written article makes feeble attempts to outline the distinctions between Judaism and Samaritanism, it clearly falls short in providing a fair and accurate representation of the historical interactions as codified within the Talmud. Your propaganda non-nuanced slander over-simplifies inherent complexities of both peoples traditions. Your vain hostility openly apparent, you would do better to strive to foster & improve a better understanding and dialogue between the two groups, instead of rabble rouse.

Oral Torah common law spins around the Central Axis of the Constitutional Mandate awarded to the Sanhedrin Federal Courts to conduct “Legislative Review” over all laws passed by the king or any State Legislature.

What qualifies as statutes, in T’NaCH common law?

The study of chukim\statutes in T’NaCH is far more complex than a straightforward reading might suggest. The Talmud emphasizes the importance of understanding the Torah through the lens of precedents and interpretations, which enriches the application of these laws. Chukim, being statutes without explicit rationale, require deeper analysis and interpretation. They cannot be understood in isolation; rather, they must be contextualized within the broader framework of Jewish law and tradition.

The Talmud teaches that one should “stand the Torah upon precedents,” meaning that the application of Torah laws should be informed by historical interpretations, legal precedents, and rabbinic discussions. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of the laws. When engaging with chukim, one must look to the T’NaCH, Talmudic, Siddur, and Midrashic Primary Sources.

The dynamic nature of Jewish law, as illustrated by the Talmud, shows that chukim spin around PARDES inductive logic rather than static Greek deductive syllogism logic. Oral Torah/common law evolves through interpretation and application of T’NaCH prophetic mussar and Talmudic halachic precedents. Courtroom judicial law does not resemble flat legislature statute law.

Statute law refers to laws that are enacted by some legislative body, such as a parliament or congress. These laws are written and codified, providing clear guidelines and regulations. Statute laws are passed through a formal legislative process, which includes drafting, debating, and voting. Legislatures can amend or repeal statute laws as needed.

Common law developed through judicial decisions and precedents rather than through legislative statutes. It evolves over time based on the rulings of different courts. Common law – created by judges through their Courtroom interpretations of statutes imposed by Legislatures; this process of common law known as “Legislative Review”. Common law can adapt to changing societal values and circumstances, as judges can interpret laws in light of contemporary issues. Unlike statute law, common law, referred to as “Oral Torah”; which the Sages refused to write down. Hence not till centuries after the sealing of the Sha’s Bavli did the sages agree to codify the Oral Torah into a written Talmud.

Examples of chukim include laws related to dietary restrictions (kashrut), the red heifer (parah adumah), and certain rituals that may seem arbitrary without a clear explanation. Dietary restrictions (kashrut) delve directly into the subject of tohor vs. tumah middot/spirits. Tohor middot jump directly into the subject of the revelalation of the Oral Torah at Horev which the religions of Xtianity and Islam both deny.