The study of the Talmud requires a basic understanding of Tannaim logical middot. Clearly the most famous and well known, the middot of rabbi Yishmael
י״ג מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן – רבי ישמעאל

ודבר הלמד מסופו

בקל וחומר

גזרה שוה

בנין אב מכתוב אחד

בנין אב משני כתובים

כלל ופרט

פרט וכלל

כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט

כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא ללמד על הכלל כולו יצא

כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לטעון טענה אחרת יצא להקל ולא להחמיר

כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לטעון טענה אחרת לא להקל ולא להחמיר אלא להשוות

כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לידון בדבר החדש אי אתה יכול להחזירו לכלל עד שיחזירנו הכתוב לכלל בפירוש

דבר הלמד מענינו

Rabbi Akiva received the tradition of PaRDeS as a revelation of Oral Torah at Horev — not as a method of textual exposition, but as a living legal system, in which every letter, inclusion and exclusion, silence and repetition, functions as a carrier of halakhic meaning. The Torah is not a “closed text” but an inductive system for building law from concrete empirical particulars.

Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot serve as a secondary, so to speak, “commentary” to how to correctly understand rabbi Akiva’s warp/weft דרוש\פשט … רמז\סוד פרדס sh’itta of inductive reasoning. The two main threads of the Talmudic loom which weaves the culture and customs practiced by the chosen Cohen people. Rabbi Yishmael did not introduce his middot explicitly as a “commentary” on Akiva; they function in parallel, coexisting methodologies.

The midda Kal va-chomer serves as a formal rule which permits comparing one sealed masoret Talmudic source to another “related” sealed Talmudic Gemara source. Rashi teaches that following the sealing of the Bavil in about 450 CE that post Talmudic scholarship only requires this, so to speak, “most essential midda”; not to exclude the other 12 middot. That’s a טיפש פשט Bullwinkle error — Karaite narishkeit — which defines the Rambam and his Snidely Whiplash supporters who re-defined (substitute theology Xtian and Muslim av tuma avoda zarah) the Talmud as statute religious law rather than Sanhedrin judicial common law.

The Karaites rejected the Oral Torah. The 13 middot work within the פרדס description of Oral Torah. Rambam’s Yad Chazakah does not qualify as Oral Torah. Therefore, Rambam compares to the Karaites who rejected the Oral Torah. Rambam’s system can be functionally compared to Karaites in this sense, because the 13 middot cannot operate fully in a strictly codified system; the generative inductive process is curtailed. Hence students of the Talmud cannot turn to the statute law religious codifications as tools to learn the Talmud.

Rambam, no rabbinic authority, other than myself – but who am I, ever accused him of being a Karaite, because outwardly he accepted the Talmud whereas the Karaites rejected the Talmud. But his statute law code emphatically embraced the culture and customs of Roman statute egg-crate Sefer Ha’Mitzvot law, and rejected T’NaCH Talmudic Sanhedrin common law. The Rambam had no concept of time-oriented Av Torah commandments. Consequently the Rambam did, in point of fact, reject the Oral Torah as a common law judicial legal system. His code conceptually & metaphorically reduces the functionality of the 13 middot, no different from the Karaites. Rambam’s codification limits the living inductive reasoning logic-function of the Oral Torah.

The Talmud defines the 2nd Sinai Commandment not to worship other Gods, based upon the Book of Kings concerning Shlomo and his foreign wives and the Book of Ezra wherein Ezra commands Israel to divorce their foreign wives, based on the story of Phinhas – killing the head of the tribe of Dan who paraded a foreign Midianite wife in front of Moshe and Aaron.

Therefore avoda zara of the 2nd Sinai commandment defined through these precedents as 1) assimilation 2) intermarriage. While the Rambam did not intermarry his statute law code introduced Roman cult of personality statute law as a replacement for T’NaCH/Talmudic judicial common law. Hazal interpret the 2nd commandment (“לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים”) as an utter rejection of the “idolatry” practiced by both Xtian\Muslim טיפש פשט literal reading – which limits foreign gods to physical idols. Historically, Rambam affirmed Talmudic authority and Oral Torah, so literally he was not a Karaite. The Bullwinkle comparison serves as a polemical critique of the effect of the Rambam codification on the living process of the Oral Torah.

The prophets of the T’NaCH mocked “idols” as a משל\נמשל mussar. The Xtian\Muslim טיפש פשט an utter perversion of the 2nd Sinai commandment. The Rambam based his code as a concrete-literal translation of the Talmudic halachic rulings which he translated into pure Hebrew, comparable to the language of the Mishna. His code expunged the language of Aramaic, as employed throughout the Gemara & T’NaCH Book of Daniel.

Rambam affirmed Talmudic authority and Oral Torah. He did not reject the Talmud or Oral law. None the less, his Reformed Judaism curtailed the functionality of inductive methods like the 13 middot; in effect he limited the Oral Torah’s living legal process no different that modern Reform Judaism. Rambam’s codification limits the generative, inductive, precedent-driven system of the Talmud, to a function which resembles Karaite and Reform heresies which restrict Tannaim interpretive methods. The 2nd commandment (avoda zara = assimilation/intermarriage) sums up both the societies of Karaite and Reform Jewry. It illustrates how Oral Torah is , The Rambam’s codification abstracts Oral Torah as a living, concrete judicial common law system; the Rambam-Karaite comparison serves as a metaphorical, rhetorical, and polemical exclamation point rather than literal historical fact.

The sages sealed the T’NaCH, Talmud, and Siddur to pass a determined “fixed” inheritance of Torah traditions to all generations. No one generation owns a monopoly lock upon logic. The purpose of sealing “Primary Sources” of scholarship, that all generations thereafter share a common “base” foundation by which to interpret and understand the Torah. The Torah commands prophetic T’NaCH based mussar, it does not exist as a history book and therefore empirical history not learned from the pages of the T’NaCH.

Understanding how these essential middot “understand” the kabbalah of פרדס Oral Torah, an obligation known as עול מלכות שמים. This concept rabbinic tradition affixes to תפילה דאורייתא — קריא שמע, which entails a sworn oath through tefillen to remember the three oaths sworn by the Avot together with the Torah obligation to accept the Sinai & Horev revelations of the Torah. Common law functions by means of precedents – בניני אבות. All of rabbi Yishmael’s middot serve as tools to compare and contrast Sanhedrin case/law rulings to other Sanhedrin case/law rulings.

Hazal describes the kabbalah of פרדס as הלכה למשה מסיני. Torah as a jurisprudential system, not a closed code like the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch statute law perversions. Rabbi Yishmael’s middot serve as a secondary commentary to understand Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS. The relationship between the two rabbis compares to the אב\תולדות relationship which defines בראשית to שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר. The warp/weft משל implies the Halacha/Aggada נמשל.

Rabbi Yishmael’s tactical middot do not serve as a commentary to rabbi Akiva’s strategic פרדס understanding of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev/Sinai. Rabbi Yishmael compares to a Colonel or General under the supreme command of rabbi Akiva.

The Baali Tosafists opposed the טיפש פשט reading of Rashi who limited the 13 middot strictly to Kal va-chomer. If all the Tannaim and Amoraim scholars relied upon middot to understand the kabbala of פרדס inductive logic, post sealing of the Sha’s Bavli Rashi could not negate this without becoming a karaite heretic. Rashi himself employs the gezera shava midda in his T’NaCH commentary! Hence the Baali Tosafot emphasize that the other 12 middot function as the seal Sha’s Bavli received and sealed masoret. Rabbi Yishmael did not introduce his 13 middot as a competitive counter to Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס, but rather as salt & pepper to the פרדס steak.

Now compare the 10 middot developed by rabbi Akiva:
דרוש ופשט משולבים: Derash/Peshat integration – interpreting words contextually and in parallel with homiletical meaning.

רמז בכל מילה ואות: Remez (hint/implication) – every word, letter, or phrase can carry a hidden, legal or moral implication. For example: בראשית – ברית אש, ראש בית, ב’ ראשית. Rabbi Yechuda interpreted בכל לבבך as implying two opposing Yatzirot within the heart, based upon the Torah רמז: ב’ ראשית; Yaacov and Esau wrestled within the womb of Rivka.

סוד עמוק ומוסרי: Sod (mystical/deep meaning) – Kabbalah insightgs which elevate secondary halachot to Primary time-oriented commandments. Remez and Sod function hand-in-glove together.

תשומת לב לאותיות וצורות המילים: Attention to letters and word forms – e.g., doubling letters, unusual spellings, extra/missing words.

שתיקה והחסרות במשמעות: Silences and omissions – the Torah’s omissions are as meaningful as its inclusions. The RambaN’s introduction to his commentary to the Chumash describes this midda as Black Fire on White Fire. Something like how a silk screen works to make a multi-colored image on canvass.

השוואת מקרים מקבילים: Comparison of parallel cases – drawing general prophetic mussar rebukes through making a דרוש\פשט comparison between both Torah and NaCH & Aggada and Midrashic inductive reasoning to interpret prophetic mussar expressed throughout the T’NaCH literature.

רגישות לברית ולחובותיה: Remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot: interpreting the Torah as a system of legal and moral obligations tied to the brit which eternally creates the Chosen Cohen people.

בניית הלכה מתוך פרטים מוחשיים: Empirical particularism – law is built from concrete halachic particulars & prophetic mussar rather than abstract av tuma theology and creed belief systems.

שילוב הוליסטי של הלכה ואגדה: Holistic textual weaving – integrating Halacha and Aggada, law and T’NaCH mussar instruction.

יצירתיות והפקת מקרים חדשים: Generativity – the Torah’s structure allows new cases to be derived in a living system, rather than frozen in a codified statute. The 10th middah — יצירתיות והפקת מקרים חדשים (Generativity) — properly refers to the Torah’s ability to produce new halachic cases within the inductive logic system, excluding later codified assimilated Greek deductive frameworks as exemplified by Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch statute law codifications. The Torah directly forbids duplicating how Goyim worship their Gods by embracing the cultures, customs, and manners by which Goyim, who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, worship their Gods.

Monotheism by definition assumes that the Goyim worship the one and same God as do the Jewish people. Yet neither the Protocols of the Elders of Zion fraudulent Books New Testament & Koran never once call unto the Name revealed inside the first Sinai commandment. Hence, by default: both Xtianity and Islam worship “other Gods”. The statute law codes denounced they embrace Greek\Roman statute law culture and customs! This makes their codes of halacha – avoda zarah.

Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer and Midrash ha‑Gadol includes the 32 middot of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose ha‑Gelili (often identified with the son of Rabbi Yossi HaGalilee) as likewise included in the back of the mesechta of ברכות.

בריבוי – where something occurs multiple times. The focus rests on repetition as a signal: the Torah repeats certain words, phrases, or themes to teach a specific legal, moral, or interpretive principle. It signals the interpreter to examine patterns across repetitions, seeking consistency, emphasis, or subtle distinctions. The most obvious example being the repetition of the so called “10 commandments”. If a law appears multiple times in the Torah, one can infer its broader applicability or derive a specific kal va-chomer comparison.

The Torah directly commands “remember the redemption of Egypt”, as expressed through the mitzva of קריא שמע. Torah commands prophetic mussar, it does not teach history. Therefore, this בריבוי emphasizes remembering the 10 plagues wherein the Gods of Egypt judged, and the court of Par’o found utterly corrupt and unjust. Israel came out of Egypt to conquer Canaan – to rule this land with righteous judicial common law justice; which makes fair restitution of damages inflicted by one Jew upon another Jew.

The midda of בריבוי functions in conjunction with other middot. It assists the interpreter to build inductive legal reasoning. It works in conjunction and together with other middot. Torah common law stands on the יסוד of בניני אבות.

במיעוט – We have previously addressed this in Shabbat as a “במיעוט” to the days of the week רבוי, as Shabbat defines the mitzva of עבודת השם to dedicate the days of the week to do av tohor time-oriented commandments known as מלאכה; and the Talmudic language of קמ”ל as a מיעוט. The opening sugya of קידושין limits האשה נקנית unto a girl who understands the mitzva of קידושין.

The Written Torah has central themes. The first and most obvious being the curse of g’lut initially introduced with the expulsion of Adam from the Garden and Cain murdering his brother. The Pauline avoda zara behaves like the Rambam avoda zara. It switched through substitution theology the narrative away from the Torah curse of g’lut and replaced it with the need of Man for the Jesus messiah to save Man from eternal Hell death.

Avoda zara theology switches the narrative. Muhammad in his Koran declared that prophets sent to all people/nations. The Arabs the last people to receive their “warning prophet”. Hence Muhammad the last of the prophets! This switched the narrative away from the New Testament – prophets foretell future events; and also from the T’NaCH – prophets command mussar rebukes to all generations of the people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev.

ריבוי אחר ריבוי – both T’NaCH and Talmud/Midrashim employ this inductive legal method. ריבוי אחר ריבוי → מיעוט: דברים יד:כב – עשר תעשר את כל תבואת זרעך. ריבוי אחר ריבוי — אינו אלא מיעוט. The repetition forces the court to define boundaries – not everything is included. Ma‘aser applies only to produce that grows annually. Wild growth, ownerless produce, non-food agricultural outputs – all excluded from the mitzva of ma’aser. This midda, for example, explicitly stated in Kiddushin 21b and Yevamot 7a. Specific example: the language יפת תאר this language restricts the case.

Greek syllogism logic interprets repetition deductively rather than inductively or judicially. Greek syllogism logic interprets repetition deductively rather than inductively or judicially. Deductive conclusions drawn from general premises. This method does not inherently incorporate the inductive or judicial reasoning approaches often associated with other systems, such as those found in rabbinic interpretations of Jewish law. Syllogism focuses on establishing clear, logical connections between premises to reach a conclusion rather than generating broader legal or practical principles from specific examples.

The Torah teaches through judicial restraint. Repeated commandments create legal pressure. This legal pressure forces precedent construction which stands upon the בניני אבות יסוד. Shabbat vs Six days serves to define the k’vanna of עבודת השם מלאכה as time-oriented commandments which create מלאכים שנברא יש מאין.

מיעוט אחר מיעוט — אינו אלא ריבוי another judicial–inductive midda. This is the mirror image of ריבוי אחר ריבוי → מיעוט. Example: שמות כא:כג–כה…עין תחת עין, שן תחת שן. The sages interpret this as monetary compensation for damages; it utterly rejects the טיפש פשט literal reading of the printed words.

רפא ירפא (שמות כא:יט): the obligation of someone who has caused physical harm to another to compensate for the time lost during recovery. מיעוט: “עין תחת עין” (seems to exclude monetary compensation), מיעוט שני: explicit obligation of payment (רפא ירפא).

ויקרא כא:יז – איש מזרעך… אשר יהיה בו מום לא יקרב … אך אל הפרוכת לא יבוא ואל המזבח לא יגש. Therefore, these two restrictions result in the din that permits\ריבוי: he may eat kodashim. There exist many examples of this midda across the T’NaCH and Talmud. Hence Torah common law the Courts must weigh each case based upon precedents. Courtroom law simply does not compare to religious theological one size fits all creeds.

בקל וחומר מפורש— not an inferred kal va-chomer, but one explicitly stated in the text itself, where the Torah or Chazal spell out the comparison and its force. במדבר יב:יד — מרים: ויאמר ה’ אל משה: ואביה ירק ירק בפניה, הלא תכלם שבעת ימים. If a daughter disgraced by her father how much more so the disgrace if it comes from HaShem from within her Yatzir Ha’Tov. עיין דברים לא:כז, שמואלא כג:ג. An example from the Talmud: פסחים סו: ומה פסח שאין ענוש כרת — דוחה שבת, מילה שענוש כרת — אינו דין שתדחה שבת?

The Talmud – rabbi Akiva’s home waters, not Aristotle’s. The statute law assimilated codes merely records conclusions—but erases the courtroom argument that gave them authority to re-interpret the language of the Mishna by means of משנה תורה. The קל וחומר מפורש midda, its dependent upon בניני אבות. Statute law utterly rejects the rule of law determined through precedents.

בקל וחומר סתום — an implicit, unstated kal va-chomer, neither the Torah or Chazal do not spell out the comparison, yet the legal/moral force compels the court to supply it. A purely inductive, judicial middah not at all relevant to religious Orthodox halachic observances. Hence the Yeshiva which produces “suits as rabbis” ignores Oral Torah learning by means of tohor middot.

This midda brings a small minor case with a known decision but leaves the weightier significant case uncommented upon. Permitting the court judges to draw their own conclusions. Basically required training for courtroom judges.

שמות כב:טו: וכי יפתה איש בתולה אשר לא ארשה…כסף ישקל כמהר הבתולת. This Torah introduces the minor דני ממון case of seduction and permits the Capital Crimes case of rape — open for the court justices to derive their own conclusions. עיין ויקרא יט:לב. Within the Talmud – ברכות יט: — כבוד הבריות — גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה לא תעשה שבתורה. If human dignity overrides rabbinic prohibitions → how much more so certain Torah prohibitions in limited cases. Again many examples of this midda developed and matured throughout the Sha’s Bavli.

Justice requires judicial reasoning. Common law simply not understood by reading statute law codifications. Codifications kills this midda. A silent kal va-chomer cannot survive statute law codes.

This later codification of inductive reasoning logical middot duplicates the Primary set of Oral Torah middot. בדרך קצרה — קל וחומר סתום (implicit): The Torah legislates minimally, trusting the court to complete the common law. The Torah states only the lighter / narrower case and intentionally omits the heavier / broader one — because the law must be derived. This represents judicial restraint — not textual economy. Basically Oral Torah logic teaches, if you understand law, you don’t need me to say it. The Talmud refers to this as the short/long path.

The Talmud codified during g’lut poverty wherein Jews feared Goyim censorship. The Romans tortured then murdered rabbi Akiva. Talmud Oral Torah common law resembles Japanese and Chinese healing through needles. One pressure point generates chains of בניני אבות. As mentioned above, seduction vs. rape – דני ממון כנגד דני נפשות – If consensual wrongdoing requires restitution, violent coercion certainly does.

Greek syllogism deductive logic silence amounts to an absence of data. פרדס inductive logic silence induces legal pressure. The RambaN’s kabbala Chumash introduction of Black fire on white fire directly infers the requirement to make logical דיוקים inferences. Statute religions law simply cannot transmit קל וחומר סתום because the law no longer emerges — it is retrieved. The Baali Tosafot commentary preserves this common law logic expressed by T’NaCH & Talmudic common law. The assimilated statute halachic codifications universally flatten like a pancake this midda. Therefore, בדרך קצרה is the Torah’s method of legislating through minimal expression, compelling courts to complete the law via silent kal va-chomer, preserving a living inductive common-law system.

מדבר שהוא שנוי as a jurisprudential middah – A matter that is already stated (or taught elsewhere). When the Torah (or Hazal) repeats a legal matter that is already known, the repetition is never redundant — it signals a new limitation, expansion, distinction, or legal pressure point. אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו — אבל אינו חוזר לחינם — unless it intends to restrict, differentiate, reframe, relocate jurisdiction, or create a precedent fork. Repetition forces interpretation, as expressed through ריבוי / מיעוט, ריבוי אחר ריבוי, קל וחומר סתום, and בנין אב.

Greek logic, as mentioned above, employs repetition as both emphasis and rhetorical; a persuasive technique, where repeated statements aim to influence beliefs or opinions, often associated with the employment of propaganda. Torah inductive Oral Torah logic relies upon the technique of repetition to introduce a new legal function. Whereas statute law by stark contrast fossilizes “the law” into codified dogmatism.

The Torah repeats three times לא תבשל גדי בחלה אמו. The rabbis in the Gemara of Chullen, the 8th פרק went to town over this repetition. Personally, do not consider chicken as meat, but then again – I still have to live with my wife who rules the kitchen has her dictatorship. Shabbat, the Creation story, Manna, the decalogue as mentioned above, and the Mishkan repeated over and again. As Shabbat establishes “domains” so too does “repetition”!

זכר ליציאת מצרים — For me, this refers to remembering when Moshe stood before the corrupt courtroom of Par’o. As mentioned above, Israel came out of Egypt to conquer Canaan and rule our people with fair courtroom judicial justice. Just that simple, no fancy dance’n. Torah teaches mussar and law, not history nor religion. Consider myself as an atheist “praise God”, based upon the rule: Never take yourself too seriously.

Repetition here creates limitation, not license. The Torah singles out יפת תואר… מפני שהוא מדבר שהוא שנוי…its restricted, surrounded by procedural barriers, and morally discouraged through the story of the בּן סורר ומורה. This subject flows straight into the repetition of עריות. The mitzva of ק”ש repeated across three Books of the Torah to teach: עול מלכות שמים as זכרון יציאת מצרים … זכרון אבות … זכרון תורה שבכתב ובעל פה This midda flows like water into ריבוי אחר ריבוי → מיעוט, מיעוט אחר מיעוט → ריבוי, קל וחומר סתום, and בנין אב. This midda, it rings alarm bells which shout – Stop. This verse – doing major new work – a judicial signal that repetition of an already-established law demands reinterpretation, producing new legal structure through inductive precedent.

מסידור שנחלק as a jurisprudential middah: When the Torah presents a structured list, system, or סדר, and then deliberately splits or rearranges its elements across different contexts, the division itself carries legal meaning. The most obvious example – when NaCH or Talmudic sources inverse the order of רחום וחנון with חנון ורחום.

The Torah’s order is never accidental – אין סדר התורה מקרי. So breaking established order compares to God vs. Dog. The break in order forces interpretation. This midda often works together with מדבר שהוא שנוי, ריבוי, בנין אב, דרך קצרה. Torah common law spins around the Central axis that the Written Torah serves as the Constitution of the bnai brit Cohen People’s Republic. As mentioned before, domains in shabbat not exclusive to this one mitzva. The shabbat commandment which forbids actions of מלאכה establishes a jurisprudential axis across the so called תרי”ג מצוות. The מוספ עמידה why does it inverse the order of the א”ב upon its head? קידושין splits acquisition to כסף שטר וביאה. In ק”ש the Torah employs ציצית as a סוד to remember the t’shuva made by HaShem when HaShem threatened to treat the oaths sworn to the Avot as a vow that can be annulled!

מסידור שנחלק the expression of a inductive legal principle whereby the Torah’s deliberate division of an established structure signals multiple legal domains, obligating the court to derive distinct functions from each fragment.

This learning gets quite involved. Recommend if your interested to make your own research. You can start with the Jewish encyclopaedia. But if requested I shall continue this long list of how Torah common law logic rationally functions and shapes inductive logic. I have stopped at the 11th midda.

Understanding the basics of Oral Torah a fundamentally required absolute. Wrote of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט compared to rabbi Yishmael’s כלל – פרט, פרט – כלל middot by which both men interpreted through different sh’ittot the kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic reasoning. Clearly neither Boris Badenov, nor his boot licking sidekick Natasha Fatale (Rambam & Yosef Karo) understood the distinctions which separate Torah common law from Roman statute law.

ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק”ו. למעוטי מאי? למעוטי חליפין. ס”ד אמינא הואיל וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון, מה שדה מקניא בחליפין, אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין. קמ”ל. This “משל” term “קמ”ל”, what defines its נמשל interpretation? The Gemara asks: למעוטי מאי? Hence, our Gemara contrasts rabbi Yishmael’s midda of ק”ו against rabbi Akiva’s midda of רבוי מיעט. When ever encountering a קמ”ל, this משל teaches the נמשל of either a רבוי מיעט. A fundamental chiddush, how to correctly read the Talmud with an understanding discerning eye – comparable to the tongue of a wine bibber. The Talmud defines understanding as: discernment like from like.

The פרט of בראשית כד:ב requires research. Let’s open by making a מדרש רבה analysis. Midrash functions as a reference resource for Talmudic study. The flat assimilated Yeshiva education system totally ignores learning Talmud together with Midrash, a clumsy yet cunning schemer basic Snidely Whiplash error. Which utterly backfires in a pathetic shallow addiction to the Rambam error of literal word translation Orthodox Judaism religious stupidity.

בראשית רבה נט:ח – Midrash Rabbah connects this verse through the midda of גזירה שוה to כי יקח איש אשה. Avraham & servant Eliezer cut an oath alliance Torah common law legal precedent prototype. The hand-under-thigh Torah language refers to an oath sworn obligation through which the גזירה שוה equally applies to the קידושין oath brit obligation which obligates a Man to give a get to his ex-wife if he divorces her. What does the mitzva of קידושין acquire? The Nefesh O’lam Ha’Ba of the woman’s soul! Specifically learned from the Torah precedent בכל נפשך repeated twice in the opening first two paragraphs of the ק”ש. Bereishit Rabbah learns this critical גזרה שוה, as a critical proto–common law precedent; a foundational legal principles or decisions that define the development of Oral Torah common law as we know it today.

The רבוי מיעט – The acquired “wife” does not lose her independent da’at. Kiddushin-betrothal does not confer ownership over the woman, her various aspect: such as her body, labor or personhood. She exits marital status through get, not resale. Never does she qualify as ממון: money, valuable possessions, and property. Herein interprets the k’vanna of the language of our Av Mishna, which does not say: האשה נקנית לאיש, but האשה נקנית בשלש דרכים — the mitzva of קידושין separates this woman from all other women. Herein understand how the gospel Av tuma avoda zara touching the vile story of virgin birth follows Greek mythology of Hercules rather than Oral Torah common law.

The precedent of Avraham and his servant sworn oath, this Torah brit alliance obligates. Hence this Torah precedent critical in understanding the mitzva of קידושין as an oath alliance brit obligation which obligates both Man and Woman equally. קידושין acquires exclusive – מיעט – over the woman’s nefesh-standing vis-à-vis other men. Herein explains why adultery qualifies as a Capital Crime case which only a Sanhedrin court can adjudicate. Hence no Goyim court qualifies as having authority to issue a divorce. This fundamental recognition that only Torah courts shall determine “the Jewish Problem”, as expressed through the post Shoah oath: NEVER AGAIN.

Oral Torah does not function as a תולדות commentary on the Written Torah —Oral Torah common law derived from precedent תולדות positive and negative Torah commandments. קידושין acquires a brit-level oath obligation as a Av Torah time-oriented commandment. This oath alliance obligation establishes enforceable duties such as כתובה, גט, & fidelity. This mitzva does not treat the acquisition of a wife comparable to how a man acquires ownership of a עבד כנעני; the concept of “soul” understood as title acquired to all future born children fathered consequent to this קידושין. This Torah mitzva serves to amplify the k’vanna of swearing an oath alliance לשמה – the first Sinai commandment; the greatest commandment in the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק״ו

למעוטי מאי

למעוטי חליפין

This question cannot be asked within Rabbi Yishmael’s כלל–פרט system alone, because: A pure ק״ו would expand; a pure גזירה שוה from שדה עפרון would import all kinyanim. Hence the danger: ס״ד אמינא:

הואיל וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון

מה שדה מקניא בחליפין

אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין

This while logically correct under Rabbi Yishmael’s sh’itta. But rabbi Akiva’s קמ״ל = רבוי מיעט, not כלל–פרט. So קמ״ל here teaches the negative boundary of the רבוי, just as it likewise understands the relationship between Shabbat to Chol! A very important precedent since the mitzva of shabbat critically defines: HOLY; just as korbanot dedications define the kingship mitzva of Moshiach. Moshe anointed the House of Aaron to dedicate the nation to pursue righteous judicial justice. The prophet Natan cursed the House of David with eternal Civil War after he failed to rule with justice in the matter of the baal of Bat Sheva. Just as Aaron did not offer up barbeques to Heaven through korbanot, so to the Moshiach does not rule as king if he fails to establish righteous common law Federal Sanhedrin courts!

Acquisition to the “title” Nefesh O’lam Ha’ba of the woman’s soul does not compare to buying or selling chattel. Reading the Talmud as if it compares to the novel of a Harry Potter NT false messiah – Protocols of the Elders of Zion fraud-literalism, destroys and uproots precedent-based Oral Torah common law/משנה תורה. Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic, ancient Greek syllogism deductive logic simply does not work any more than does the Yad, Tur, or Shulkan Aruch assists students to correctly understand how to study and learn the Talmud. Hence the sages codified in the Talmud referred to as “Oral Torah”, whereas the Rambam Yad in no way, shape, manner, or form qualifies as Oral Torah. The two systems compare to the Planets of Mars and Venus.

The קמ”ל always signals רבוי–מיעט. In this particular case: it excludes chalipin, despite the valid ק״ו logic. Because the acquired object – a brit obligation over the “nefesh” soul. Which likewise the Oral Torah differs from the Yad, Tur, Shulkan Aruch counterfeits, the acquisition of “nefesh” simply not ממון, but rather the future born children – the definition of the first Torah commandment: be fruitful and multiply. The רבוי מיעט of the קידושין acquisition of “soul”, separates Goyim from the chosen מיעט Cohen people created through the Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandment of קידושין. Which aligns perfectly with Bereishit Rabbah’s oath-alliance precedent.

The concluding statement of מדרש רבה נט:ח — א”ר יצחק חטיא דקרתך זונין זרע מנהון. Rabbi Yitzhak stated: ‘The wrongdoing of your actions prevents their sustenance from coming;’ restated: “produces continuity only when obligation is preserved.” This closing statement of Midrash Rabbah נט:ח functions as a juridical boundary marker – informing how legal drosh “borders”; the Tosafists reasoning perhaps qualifies it as הלכה למעשה. My sh’itta of inductive reasoning argues the comparison between the case of our Gemara — to the case introduced by Midrash Rabba (the definition of inductive vs deductive reasoning) – do not interpret the קידושין oath brit alliance as the acquisition of an object but rather as the very definition of creating the chosen cohen people through tohor time-oriented commandments.

Torah common law draws category boundaries, such as Sanhedrin courts only have legal jurisdiction within the borders of Judea. Or prophets serve as the police enforcers of judicial common law legal rulings; if no Sanhedrin courts then likewise no prophets. Despite the koran narishkeit which declares that prophets sent to all peoples across the Planet and the Arabs the last people on Earth to receive their “chosen” prophet; hence their absurd declaration that Muhammad was the last of the prophets!

חליפין has the legal meaning which presumes חפץ – a thing. ‘Fungible goods items’ qualify as horse-trading, interchangeable goods. Fungibility facilitates easy transactions and exchanges. Representative by contrast refers to something or someone who stands in for or symbolizes someone or something else. Like Representatives voted into the Federal Congress, they serve as proxies for the voting electorate within any given US State. In basic horse-trading, money functions as a representative of legal trade instead of barter. A common custom practiced by Goyim societies: wife swapping.

Torah law never universalizes categories without jurisdiction. This fundamental מאי נפקא מינא – רב חסד middah forever separates Torah common law from Islamic (and Christian) universal-prophetic claims, which erase jurisdictional boundaries entirely.

Kiddushin cannot tolerate representation … wife swapping. A nefesh cannot be substituted; brit cannot be “grafted” to Goyim who do not and never have accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Fidelity cannot be symbolically reassigned; the Torah oath brit which creates the chosen Cohen people defined to Talmudic established culture and customs, personal, exclusive, & non-fungible. The Torah phrase “והיו לבשר אחד” — not metaphysics — rather anti-fungibility common law. Therefore חליפין utterly treif in the matter of קידושין because it baptizes brit into a substitute theology exchange which replaces the pursuit of justice as faith for belief in some theologically created new God as faith.

The mitzva of קידושין rejects the Goyim custom which perceives marital bonds as transferable; persons as interchangeable units; relationships as revocable exchanges which defines the legal concept of fungibility in human marital relations. Therefore our Gemara blocks that endpoint at the root by excluding חליפין. Herein our Gemara separate kiddushin from market place logic of acquisition of goods and property.

Therefore, קמ״ל in Kiddushin functions as a רבוי–מיעט marker: it affirms that Kiddushin functions as a true kinyan, while excluding any kinyan whose logic presumes fungible object-ownership; therefore חליפין – excluded because brit over nefesh cannot be represented, substituted, or exchanged.

Ephesians 1:15-23 an utter perversion of faith and as such a Torah abomination. Torah defines faith as the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which restores fair compensation of damages inflicted both intentionally or by accident. Classic av tuma avoda zara defines faith through theology & creed belief systems which introduce new Gods who prior to introduction of religious propaganda no one ever heard of before.

When Israel came out of the judicial oppression and injustice of Egyptian slavery, Israelites never heard of the Gods of Baal worshipped by the Canaanite kingdoms. The 10 plagues judged the Gods worshipped by Par’o and Egypt just as the total destruction of 33 Canaanite kingdoms judged the Gods worshipped by those uprooted Canaanite civilizations.

The next verse introduces a critical next substitute theology wherein the NT fraud introduces prayer as a substitute for tefillah. The latter ideally requires swearing a Torah oath לשמה while standing before a Sefer Torah with a minyan; prayer possesses none of these requirements. Tefillah dedicates specified tohor Oral Torah middot which Moshe orally heard at Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב שאין להם יראת אלהים substituted a word name metaphor for God/אלהים and replaced the revelation of the Name expressed in the first Sinai commandment. Both the NT fraud and Korah alien introduce names of new Gods.

The next verse introduces the later dogmatized Nicene Creed which introduced the new God of Trinity as the absolute Universal God which supplants the Torah revelation at Sinai which only the 12 Tribes of Israel embraced this local god as the God of Abraham Yitzak and Yaacov. The substitute theology “Spirit of wisdom”, supplants time-oriented mitzvot which require k’vanna as “the” wisdom of the Torah revelation at Sinai with some undefined “spirit of wisdom” that clearly does not compare to מלאכה required to dedicate tohor time-oriented commandments as Torah wisdom.

The next verse specific further defines the 16th verse “my prayers”. It fails to address the struggle of the opposing Yatzirot within the heart as the Oral Torah teaches. Substitutes belief in some false messiah as a substitute for the righteous pursuit of justice; on par with the 70 virgins in the world to come which the Koran rhetoric worships pie in the sky declarations which have absolutely no proof. Israel came out of Egypt to conquer Canaan to rule that land with righteous judicial justice. This vision of faith totally different from the Paul’s letter.

This next verse introduces belief as the first priority of faith. The Torah never once commanded Israel to “believe” in any God. Rather Torah commands the righteous pursuit of judicial legal justice: fair compensation of damages inflicted upon others among our people.

The 20th verse substitutes “raised from the dead” of an imaginary Harry Potter Christ for the burden to raise and educate all future born children in the faith to pursue righteous justice among the bnai brit Chosen Cohen people. The Torah defines “soul” as a man’s future born children based upon the Avram brit cut between the pieces wherein that alliance predicates future born seed comparable to the stars in the heavens in their multitudes. Tefillah the Spirit of Tohor Middot lives within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of bnai brit hearts, not in the heavens above. Torah does not come from the heavens but lives through righteous judicial courtroom judgments which achieve justice among the bnai brit people.

Verse 21 simply religious rhetoric jargon which means absolutely nothing. Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai to serve as the Written Constitution of the Israelite Republic of 12 Tribes. A national Republic lives from generation to generation – by definition.

The next verse assumes that this new Father God resembles Man in that it refers to “placed all things under his feet”. This violates that nothing in the Heavens, Earth, or Seas compares to the local tribal god revealed only to the 12 tribes of Israel at Sinai. The opening verses of John substitutes Word for spirits. The revelation of the 13 Oral Torah tohor middot אל רחום וחנון etc spirits not words. Tefillah requires שם ומלכות wherein a bnai brit Israel dedicates one or more tohor Oral Torah spirits – referred to through the metaphor of מלכות; that a bnai brit Israel dedicates these Oral Torah spirits לשמה.

The Sinai revelation of the Torah did never appoint the mitzva of Moshiach as supreme authority over all creation. Verse 22 substitutes a false messiah Harry Potter new Universal God over the church. Whereas the revelation of the Torah at Sinai introduced the Torah as the Constitution of the Republic of Israelite 12 who left Egypt with the intent to conquer and rule Canaan. Verse 23 rhetoric declares that this newly established Harry Potter fictional messiah has a body just as does man. Based upon the fiction narrative which introduces a historical man as also son of God that the Hebrew T’NaCH rejects.