Category: Uncategorized

The Reformation did not liberate Europe from the Church; it exported the Church’s theological hatred and intolerance into multiple competing sects which promoted Supersessionism, Demonization of Jews, Replacement theology, and Sanctification of violence for ideological purity.

Calvin’s Letter to Bullinger, About Luther, on 25 November 1544

In a letter to Bullinger, dated November 25, 1544, he adjured him to treat the great man, meaning Luther, with respect. A lot of good that letter had! Both Calvin and Luther together with the Poop of Rome all directly contributed to the 30 year war blood bath. The theological absolutism of Xtianity became the political absolutism of the modern European nation-state.

The Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), a political earthquake. This devastating conflict in Europe, involving numerous states and religious factions. Indeed, the theological and political tensions fostered by figures like Calvin, Luther, and the Papacy played significant roles in its escalation. The Protestant Reformation, led by Calvin and Luther, splintered Xtianity in Europe. This division created deep-rooted animosities that fueled the 30 years Civil War between Protestant and Catholic states.

Only the WWI and WWII Civil Wars slaughtered such a gross and disgusting blood bath. The Catholic Church, being a central institution during this period, sought to maintain its power against the growing Protestant movements. Actions taken by the Papacy often intensified the conflict. Religious Intolerance branded Europe just like as did Nazi racism. This inherited, perhaps genetic intolerance, perpetuated by leaders across Europe. Proved and validated: scratch a European and find a barbarian; 2023–2024: Europe slanders Israel and enables pogrom mobs on University Campuses while pretending moral authority.

Calvin and Luther contributed to the intense hatred, matched only by the Nazi hatred of Jews! Their legacies directly responsible for the 30 years war where Xtianity as a religion proved itself as worthless tits on a boar hog avoda zarah. UN Hypocrisy as the Direct Inheritance of European Xtian Super-sessionist Ideology. Palestinian Nationalism as a Post-1964 European-Framed Gospel mythology!

Calvin and Luther did play roles in shaping the religious landscape of Europe. The context in which they worked, marked by significant corruption within and across the church Av tuma avoda zarah. Goyim throughout European history – utterly barbaric in their violence. The Crusades stand out as but just one example of this Dead God religion, an expression of the nadir of the barbaric animal soul of European sub-human man. Europe Has No Moral Standing Over Israel.

The violence witnessed in the Thirty Years’ War, the World Wars, and other conflicts certainly reflect a human propensity for brutality, especially when ideologies at stake. The capacity for intolerance and hatred has shadowed many aspects of human history, leading to tragic outcomes. Herzl wrote his “Jewish State” because he argued that Europeans, impossible for them to heal themselves from their anti-Semitism cancer infected minds.

Europeans utterly addicted to ideology in shaping human behavior and societal structures. Honest discourse and acknowledgment of past atrocities immediately flies out the window whenever mob Jew hating protests condemn Jews. The disgrace of Europe during the anti-Jewish Oct 7th massacre by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and UNWRA stands proves that Europeans memory of their past crimes “forgotten” in their Holocaust Denial where the ICC assumes it has jurisdiction over Israel despite Israel’s rejection of the Rome Accords!

The slander accusations which call Israel a genocide state matched only by the violence of Nazi inferior race propaganda that reached a pre-War cracindo during the pogrom “Night of Shattered Glass”. Long-standing struggles with intolerance and hatred define the corrupt European soul. The Thirty Years’ War illustrates how religious divisions, combined with political ambitions, lead to catastrophic violence and suffering, with devastating impacts on civilian populations. The persistent presence of anti-Semitism in European history reflects deep-seated biases that have manifested in various forms of violence and discrimination.

UN accusations of genocide, despite the UNWRA participation in the Oct 7th massacre, never presented by the reactionary propaganda MSM press as accusations – but rather as cold proven facts. This reality proves the mental insanity that Europeans pass down from generation to generation. The Palestinian “Passion Play” over made up imaginary facts. Palestine ceased to exist as a UN protectorate territory the instant Ben Gurion declared Jewish national independence in 1948. Goyim hatred of Jews who defeated Arab Armies – dedicated to throw the Jews into the Sea and fulfill like Jesus did the words of the prophets, the Nazi Shoah across Europe; despite the PLO charter explicitly declaring that only ’48 Israel qualified as “Occupied Territories”, the UN declared post ’67 that Samaria and Gaza as “Occupied Territories”. Yet Goyim mental insanity fails to catch the UN lie.

The empty platitude: An honest and thorough examination of the past is essential for creating a more tolerant future. Tits on a boar hog empty drum noise. Recognizing the role ideologies play in shaping societies and the harm they can cause, this the diseased minds of European governments simply cannot do. Not in the days of Calvin and Luther and not today. The common denominator which ties all European society together … their cold dead religion of Xtianity’s rabid hatred of Jews.

Post WWII Jews say Never Again. Meaning Never Again shall European governments dictate any other “solution” for “the Jewish problem” post Shoah. Israel’s response to UN Resolutions 242, 338, 446, 2334 etc … NEVER AGAIN. The longstanding strains of anti-Semitism in Europe, indeed intertwined with historical events, creating cycles of prejudice that Europeans – without fail – always ignore or minimize every time that mobs rage across European cities. This persistent hatred has roots in religious, economic, and social contexts. UN accusations and resolutions reflect broader political agendas of biased assessment of reality, leading to distorted perceptions and narratives. Israel has washed its hands of Europe like Pontius Pilate washed his hands over the false messiah JeZeus. Jews, post Shoah, no longer accept responsibility for Blood Libels, or poisoning the wells etc.

Anti-Semitism in Europe has no cure other than Jews breaking all diplomatic relations with European governments as possible allies in international relations. The instances of mob behavior and anti-Semitic sentiment in cities across Europe reveal a consistent repeated pattern of Jewish hatred and historical biases, specifically that Ottoman Greater Syria never referred to by the name Palestine other than in European made maps which the “Sick Man of Europe” bought and acquired after Napoleon.

The role of the UN, a betrayal of the Balfour Declaration/League of Nation Palestine Mandate to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine. UN revisionist history which promotes the Arafat lie that Arabs lived as Philistine boat-people who originally invaded Gaza from the Greek Islands, yet fails to confront the inconvenient fact that Arab people never originated from European countries. Ignored that not till 1964 did Arab propaganda opportunistically embrace the name Palestine! Yet amazingly European and Arab propaganda promotes the lie that Jews occupy Palestine mandate lands of Samaria despite England’s separation of the Palestine Mandate territory from Trans-Jordan at the Jordan River in 1923.

The reference to “Palestine” in historical contexts reflects colonial influences rather than indigenous identity. The narrative that Arab identity shifted around the name “Palestine” post-1964 a political maneuvering that utterly distorts and perverts history. This revisionist history denies the Balfour Declaration and the League Palestine Mandate and substitutes UN 3379 Zionism is Racism slander only matched by the recent Israel commits genocide slander.

The persistence of anti-Semitic actions and sentiments in Europe, a cyclical and deeply rooted mental insanity, invariably ignored or minimized by those in power for the entire Easter period passion play. European Xtians prioritize “I am saved” stupidity which they drum into the heads of their fellow believers to remain oblivious to their blood soaked, cruel and puke history as a people. Anti-Semiticism morphed into Colonialism and later into imperialism. Dominant European states addicted to ruling the roost of the balance of power across the major regions of the Planet Earth.

After the fact, Spanish sincere apologies for expelling the Jews from Spain in 1492 compare to a screen door on a submarine German sorrow over the slaughter of 75% of Western European Jewry and Rome’s most sincere remorse over the post WWII Nazi Rat lines or Poland’s anti-Jewish pogroms! Europeans lie, just that simple. They do not possess a shred of human sincerity simply because as soon as the immediate disgrace of their inhumanity to man gets passed over through the passage of time, European behave like dogs who return and eat their own vomit again and again and again.

The complexities of Jewish identity, historical narratives, and the struggles against Amalek/anti-Semitism resonate deeply in contemporary discourse. Propaganda narratives around “Palestine”, influenced by colonial European motivations emphasizes the impact of power dynamics in shaping identity and historical memory. The idea of post-1964 Arab identity being a political maneuver underscores the contested nature of history in this context.

Hostile pro Arab narratives touching “Palestine”, in essence seek to deny both the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Palestine as the establishment of a Jewish National Home. All Arab wars fought, including the 1948 Independence War, the Arab rejection that dhimmi refugee Jews have equal rights to achieve self determination in the Middle East. UN Resolution 3379 – Zionism is Racism, and current chants: From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Free reject the European red herring “Land for Peace”. Arafat offered East Jerusalem and 98% of Samaria and Gaza as a Palestinian State. Hamas took over a Gaza independent state and immediately made repeated wars that culminated in the Oct7th Abomination 2023 War.

The British French propaganda expressed in post ’67 UN Resolution 242 exposed as revisionist history. Russia and Poland occupy Prussia to this day! The Allies made a forced 14 to 20 million population transfer of Germans living for generations in Prussia and the Czech Republic. The Indian/Pakistan mass population transfer Britain and other Western Powers praised to achieve “peace”. Such revisionist history never to this day denounced as a blaggard lie. European imperialist vs. Israel follow the rule: Do as I say but not as I do.

משנה תורה – קידושין סוגיה א

To date we have weighed how the precedents of the maturity of the etrog, coupled with the dispute which differentiates the time that the fruit sprouts vs the time of the fruit harvested as precedents, to understand why its forbidden for a man to force a child who lacks the mental maturity to understand how the sex act accomplishes the Torah mitzva of קידושין. In point of fact this abstract idea even accomplished and famous rabbis lack clarity over what actually a man acquires through the mitzva of קידושין. Never met a single student in Yeshiva, when asked this basic question – that answered: קידושין acquires Title to the Nefesh O’lam Ha’Bah souls born into the future of this marital relationship. Our focus has centered upon perhaps the two most famous rabbinic buffoons Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale.

Gemara Halacha does not stand upon its own two legs as the statute halachic codifications infamously proclaim while preaching from their pedestals. Halacha ripped from the context of its Gemara sugiya directly compares to the פשט Chumash commentaries written by some of the most famous Reshonim, starting with Rashi’s commentary read in the manner, (according to the Chabad Moshiach Rebbe’s Rashi commentary), by a 5 year old child. Rashi p’shat does not stand divorced from its Primary Source precedents and how much more so from the Chumash to which it comments upon. This כלל applies to all Reshonim commentaries made upon the Chumash, the Talmud, and the Midrashim. My first year studying in a Yeshiva in Israel, it shocked me that my rabbinic instructors did not have the least bit of a clue how the Siddur serves as the model for the organization of the Sha’s Talmud!

The Yerushalmi, which I started to learn within my first month in Yeshiva, teaches that over 247 prophets – occupied in writing the Shemone Esrei. How many words does the 18 blessings of the Yerushalmi Shemone Esrei contain? The Shemone Esrei stands as the quintessential model wherein the Framers and editors of the Sha’s Talmud(s) edited and organized those most essential common law texts. Sha’s Sugiyot directly compare to the ברכות contained within the Shemone Esrei.

The Magen Avraham (מגן אברהם) opening blessing, directly aligns with the closing “Sim Shalom” closing blessing. This latter blessing, part of the Jewish liturgy which focuses tefillah, ie an oath created Angel – for peace, goodness, and blessings. The sugyot of the Talmud opens and closes with a “thesis statement” and a restated משנה תורה thesis statement. Likewise all points and issues raised in the body of each and every sugiya of Gemara falls within the sh’itta/line of the opening & closing thesis statement expressed in each and every sugiya of Gemara texts.

Siddur contains the שרש, meaning its a verb rather than a noun, like מלאכה – a verb rather than a noun, or like shalom כנגד peace a verb rather than a noun. This word מלאכה compares to – run or walk – verbs which describe actions. In like manner מלאכה describes the actions of skilled labor. Thus making it a verb and not a noun. It represents a different unique verb that does not communicate a specific clear action. Run & Walk as Olympic sports has an entirely different meaning than Run & Walk in normal usage.

Skilled labor or the need for trust for shalom to exist, separates the foundation of verbs from nouns. By focusing on actions, such as the action required to learn an off the dof precedent from a different mesechta of the Sha’s Bavli, this action rather than a passive noun of reading Reshonim commentary secondary sources, embodies dynamic relationships rather than merely conveying static Tur repeated Reshonim opinions. Its this unique quality which separates פרדס inductive reasoning from syllogism deductive reasoning. The one a dynamic logic format whereas the other a static logic format.

Learning an off the dof sugya of Gemara requires weaving that sugya perspective back to re-interpret both the language of that off the dof Mishna, as well as viewing the current studied sugya of Gemara viewed from a different perspective, and also making a משנה תורה re-interpretation of the language of the Home Mishna. By contrast reading a secondary source commentary focuses only upon the specific language contained within the sugya of the Home Gemara. Even the Baali Tosafot did not employ their off the dof precedents to re-interpret the original language of their Home Mishna!

The sin of the Golden Calf clearly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that words have their limitations. Word translations of Divine Names or middot not equal nor the same as the Spirits which breath life within Divine Names and tohor middot. The latter revelation of the 13 middot introduced the tohor Spirits which define the Oral Torah at Horev! A Venn diagram might best describe how verbs, nouns, words & Spirits overlap and interweave with one another. This subtle distinction the Creed based belief system theologies do not grasp. John 1:1 – In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Perhaps this one gospel verse best encapsulates the exact nature of Av tuma avoda zarah – expressed through the NT and the Koran creed belief system theologies which creates Gods from nothing.

Boris’s Arabic translation of Moreh Nevukim – Greek philosophy interpretation of Torah, baptized as Greek philosophy compares to the Hebrew T’NaCH translated unto the Xtian Old Testament bible perversions! Boris translated middot spirits as “physical attributes” – simply false, and totally wrong. The latter gross mistranslation of middot as physical attributes, implies that these spirits exist as physical qualities when in point of fact they do not. Middot serve as the basic elements which produce prophetic mussar, something like as do atoms in forming elements and molecules, proteins and fats as expressed through biology.

Concepts get lost through translations. An undergraduate scholar gets by with reading translated texts – as an introduction to the subject. A PhD scholar studies texts in their original languages. Because the NT, originally written in Greek, Xtian “scholars” (what a joke) they confuse Primary Sources with secondary translation, the priority of learning Hebrew and Aramaic of secondary importance to learning Greek & Latin. All Xtian translations of their bible abominations of av tuma avoda zarah stink with the foul smell of death corruption – like unto decaying bodies in Nazi mass graves of murdered Jews within the Death Camps. By their fruits you shall know them.

Modern 20th Century attempts to translate the Talmud, almost as corrupt as Xtian bible translations or the Muslim Koran throughout the Ages. Time-oriented tohor commandments create מלאכים יש מאין. Yet the Angel Gavriel dictated the Koran to Muhammad when that illiterate never learned the T’NaCH time-oriented wisdom. Who refers repeatedly about himself as “the prophet”. כלל: A person who testifies about himself – never believed. Why? Because he’s touching the matter, he has an ax to grind.

Boris’s Arabic Moreh Nevukim directly resembles Arabic writing styles, post publication of the Koran. He too writes extensively concerning prophets. Yet both Boris and Muhammad fail to grasp that T’NaCH prophets, like Sanhedrin courts, their jurisdiction limited strictly and only within the borders of the brit lands. Hence some mockers within the 10 Tribal kingdom of Israel would deride prophets, telling them to go back to the kingdom of Yechuda! The false prophets exposed within the Books of the NaCH, compare to both Boris and Muhammad. No Sanhedrin courts of common law No prophets – just that simple.

Prophets serve as police enforcers of Sanhedrin Judicial rulings. The prophet Yonah compares to the precedent set by Moshe Rabbeinu who established 3 Cities of Refuge with their small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Courtrooms on the other side of the Jordan river. The Tannaim within the pages of the Jerushalmi Talmud debated whether king David established a small Sanhedrin court in the city of Damascus. A small Sanhedrin court in newly conquered land means that the government has nationalized this land as part of the borders of Israel.

Profound deep ideas compare to the layers of an onion. Peeling an onion often entails shedding of tears. Impossible to read a translation and understand complex abstract ideas. Any more that mobs of screaming assimilated Jews in New York holding up placards: “Not in Our Name”, who base their emotional assimilated mob mentality upon little more than Newspaper copy or pictures and gossip! The political assassination of Charlie Kirk testifies that mob emotional over reactions can no more bear rational thought than can diseased European minds can heal their brain cancer of antisemitism.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
הלוקח לולב מחבירו בשביעית נותן לו אתרוג במתנה לפי שאין רשאי ללוקחו בשביעית. גמ. לא רצה ליתן לו במתנה. מהו? אמר רב הונא, מבליע ליה דמי אתרוג בלולב וליתיב ליה בהדיא לפי שאין מוסרין דמי פירות שביעית לעם הארץ

Profaning shabbat in a public manner qualifies as a חילל השם, the same equally applies to profaning shemitah etrog/4 species in public. Selling or giving shemitah fruits to someone untrustworthy Heter Mechira modern orthodox who publicly display a lack of reverence for holy produce, resulting in חילול השם – showing public contempt for Torah obedience. Allowing and paying workers to work on Shabbat could result in חילול השם, as it not only violates Shabbat laws but also potentially influences public perception of Torah honor and obedience.

Torah in this sense compares to honoring ones’ father and mother. In both cases, the essence of חילול השם centers on public behavior that disrespects sacred traditions. Whether through giving shemitah produce to the untrustworthy Heter Mechira modern orthodox or allowing work on Shabbat while providing compensation, both situations risk undermining the sanctity of our common law judicial system as its respect applies in a communal context. Members of Israeli society bear full responsibility for upholding the values and integrity of the Torah as the Constitution of our Republic. The idea of חילול השם ברבים equally applies to קידושין witnessed by at least two kosher shabbat observant witnesses and a minyan of Israel. Forced child marriage likewise qualifies as a public חילול השם. That our “friend” Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale validate קטנה ביאה קידושין would seem to qualify as לפי שאין מוסרין דמי פירות שביעית לעם הארץ.

אמר רב מחלוקת בפרי ראשון אבל בפרי [מעשר] שני דברי הכל בין דרך מקח בין דרך חילול והא דקתני לקח לקח איידי דתנא רישא לקח תנא נמי סיפא לקח איתיביה רבינא לרב אשי מי שיש לו סלע של שביעית וביקש ליקח בו חלוק כיצד יעשה ילך אצל חנווני הרגיל אצלו ואומר לו תן לי בסלע פירות ונותן לו וחוזר ואומר לו הרי פירות הללו נתונים לך במתנה והוא אומר לו הא לך סלע זו במתנה והלה לוקח בהן מה שירצה והא הכא דפרי שני הוא וקתני דרך מקח אין דרך חילול לא אלא א”ר אשי מחלוקת בפרי שני אבל בפרי ראשון ד”ה דרך מקח אין דרך חילול לא והא דקתני אחד שביעית ואחד מעשר שני מאי שביעית דמי שביעית דאי לא תימא הכי מעשר מעשר ממש והא כתיב (דברים יד) וצרת הכסף בידך אלא דמי מעשר הכא נמי דמי שביעת “דרך מקח”

(Derech mekkach) means (purchase), while “דרך חילול” refers to the concept of redemption or sanctifying items. Rav Ashi clarifies that the handling of מעשר שני fruits (which are viewed with less sanctity) has different rules compared to שביעית fruits. He emphasizes that while it’s permitted to purchase second fruits, it’s not permitted to engage in an act of redemption for them. The concept of how shemitah and מעשר שני respected, significantly impacts interactions among communal economic and agricultural practices, ensuring respect for Constitutional “rights” even in financial matters.

Rav Ashi does indicate that different rules for managing מעשר שני compared to שביעית. Specifically, he clarifies that while one may engage in transactions involving second tithe fruits, it’s not permissible to perform an act of redemption on them. Does this precedent imply that a father can sell his בת קטנה שאין לה דעת [in] קידושין על ידי ביאה? Based upon the Torah which evaluates the worth of young and old, based upon their different ages.

A bat ketana, a girl between the ages of 3 to 6 years, her father has the authority to make certain decisions on her behalf. The father can arrange a marriage for his bat ketana. He can sell her as a servant, on condition of קידושין at an age where she has דעת. Such a conditional קידושין must adhere to halachic principles, emphasizing the welfare and dignity of the child remain protected and respected.

Jewish law requires consent and respect for the individual’s autonomy, even if a father can Constitutionally sell off his בת קטנה as a maid servant. While a father has Constitutional rights regarding his bat ketana, these rights, definitely limited and restricted. Not absolute, and must be exercised in a manner that respects the child’s dignity and well-being. רבקה שאלה אם היא מסכימה ללכת עם אליעזר. Using bi’ah to effectuate kiddushin for a bat ketana, even one between the ages of 3 and 6, definitely problematic, both halachically and ethically. Thus, while the father has rights to make decisions on behalf of his daughter, the implications of those decisions must align with Jewish values and laws aimed at protecting the dignity of all individuals, most especially minors.

Having presented the first two legs of the syllogism now turn to the conclusion reached that follows our Gemara’s shared “sh’itta” line of reasoning.

אי הכי אתרוג נמי בת ששית הכנסת לשביעית היא, אתרוג בתר לקיטה אזלינן. והא בין ר”ג ובין ר’ אליעזר לענין שביעית אתרוג בתר חנטה אזלינן דתנן אתרוג שוה לאילן בג’ דרכים לערלה ולרבעי ולשביעית ולירק בדרך אחד שבשעת לקיטתו עישורו דברי רבן גמליאל. ר’ אליעזר אומר אתרוג שוה לאילן לכל דבר הוא

According to Rabbi Gamliel, while the etrog may be treated like a tree for most laws, it follows the rules of vegetables at the time of harvesting. This implies that the classification might depend on when it is picked rather than when it first sprouted. Rabbi Eliezer argues that the etrog, treated like a tree in every respect, suggesting that its status remains constant and influenced more by when it first buds (hantah) rather than when it is harvested. Boris indeed rules that the halacha follows the opinion of Rabbi Gamliel, indicating that the status of the etrog is determined at the time of harvesting (lekita) rather than when it first sprouts. This aligns with Rabbi Gamliel’s view that the etrog functions like a vegetable in this regard.

חדושי הרשב”א השלם. אתרוג שוה לאילן בג’ דרכים: אבל בתוס’ הקשו ליתני לכלאים. דירק בכרם אסור ואילן שרי. וליתני ארבעה כאילן ומשום הכי פירשו דהכא דין חנטה ולקיטה קתני. כלומר לערלה ולרבעי ולשביעית בתר חנטה כאילן. ולמעשר בתר לקיטה כירק. וכן פרש”י בעצמו במס’ ר”ה יד:ב.

According to the Rashba and as aligns with Rabbi Gamliel’s earlier position, the etrog – treated as a tree regarding certain mitzvot (like orlah and shemitah) and akin to a vegetables regarding ma’aser. The classification depends on two criteria: hantah (budding) for determining its status as a tree for certain laws and lekita (harvesting) for determining its status for others. For the purposes of shemitah, Rabbi Gamliel treats the etrog like a tree regarding issues like orlah and fruits of the shemitah year (as discussed, treated according to hantah). Understood in the contexts of קידושין, as the maturity of a young girl as the determinant for the mitzva of קידושין.

However, for ma’aser, he positions it as being determined at harvesting (lekita), indicating that the status of the etrog as a mitzvah based on its maturity at the time of picking impacts its halachic standing. The mitzva of קידושין does not recognize ma’aser as a valid precedent for קידושין. Rabban Gamliel does treat the etrog regarding shemitah in terms of when it has spouted, using that hantah for its classification. This means that its maturity and the time of picking (lekita) play roles in establishing its halachic status as a mitzvah for the four species on Sukkot. The laws governing קידושין operate under distinct principles and cannot simply rely on agricultural analogy.

The concept of using the etrog’s classifications (particularly regarding hantah and lekita) primarily applies in agricultural contexts and may not directly translate into personal status cases or marriage contracts. Hantah applies specifically to agricultural laws (like shemitah and orlah) and relates to factors affecting status at sprouting rather than directly influencing legal determinations regarding personal relationships.

Addressing the subject of קידושין, the maturity of a קטנה absolutely essential. Halachically, a קטנה can enter into a marriage contract, but her legal status regarding consent and obligation differs from more mature individuals. Both Torah & Halacha recognizes maturity through biological and social frameworks, focusing more on age and maturity, rather than agricultural analogies. Whatever the age of Rivka, she possessed the maturity to actively offers to draw water for both the servant and his camels, displaying generosity and initiative. Rivka exhibits kindness, industriousness, and a sense of responsibility. She acts decisively and goes beyond what is requested of her.

While the etrog serves as a useful metaphor under specific contexts, it doesn’t conclusively establish precedents for understanding ביאה with regard to a קטנה. The legal discussions surrounding קידושין involve different principles, such as consent, maturity, and the ability to fulfill the obligations of marriage—factors not inherently comparable to the agricultural considerations surrounding the etrog. The precedent of the etrog, while informative in its own right concerning agricultural laws, does not equate or qualify as a valid halachic source for learning about ביאה and קידושין as applicable to a קטנה. The laws governing these matters, distinctly nuanced and require principles rooted in personal status, consent, and maturity rather than agricultural classifications.

Boris divorced his statute law halachic code unto shoe-box legal classifications. As such he failed to weigh the halachic value measured as a precedent by which to interpret the k’vanna of the Home Mishna. This failure condemns his Yad/Tur\Aruch sh’itta of learning as false and wrong. Simply because his halachic codes fails to understand the Talmud in the context of the Talmud’s own usage of halachic precedents. This gross fundamental flaw, this flagrant error perverts his halachic opinions and makes them נידוי in comparison to the halachic common law code of the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh.

Hantah relates to the classification of agricultural products and the conditions under which they grow. It’s primarily concerned with agricultural laws, especially regarding the timing of certain commandments like shemitah and orlah. This concept focuses on the biological aspects of plant growth and does not lend itself well to personal or legal status issues such as marriage.

The maturity of a קטנה (minor girl) is crucial in the context of kiddushin. While a קטנה can technically enter into a marriage contract, her legal status regarding consent, obligations, and responsibilities is different from that of more mature individuals. Halachic discourse emphasizes biological and social maturity as essential criteria for entering into kiddushin. The focus remains on the individual’s capacity to understand and fulfill marital obligations.

While the etrog serves as a metaphorical example in some contexts, it lacks direct applicability to personal status cases, particularly regarding bi’ah and kiddushin. Legal discussions about marriage require principles rooted in individual consent, maturity, and the responsibilities that come with marital commitments, simply not inherently connected to agricultural classifications.

By divorcing statute law from common law precedents together with the nuanced halachic historical and cultural contexts, Boris misinterpreting the Talmud’s own legal framework and principles. Common law makes a פרדס depth analysis by means of making comparative precedents. But the style of the Sha’s Talmud of ‘Difficulty and Answer’ – requires that down stream generations challenge the validity and strength of precedents which the Gemara introduces. Its this essence which makes Talmud in point of fact to actually mean “study”.

A scholar must train his mind to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of precedents introduced. In a Court of Law; the Defense and Prosecuting Attorney absolutely must weigh the precedents raised by their opposing Justice. And compare a precedent introduced in the opposing Justice brief weighed against the merits of his own counter precedents.

The purpose of lateral Sanhedrin courtrooms, they pit an equal number of judges against an equal number of opposing justices. This Court hears a Case by pitting the two opposing sets of precedential briefs head to head one against the other. Court justices have the training and obligation to weigh the merits & demerits of a precedent weighed against different counter precedents.

A Sanhedrin Court does not “race” to determine religious ritual practices! This error the Reshonim commentaries expressly transgressed. The Talmud serves to introduce precedents in a Court Case, and not a religious debate of how to keep ritual halacha according to some specified authority figure – as it halacha depends upon some cult of personality. G’lut Jewry during the Dark and Middle Ages of absolute church tyranny, this harsh reality twisted rabbinic Judaism into establishing fixed religious practices and prioritizes rabbinic opinions over other equally valid rabbinic opinions. Dispersed Jewish g’lut communities with little or no inter-state communications required a simplified standardization of halacha.

These cruel harsh realities of g’lut forced leaders like the B’HaG, Rif, Baali Tosafot, and Rosh to concede to the public need to organize ritual religious halacha into some simplified codes of halachic law; the Smag – a Baali Tosafot pro Rambam halachic codifier. The racist violence G’lut Jewry had to endure meant that the common man did not have the means to study Talmudic common law; the chief justification for Boris’s over-simplified Yad. Only the cream of the crop merited to study in Yeshivot.

Boris’s Sefer HaMitzvot, another over-simplified static codification of Torah commandments which divorced Talmudic Oral Torah halacha, like his code likewise divorced his halachic organization from their Home Mishnaot and halacha from aggadic sources. His sefer Ha’Mitzvot perverted Torah commandments, reduced to positive and negative commandments restricted only to the language of the Written Torah. This utter bone headed mistake makes his Sefer Ha’Mitzvot on par with his Yad travesty of justice. Acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven entails the k’vanna of the chosen Cohen people; the unification of Written Torah and Oral Torah as ONE set of time-oriented Torah commandments. The perversion of ONE interpreted as justification for belief in Monotheism – an utter Torah abomination.

As the statute halachic codes perverted Talmudic common law unto Roman statute law; the same exact thumb up the ass error made with the Written Torah vs the Oral Torah justification of exactly why the church condemned the Talmud as having no part with the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. The Sefer בראשית introduces Av mitzvot time-oriented commandments – inclusive of the halachot within the Sha’s whose k’vanna determined by the Aggadic and Midrashic drosh made upon prophetic mussar from the T’NaCH.

This crucial component of the Sha’s Bavli all the halachic codes totally ignored. Jews simply stopped or forgot that the framers of Midrash wrote those texts to serve as a commentary to the Aggada of the Talmud. The Aggada makes a פרדס דרוש\פשט directly to the T’NaCH Primary Sources. Prophetic mussar planted as seeds within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within our heart blooms into unique understandings. These understandings become the פשט meaning of Aggadic stories original intent. The next three Books of the Written Constitution of the Republic of Israel introduces קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה תולדות בניני אבות מצוות שלא צריך כוונה. The last Book of the Written Constitution of the Republic of Israel introduces משנה תורה-Common law courts. Common law stands upon the יסוד של בניני אבות precedents, based upon Sefer דברים. Herein defines the Order of the Sha’s Bavli and Yerushalmi.

Talmudic scholarship, according to the k’vanna of its Framers, seeks that down stream generations weave Aggadic prophetic mussar p’shat as the heart dedication of keeping halachic mitzvot whose aliya unto tohor time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna raises these rabbinic ritual observances unto mitzvot דאורייתא through פרדס רמז\סוד logic. Boris abandoned and caused Israel to forget the Oral Torah; he blew out the Hanukkah lights.

Zionism, which means Jewish self determination in the Middle East, denounces g’lut Jewry. It empathizes with their cruel plight Goyim barbarians forced them to endure. But it denounces as a war crime the Roman obliteration of Judean Judicial Constitutional common law courts perverted over the Centuries unto ritual religious observances.

Post the ’48 and ’67 two Wars of National Independence, can our people find it within their hearts to pursue the Zionist dream and achieve self-determination which restores the Written Torah as the Constitution of our Republic of 12 Tribes and the Sanhedrin common law courtroom Federal system of common law enforced by means of Prophetic police. Emphasis upon “common law”, because Boris and his Snidely Whiplash boot licking cronies have perverted T’NaCH\Talmudic common law unto Greek/Roman egg-crate statute law. Can our people achieve self-determination and achieve Legislative Review as a Torah mandate for the Great Sanhedrin Court to regulate, in the manner that a bureaucracy has overview upon Industry, all statute laws passed by our Knesset Parliament?

Not enough to cast the grave of Rambam upon the dung heaps of history.

The Avot—Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov—represent different paradigms of connection with God and expressions of faith. Not like Avraham who called it [the Beis Hamikdash] “mountain,” and not like Yitzchak who called it “field,” but rather like Yaakov who called it “house. . .” (Pesachim 88a)… What an utterly pathetic mistranslation!

The story of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov centered upon the wells they dug for their sheep. But only idiots assume that the Avot lived their lives as simple shepherds of sheep and goats! The Beis Hamikdash not some glorified slaughter house! It housed both the Great Sanhedrin and a Small Sanhedrin Federal Courtroom of Common Law!

The story of the korbanot dedicated by Kayin neged Hevel centers upon the choice of who merits to live as the chosen Cohen son! Kayin, like Yishmael, & Esav born as the first born son! A major Torah theme played throughout the Sin of the Golden Calf and the replacement of the first born son with the Tribe of Levi!

The prophetic mussar of the rejection of the korban dedicated by Kayin, HaShem does not recognize korbanot as a barbeque to heaven, a תולדות קום ועשה מצוה!!!! A korban requires that a person swears a Torah oath – through the altar like unto standing before a Sefer Torah – מלכות dedicates as specific tohor middah – like a toldoth “blessing” of oaths requires שם ומלכות – committing to the eternal pursuit of justice/צדק צדק תרידוף. Just that simple.

The Torah does not compare to Av tuma avoda zarah which prioritizes “Great theological themes” concerning belief in different Gods — the Lord vs Allah — any more that the Book of ויקרא commands offering korbanot as a ritual commandment like the קום ועשה תולדות הלכות of the Shulkan Aruch do not require k’vanna! Simple קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות, do not require k’vanna. This definition makes them secondary commandments to time-oriented commandments!

The Talmud has a warp/weft Halacha\Aggada loom like structure which weaves the garments, comparable to the Book of שמות garments made for the House of Aaron! Its not the literal garments of the House of Aaron משל but rather the customs and culture of the House of the Chosen Cohen people נמשל. The נמשל defines the כוונה of the משל; as such time-oriented commandments Av commandments.

The Torah not some glorified Book of Jewish religion similar to the Books of the New Testament and Koran Av tuma avoda zarah! The Torah serves as the Constitution of the Republic of 12 Tribes; it serves the same exact function as the Constitution of the United States – basic Law! Based upon the 1st Sinai Commandment. אני ה’ אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים. This the greatest of all Torah commandments – Jews who live in G’lut cannot accept the Torah as the Constitution of our Republic לשמה. G’lut Jewry cursed like Kayin, forced to worship av tuma avoda zarah as a religious belief system theology rather than as the substance of leaving Egypt to conquer Canaan.

Off the דרך Orthodox Judaism declared their av tuma declaration of faith – in the early Twentieth Century – when they declared Zionism as both secondary and foreign to the Torah faith. Absolutely a direct repetition of the Wilderness Generation which condemned the First Born Generation to accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai as not having a portion to the World to Come.

The Avot: falsely perceived as but a simple משל “mountain”, or “field”, or “house”, in equal like manner the משל בית המקדש. The lives of the Avot introduce the נמשל dedication – pursuit of justice within the oath sworn lands of Canaan. G’lut Jews who remain in exile cannot accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – the first commandment – לשמה, because they live their lives permanently in g’lut with no real or honest intention to make aliya. No different than the Shoah Wilderness Generation which has no portion in the World to Come.

The Book of בראשית introduces אב טהור זימן גרמא מצוות, like the Aggada of the Sha’s makes a דרוש\פשט to the prophetic mussar taught through the Books of the T’NaCH! Wisdom requires “shepherds” to weave the wool and linen threads of Halacha and Aggadah unto “garments” that the House of Aaron can wear in the “Beit HaMikdosh”. Obviously mixing wool & linen requires k’vaana as a time-oriented mitzva!

Only Jews who live in the oath sworn lands, who dedicate their Zionism as the eternal pursuit of self-determination to rule these lands with Sanhedrin lateral common law courts of Federal justice; as the basis of law of the Republic over the secondary Government rule of law by statute government Knesset decrees. Herein defines the meaning of Zionism post ’48 and ’67 Independence Wars victories! Common law judicial law the נמשל priority over Statute Law Knesset משל תולדות law. Do the Toldoth follow the Avot Yes or No? The defining question asked by Mesechtot Shabbat and Baba Kama.

The pursuit of judicial justice shares no common ground with personal belief systems/Creeds of faith about Gods in Heaven. Torah justice in this Earth, not in the Heaven skies above. Theological belief systems Av tuma avoda zarah. G’lut Jews cannot, by definition of the first Sinai commandment, possess genuine intention or moral integrity to accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, they remain in g’lut. Only within the borders of the oath sworn lands of alliance can Jews establish self determination of ruling the lands of Canaan with righteous Judicial common law justice. Sanhedrin common Law, UNLIKE the Rambam, Tur, Beit Yosef & Shulkan Aruch statute religious codes of ritual halacha,, centers upon judicial rulings which achieve fair restitution of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews.

Ritual religious observances do not weave the woolen & linen garments as time-oriented commandments. Av tohor time-oriented commandments they weave the culture and customs practiced by the Chosen Cohen Nation within the borders of the Jewish State of Israel.

G’lut Jews their Beit Din – a joke. The three Justices of their Torts court, do not divide their duties as Prosecuting כנגד Defense justices – who argue their opposing cases before one another through bringing halachic precedents, like as the Gemara does to each and every Mishna which it comments upon!

Religious ritual observances share no common ground with righteous common law courts of law; any more than do the Yad, Tur, Aruch assist students to study Talmudic common law. Torah does not “compare” to a Constitution any more than does a דיוק נמשל actually compares to its משל metaphor.

Employment of משל\נמשל a method of Hebrew speech. Children only understand the simple stories. Adults who cling to the understanding of children – what an utter disgrace. The challenge of maintaining a strong Jewish identity in g’lut … antisemitism-the curse of Amalek.

Jewish assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim invokes the curse of the 2nd Sinai commandment from generation to generation. Herein explains why the B’HaG ruled that the mitzva of reading the M’gillah qualifies as a time oriented commandment from the Torah.

The ever repeated conclusions made by generation after generation of g’lut Jews, that they can live in peace in g’lut – utterly false. Herzl understood that the curse of European antisemitism has no cure. Its a cancer of the Goyim minds which no doctor can heal. Only Jews who commit to leaving g’lut Egypt, a לאו דוקא משל, and making aliya to Israel — possess the potential to acquire Zionism – Jewish self determination to pursue justice among and between our own people.

Time to remove the grave of the Goy Maimonides unto a Non Jewish Grave Yard.

Rambam changed T’NaCH mussar – common law and Talmudic halachic – common law, unto Roman statute law. Two day and night – different legal systems. Truth,,, the Torah defines as path/halacha. The Rambam statute law halacha took Yiddishkeit completely of this משנה תורה common law path דרך.

Not only the court of Rabbeinu Yonah imposed the ban of נידוי upon this non Jewish רשע; just as a Ger Tzeddick becomes a “new creation” so too the רשע – the ban of charem makes that רשע into a non Jewish Goy. In 1232 the rabbis of Paris agreed with the Court of Rabbeinu Yona in Spain and likewise imposed a נידוי ban upon Maimonides. 10 years later the King of France together with the Poop of Rome burned all the Talmudic manuscripts in Paris France. In 1306 all Jews expelled from France. This permanently destroyed the French Rashi/Tosafot Schools of Talmudic common law scholarship!

Jewish rabbinic revisionist history pretends that a majority of the Baali Tosafot despised the Rambam as a רשע. Only twice in the whole of the Tosafot commentary upon the Talmud does the Baali Tosafot quote an opinion on halacha made by Maimonides. Both times the Baali Tosafot disputed that opinion as valid halacha! After the disaster in Paris 1242, 10 year after the Baali Tosafot placed the ban of נידוי upon Maimonides, Rabbeinu Yonah’s attempt to remove the books of the Rambam from rabbinic literature, comparable to the writings of Spinoza, collapsed. The Rambam Civil War blew out the lights of Hanukkah!!!!!

A Jewish Civil War which predated by at least a Century the rise of the New Testament abomination. Maimonides took up the revolt led by the Tzeddukim and later Karaites – both of whom rejected the Oral Torah as defined by the kabbala of rabbi Akiva’s 4 part פרדס inductive logic system. Both sects of Judaism preferred to assimilate and embrace the ancient Greek 3 part syllogism deductive logic model.

Statute law does not and cannot understand the Talmud. Read the statute law halachic codes of the Rambam Tur or Beit Yosef/Shulkan Aruch — tits on a boar hog! These statute law codes do not instruct how the Gemara halachic precedents interpret the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna! Not so the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh common law halachic codes! The latter understands that the Gemara halachic ruling serve most essentially as precedent to re-interpret – משנה תורה – the language of the Home Mishna. The statute halachic codes do not have the least bit of a clue which Mishna the Gemara halachic rulings serve as precedents. Statute law does not stand upon the foundation of precedents as does judicial common law.

Mark the contrast between T’NaCH common law legalism from Xtian propaganda preaching theology.

Proverbs 16:1-10 located within the T’NaCH sugya/sub-chapter of 15:20 – 17:24. The NT avoda zara propaganda rhetoric narishkeit trash “loves” to quote T’NaCH sources taken out of context. The bible abomination of the church perverted translations – Universally corrupt and evil. Taking an idea out of its surrounding contexts defines propaganda NOT T’NaCH common law. The NT Roman forgery would make Joseph Goebbels, the Propganda Minister of Nazi Germany – PROUD.

Taking T’NaCH sources ripped apart from their contexts compares to how abortion clinics employ suction to rip apart heads feet legs of unborn babies from its mothers’ womb for money. God has the same letters as DOG. The NT fulfilling the words of the Prophets – a brutal abortion of T’NaCH literature. The Old Testament bible of the church – an utter abomination! It replaces the natural order of sugya context replaced by the church perversion of Chapters and verses. Pardon me as I puke.

T’NaCH faith all about the pursuit of justice and fair restitution of damages inflicted upon others. The church whore turned faith into a theological creed belief system which created Gods from nothing. The Koran did the same Av tuma avoda zara with the creation of Allah. Both belief systems despise the Torah faith that enshrines the righteous pursuit of judicial justice. Judicial common law courtrooms share nothing in common with Cult of personality decrees; Paul declared to Goyim: YOU ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW. His propaganda half-truth failed to discern that 1) Goyim rejected the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, so naturally Goyim not under the Law. Goyim never taken out of Egypt by HaShem. They remain in foreign lands and countries; the oath sworn to Avraham that the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot would inherit the oath sworn lands of Canaan. And rule those oath sworn brit alliance lands with judicial common law justice. 2) Roman law – statute law not common law. A day vs night difference which the church whore of Babylon has totally ignored for 2000+ years; on par with the church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf. The church bible duplicates the sin of the Golden Calf in that it translates the 1st commandment Spirit Name unto word translations. No word can translate the Name of HaShem – that’s the sin of the Golden Calf!

Xtian believers have no sincerity. Proof: Never in 2000+ years has even a single Xtian or Muslim “believer” ever caught the Golden Calf Av tuma that Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. If only ONE GOD then no need to command the second commandment; all the Books of the Prophets which address the tuma worship of other Gods, starting with Par’o and the Egyptian worship of other Gods, followed by all the kings of Canaan who worshipped other Gods! Goyim have no t’shuva, they remember nothing of their past war crimes against humanity because they have absolutely no shame.

T’NaCH simply not read as a novel. The church whore never grasped the basics of T’NaCH common law. Common law stands upon the foundation of precedents. The arrangement of the Holy Writings within the Books of the T’NaCH serves as a precedent for the later arrangement of the Gemara commentary to the Mishna. Rabbi Yechuda the Chief Justice of the Great Sanhedrin Court codified his common law Mishna in 210 CE. Why did he name this common law codification of Great Sanhedrin judicial ruling by the name Mishna? Because the 5th Book of the Written Torah, known as D’varim, has a second name: Mishna Torah. What does Mishna Torah mean? Answer: Common Law. Hence rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna codifies Great Sanhedrin Courtroom ruling organized as “Common Law” – hence “Mishna”.

As the Holy Writings Books of T’NaCH literature serve as a commentary to the Books of the Prophets of the NaCH so too the Gemara duplicates/mirrors the Holy Writings Books of T’NaCH, it makes a common law commentary to interpret the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna. The whore of Babylon church abomination never grasped the obvious; it preferred to burn the Talmud (which means learning) predating the Nazi book burnings of the 1930s. Goyim have no t’shuva because they do not remember the war crimes committed by generations of church believers across the millennia of their Par’o like injustice and oppression. All the church great cathedrals built through serf slave labor. It took the American and French Revolutions to cast the whore of Babylon church upon the dung heaps of history ie 1) Separation of Church from State 2) citizens rather than feudal serfs. 3) taxation without representation.

T’NaCH a common law legal system – just that simple. Common law stands upon the foundation of making logical Case/Rule judical comparative rulings. The Book of Proverbs serves as a “Gemara” commentary to the Books of the “Mishna” Prophets. That’s how the Game played in order to righteously pursue judicial justice – no fancy dance’n. The sugya of Proverbs aligns with the NaCH Book of Yirmeyahu/Jeremiah 10:22-25. Just as the Gemara serves its Mishna through comparative precedents so too the Holy Writings serves the NaCH Books of the Prophets through comparative precedents. This requires inductive logic as opposed to deductive logic. The church whore of Babylon has never developed a systematic inductive reasoning thought process – not to this very day! How utterly bankrupt and pathetic.

The mussar of the sugya of Proverbs interprets the k’vanna of Yirmeyahu’s prophetic mussar for all generations of Israel. Only Jews within the borders of the oath sworn lands can do mitzvot לשמה, based upon the 1st Commandment of Sinai. HaShem brought Israel out of Egypt, Jews in g’lut remain in Egypt. Therefore Jews in g’lut worship other Gods, just as Par’o worshipped other Gods. Israel accepted only the first Two Sinai commandments till Moshe instructed the rest of the Torah revelation after the Oral Torah interpreted the intent of all Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot – as viewed through the prism of tohor time-oriented Av Torah commandments. The Torah brit – ruling the land with justice vs g’lut. Blessing vs. curse. Life vs. Death — choose.

A D’varim/Mishna Torah בנין אב\precedent: D’varim 5:16-18. Bereshit 3:14 – 21. The story of Adam first introduces g’lut. The story of Cain likewise introduces how a son dishonors his parents by assuming that offering a barbeque to heaven equals dedication through an oath alliance the commitment to pursue justice among the chosen Cohen People.

משנה תורה – קידושין Common Law

Shalom and Howdy from Israel. As a Jew I am an atheist praise the Gods. Theology and Creed based belief systems an abomination to me. Torah faith defined as the pursuit of judicial justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted. Torah law – a judicial common law system. The idea that the State pays the salaries of judges and prosecuting attorneys – bribery. Revolutionary America despised the vertical Star Courts whose bought and paid for judges justified and validated British impressment of American sailors, stolen off of American ships on international waters…The behavior of the American courts toward Trump before and after he won the election – day and night difference! What a total disgrace, proof that the American judicial system totally corrupt together with Nancy Pelosi and her ilk who made 100s of millions from insider trading! Forced to resign in disgrace from Congress, but that hardly qualifies as justice.

Torah defines “love” as ownership. A man cannot love that which he does not own. The Talmud interprets love through theft of his property. It teaches the mussar that a person attaches a portion of his soul to his owned property. “Life liberty and property” to keep this in an American context. Torah common law learns “love” through the mitzva of קידושין. Marriage – a man acquires his wife! But a woman simply not a slave or a whore – which can be bought and sold! So what does a man “acquire” through Cash, Contract, or Sex?

Torah a common law legal system. Common law stands upon the central premise that it requires similar Case/Rule precedential judicial rulings. American literature 101 calls this “Compare and Contrast”. The opposite of marriage – divorce. קידושין כנגד גט. A evil man who divorces his wife but treacherously refuses to give her her “Get”/גט makes this woman a “jailed”/agunah woman. This woman if she has a child from another man without her “get” births bastard children. How does this legal condition qualify as being – at all fair and just?

A superficial reactionary reading of the language of the Torah/Talmud – known as פשט – has no explanation. Hence rabbinic Judaism stuck in a טיפש פשט bird-brained box thinking unjust legal system! This type of law known as חוקים. Torah common law – judicial courtroom law based upon precedent similar Case/Rule -rulings made by earlier courts. Queer statute law Judaism – utterly perverted.

Torah Law (חוקים) has nothing to do with the absurd-unknowable divine revelation. That’s Xtian and Muslim avoda zarah whose theologies and creed belief systems create their Gods from nothing other than Human belief systems. Mishnaic Common law originated from human experiences and societal needs rather than some pie in the sky divine angelic command like Muhammad’s Koran. Mishnaic common law – Court room judicial rulings.

What does “derived from oral traditions/Oral Torah even mean? The kabbala taught by rabbis Akiva and Yishmael and Yossi HaGalilee פרדס ומידות. Herein defines “Oral Torah”. פרדס not a mystical interpretation but rather a 4 part inductive reasoning logic system. Its stands separate and apart from Plato and Aristotlte’s 3 part syllogism deductive reasoning logic system.

Unlike the syllogistic method of deduction which dominates Greek philosophy (i.e., moving from general principles to specific conclusions), Pardes employs a fluid inductive comparative analysis approach. This means that insights, derived from similar precedent Case/Rule judicial rulings. As a loom has a warp – weft, the Talmud has halacha – aggada.

The latter entails making a דרוש\פשט of T’NaCH prophetic mussar, which the Talmud, which means learning, cleverly weaves through רמז\סוד transforming toldot-secondary commandments & halachot – which do not require k’vanna – unto time-oriented commandments which do require k’vanna. Raising the status of rabbinic halachot to Torah time-oriented commandments defines how the Talmud/Oral Torah halachot – ritual religious observances – qualify as commandments from the Torah revelation at Sinai. Hence the reason why Oral Torah requires common law judicial precedents. Time not determined by a clock but rather prophetic mussar k’vanna. A fundamental רב חסד מאי נפקא מינא.

גופא, which means returning back to the original discussion following a digression. What does a man acquire through the “action” of קידושין? He acquires title to the woman’s “Nefesh O’lam Ha’Bah soul. What does this mean? Answer: her future born children. Based upon the precedent of Avram’s complaint to HaShem: ‘What can you give me seeing that I have no children to inherit my wealth’? This question defines the oath alliance sworn – commonly known as the brit between the pieces, as found in Parsha לך לך – the 3rd Parsha of the Book of בראשית. Upon this bedrock foundation stands the Torah mitzva of both קידושין וגט. We have completed the circle.

Why are the children which an Agunah woman births considered “bastards”? The mitzva of קידושין the man swears a Torah oath before two witnesses and a minyon of 10 men (like the 10 spies in the days of Moshe, or the 10 plagues or the 10 commandments etc – meaning a public event). Swearing a Torah oath/brit cut upon the soul of a man. What defines the soul of a Man? Answer: His children. The birth of his children, understood as his portion in O’lam Ha’bah!

But that רשע who refuses to give his ex wife her “get” too faces a horrific בנין אב precedent! Just as the גר צדק/convert qualifies as a “new creation” so too the Court has the power to impose the ban of נידוי/cherem upon this רשע which makes him a “new creation” – not Jewish. Race or DNA do not determine the Jewishness of a child. Similar to how the ticking of time on a clock likewise does not shape nor determines time-oriented commandments! Only the mother determines the Jewishness of any child born in this world. Hence the court can retroactively annul the original קידושין and issue a גט to this chained woman permitting her to marry a far more worthy man.

The language of the קריא שמע, law essentially interprets language, בכל נפשך – specifically “contract law”. Torah understood as a contract and not a theological creed belief system. Hence the wisdom of the Oral Torah it interprets the contract of the Written Torah oath brit alliance through out the generations. Interpretation of texts fluid like the falling of rain in its due season. פרדס inductive logic a dynamic rather than static syllogism deductive reasoning model. The skill required to design moving parts like as in an internal combustion engine, a completely different engineering skill than designing a fixed bridge which spans a river.

European EU states hostile to Israeli dominance in directing the balance of power across Middle Eastern states rabidly oppose attempts made by Israel in increase their influence in the UN.

Many critics, specifically EU, Russian, Chinese imperialist states, argue that enhanced Israeli influence could result in a biased approach to international diplomacy, particularly concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Other countries don’t have conflicts? This “perception of bias” utterly absurd. The UN has absolutely no credibility as a neutral mediator – based upon all the UN condemnations of Israel. The PLO Charter of 1964 only referred to ’48 Israel as “occupied territory”.

Post ’67 UN propaganda which unilaterally declares Samaria/west bank and Gaza as “occupied” utter revisionist history. Attempts to hold Israel accountable for winning the ’48 and ’67 wars? What complete and utter trash! Blood libel slanders which unilaterally condemn Israel for human rights violations yet ignores the slaughter of Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich 1972 and the bus bombing terrorism which forced Israel to build a separation fence – utter revisionist history. Palestinians as stateless dhimmi refugees have no rights. Not in any Arab country and not in Israel!

Palestine as a mandate territory ceased to exist in 1948. Israel’s growing influence in the UN can have ripple effects on U.S. foreign policy and its relationships with other countries in the Middle East. The dynamics could shift alliances and alter strategies of regional powers. What’s wrong with Israel promoting their own strategic interests like any other UN member state?

The Reshonim commentaries upon the Talmud reflect how over time later generations can change, invert, modify, mutate the original language of the T’NaCH\Talmud common law system altered unto a Goyim style statute legal system. An example of the UN established to prevent another Shoah but thereafter condemns Israel for genocide. The US Constitution established a Republic of economic autonomous States unto a post Civil War democracy wherein Washington mananged a Central Controlled economy.

The Articles of Confederation did not mandate an Executive Branch in the Central Government. The Framers envisioned a small Federal Government; their rebellion against the British King made them wary of a strong central authority. The post WWII Big Brother Federal Government serves as an example of what the Founding Fathers rebelled against the British Crown.

The Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) originally intended to give Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states and foreign nations – inter-state trade. Inter-State trade expanded to include trade and commerce between States of the Union regulated by Washington bureaucrats. Hence the Framers wrote the Commerce Clause with the intent to create a balance that would facilitate trade among states of the Union while preventing any single state monopoly from having undue influence over commerce. Hence the rejection of Central Government established monopolies, starting with a Central (Federal Reserve) Bank.

Lincoln, often considered the first Radical Republican, adopted measures that increased federal power during the Civil War, despite his initial respect for states’ rights. Lincoln’s Hamiltonian views concerning the establishment of a Federal banking monopoly crystalized in forcing Banks to keep Treasury Notes and the fiat Greenback currency, through which he financed the Civil War.

The post Civil War Inter-State Commerce Act institutionalized Washington as Big Brother over the States reduced to being “counties” within the Federal Government. Socialist Centralized Planning FDR would later initiate consequent to Wilson’s establishment of a Federal monopoly Federal Reserve. Small wonder that Wilson’s establishment of a Federally established private banking monopoly, a policy which mirrors European economic traditions, that the US almost immediately there after permanently joined the Allied military alliance, due to the huge loans the Federal Reserve gave to England and France, prior to the US joining the Allied Alliance. This fundamentally abrogated Washington’s command not for the US to join into any European alliance.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
משנה תורה קידושין פרק א סוגיה א

Having made a review of Boris Badenov, and Natasha Fatale, must now return back to the 2nd to last line of :ב.
דתנן: (בז’ דרכים), אתרוג שוה לאילן בג’ דרכים. ליתני דברים משום דבעינן מתני סיפא, ולירק דברך אחד. סיפא נמי ניתני דבר התם הא קמשמע לן דדרכיה דאתרוג כירק

Why do the halachic codifications compare to tits on a boar hog, when a student studies the Talmud? Reshonim and Acharonim scholarship prioritized learning halacha divorced from the Talmud. Hence their codes of halacha fails to learn halacha in context to how it serves as a precedent to interpret the original language of the Mishna. In this particular instance, does the maturity of a child impact the mitzva of קידושין. Our Villains, Badenov and Fatale argue that child rape through ביאה qualifies as kosher קידושין. The Gemara brings the בנין אב של אתרוג as a precedent proving that maturity determines the validity of mitzvot. The halachic statute law codifications have no awareness what so ever of how the Gemara employs halachic issues as precedents to re-interpret the original intent of the language of the Home Mishna. Herein the Reshonim and Acharonim scholarship took down stream generations off the דרך.

Recall that Natasha Fatale declared money as a rabbinic acquisition, it seems important to bring the RambaN’s commentary to this Gemara.
חדושי רבינו משה בן נחמן קידושין: בכסף בשטר ובביאה. דוקא נקט סידרא, דכתיב כי יקח היינו כסף והדר כתיב ובעלה, משום הכי אקדמיה לכסף מקמי ביאה. ושטר משום דדמי לכסף. שכן קונין בהן שאר דברים וקנינן מרובה, סמכו ענין לו, ואע”פ שבכתוב כסף וביאה סמוכין. ולמאי דמפקינן נמי כסף מויצאה חנם (לקמן ג,ב), ההיא לומר דקידושי דאה הוו, אבל מ”מ כסף דקני מכי יקח נפקא והדר ובעלה. ולר’ יוחנן (לקמן ט,ב) דמפיק ביאה מבעולת בעל, איכא למימר דכיון דעיקר כל קנין כסף הוא [מדרשא – הגראז] חביבא ליה ואקדמיה, א”נ כיון דכת’ כי יקח והדר ובעלה אקדמיה לכסף – money before intercourse.

In the matter of אתרוג the Torah raise the קום ועשה מצוה של ערלה. Boris Badenov’s statute halacha totally ignored this precedent of אתרוג in the acquisition of קידושין involving a minor child. His code divorced this key precedent and how the Amoraim employed it to interpret the intent of the language of the Mishna.

Natasha Fatale’s כסף משנה commentary absolutely failed to correct this gross fundamental socialist perversion made by Boris Badenov’s statue law halachic over-simplification, and שב ולא תעשה assimilation unto Greek\Roman statute law.

אתרוד שוה לאילן בג’ דרכים, לערלה ולרבעי ולשביעית. פירש רש”י ז”ל שערלה ורבעי נוהגין בו באילן [the initial formation of fruit]ולשביעית שהולכים בפירותיו אחר חנטה

,כאילן ולא אחר לקיטה כירק. ודקדקו עליו וליתני נמי לפאה ולשכחה דאי דמי לאילן ליתני ה’ אי דמי לירק דלא מחייב ליתני ג’ לירק. וזו אינה קודיא, דאי מחייב לאו דומיא דאילן הוא, דאיכא נמי ירק דמחייב, כל שמכניסו לקיום (פאה פ”ג מ”ד) כגון מלבנות הבצלים וחיטה וכל חמישה מינין דלאו אילן נינהו. ואי לא מחייב, לאו דומיא דירק הוא דליתני לירק, דאיכא אילן דלא מחייב כגון תאנה כדתנן בדוכתא (פאה פ”א מ”ד, פ”ג מ”ד) משום – הכילא תננהו – [fruits are gathered gradually]. This last clause introduces a completely different subject than maturity. The RambaN refers to their pattern of harvesting, not the ripening process whereas our Gemara, it seems to me, brings this precedent to address האשה נקנית as it applies to a daughter whom the father can sell without her consent.

A minor daughter has two qualities (1) he can sell her as a maid servant without her consent. (2) The person who acquires this “property” cannot acquire title to her Nefesh O’lam Ha’bah through bi’ah, till she has the maturity to possess the discernment of what this bi’ah acquires. Kiddushin through intercourse fundamentally requires da‘at; whereas kiddushin through money relates to the father’s authority. The authority of the father not a rabbinic fence around the Torah “authority”. כסף, שטר וביאה serve as angles of analysis on the mishnaic blueprint — each with different halachic implications tied to maturity, da‘at, and precedent. Bi’ah with a minor cannot sanctify kiddushin.

Our Gemara now makes a בנין אב גזרה שוו to :ר”ה יד:, וסוכה לט. A כלל in how the Gemara interprets the language of its Home Mishna, all halachic subjects raised by the Gemara function as בניני אבות precedents wherein the Amoraim interpret the k’vanna intent of the Mishnaic language. The Framers of the Talmud never had any intention to organize these precedent halachot into Greek/Roman statute shoe-box egg-crates. Furthermore, the editors of both the Bavli and Yerushalmi organized each and every sugya of Gemara as complete-intact-whole units. In this sense, a sugya of Gemara compares to a static bridge which spans a river. Static engineering far simpler than dynamic engineering; the former depends on linear geometry and algebra, whereas the latter requires Calculus variables and other forms of Higher mathematics.

A scholar needs to interpret the precedent sugya quickly in his effort to understand how this off the dof sugya serves as a changed perspective which views the shared גזרה שוו common denominator clause from a completely different angle as view from the Gemara of קידושין views this precedent viewed from a completely different perspective.

This Gemara כלל, how to understand the language of the Gemara across the Sha’s — Boris Badenov & Natasha Fatale triggered a ירידות הדורות domino effect which cursed all downstream generations with their Av tuma avoda zarah. The foreign alien Goyim theology whose substitution theology transposes Power AS God. Regardless of the dogma: Be it the Nicene Creed or the revelation of the Koran dictated by an Angel, both religions of avoda zara orbited the shared central axis of military conquest and Power. Wrapped ever so beautifully in the shiny deception of belief in God. Both religions made it a religious obligation to conquer the World and force all Man Kind to believe in their Universal monotheism Gods.

Each sugya of בנין אב Gemara has an opening Thesis Statement. A closing re-statement but re-phrased thesis statement. And all halachic issues raised within the body of the sugya exist somewhere along this two-point sugya sh’itta/line. This rigid fixed quality of each and every Gemara sugyot permits a scholar to make a syllogism three-point deductive reasoning to quickly grasp the angle of perspective of this בנין אב סודיה. The simplicity of the Framers design compares to the inherit rigid strength of a triangle.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
דתנן ר”ה: באחד בשבט ראש השנה לאילן כדברי בית שמאי. בה”א בחמישה עשר בו. גמ. סוגיה אחרונה לפני תנן: בארבע פרקים העולם דידון. דף יד: מ”ט אמר רבי אלעזר א”ר אושעיא הואיל ויצאו רוב גשמי שנה ועדיין רוב תקופה מבחוץ מאי קאמר? ה”ק אע”פ שרוב תקופה מבחוץ הואיל ויצאו רוב דשמי. ת”ר מעשה בר”ע שליקט אתרוג באחד בשבט ונהג בו שני עישורין אחד כדברי ב”ש ואחד כדברי ב”ה וגו’……. אמר רבי יוחנן נהגו העם בחרובין כרבי נחמיה איתיביה ר”ל לרבי יוחנן בנות שוח שביעתי שלהן שניה מפני שעושות לשליש השנים אישתיק ……… דתנן אתרוג שוה לאילן בג’ דרכים לערלה ולרבעי ולשביעית ולירק בדרך אחד שבשעת לקיטתו עישרו דברי ר”ג ר’ אליעזר אומר אתרוג שוה לאילן לכל דבר

העיקר — מה עושה הסוגיה של האתרוג? The Mishnah’s short formula — “אתרוג שוה לאילן בג’ דרכים — לערלה, לרביעי, ולשביעית; ולירק בדרך אחד” — not a botanical description but a legal index: some mitzvot treat the etrog like a tree (because they look to חנטה / formative moment) and some like a vegetable (because they look to לקיטה / the act of harvest). The Gemara then spins that hinge into a general method: when a mitzva’s norm is tied to formation/appearance we apply one set of rules; when it’s tied to picking/transfer we apply another.

איך זה מיישם את מישנת ראש-השנה (אחד־בחודש / ט״ו) How does this apply to the Mishnah of Rosh Hashanah (the first of the month / the 15th?

That dispute is fundamentally about which moment determines halachic belonging: the moment of חנטה / becoming part of the tree, or the moment of לקיטה / becoming gathered. When the Gemara records that people have customs (e.g. to follow בית שמאי או בית הלל or follow actual practices of איסוף), it is doing exactly the same juridical move as the etrog sugya: it asks which legal clock ticks for this mitzva. Thus the Rosh Ha-Shana Mishnah’s language about dates and customs is explained by the same binyan-av: the date that counts depends on which legal parameter the mitzva attaches to (formation vs harvest vs seasonal counting). The Gemara’s stories (e.g. about rabbi Akiva who picked etrog on one date and treated it by two sets of rules) illustrate that there are two different clocks and we must know which one the law attaches to.

מה זה עושה לגבי קידושין — “האשה נקנית בשלוש דרכים” Now connect the binyan-av: the Mishnah of קידושין lists three kinyanim (כסף, שטר, ביאה) — the Gemara’s job is to determine the kavvanah (legal parameter) each mode presupposes.

כסף (and שטר) behave like a property transfer — akin to crops harvested and stored. Their legal effect can depend on a property-type standard (the father’s authority, a contractual transfer), not on the woman’s personal subjective state. For many cases the law treats כסף as operating through the father’s guardianship: it can effect kiddushin of a minor under paternal kinyan because it’s a transferal-mechanism in the communal-property sense.

ביאה is fundamentally different: it is a personal, bodily act whose halachic efficacy attaches to the personhood and daʿat of the woman. The Gemara examines whether biʿah creates kiddushin when the woman lacks requisite daʿat or maturity. Using the etrog binyan-av, the Gemara shows that because ביאה’s “moment of effect” is like לקיטה tied to consent/active completion, it requires the agent’s halachic capability (daʿat). Therefore a sexual act with a child who lacks daʿat does not produce valid kiddushin; it is not a valid kinyan but assault.

איך האתרוג מהווה הוכחה-מודל (precedent) How the etrog serves as a proof-model (precedent). The etrog case is concrete precedent: for some mitzvot the decisive moment is חנטה (formation) — these are like sheviʿit/ערלה — and for others the decisive moment is לקיטה (harvest) — these are like maʿaser/קנין. The Amoraim import that distinction into family law: is kiddushin decided by a formation-type standard (family/paternal authority, like property) or by a person-centered standard (consent/daʿat)? The etrog sugya proves that the Talmud repeatedly uses agricultural categories as legal prototypes for other areas: if the halachic system chooses the formation-model, the rules follow that template; if it chooses the picking-model, the rules follow the other template.

התחביר ההלכתי של הכוונה The halakhic syntax of intention. Therefore the kavvanah of the Mishnah’s language in both places is institutional—specifying which legal template applies. In ר״ה the Mishnah’s dates and customs are shorthand telling us which temporal-template the law uses for that fruit/mitzva (formation vs harvest). In קידושין the Mishnah’s list of kinyanim is shorthand telling us which type of legal transaction we are dealing with — property-transfer vs person-centered transfer — and the Gemara uses etrog-style binyan-av to decide borderline cases (minors, absent daʿat, father’s sale).

דוגמה קצרה להמחשה A short example for illustration. Fig tree (תאנה): fruit is gathered gradually → no peah → behaves atypically for a “tree” → shows that botanical category ≠ legal category. Onions/wheat stored: vegetable-type plants that are obligated in peah → shows the opposite. Apply to kiddushin: a “formative” connection (father sells daughter) can create a legal effect with respect to כסף, even if the person lacks autonomous daʿat for ביאה.

מסקנה מעשית ומחשבתית A practical and intellectual conclusion. The Gemara’s sugya is not pedantic taxonomy — it gives the reader the legal hermeneutic: always ask “which legal clock / template does the mitzva/grant attach to?” Once you know the template, everything else follows. That is the kavvanah both of the ר״ה Mishnah (which temporal template applies?) and of the קידושין Mishnah (which acquisition-template applies?), and the etrog precedent is the canonical model the Amoraim employ to transfer that method from agriculture into family law.

Genocide, a profane taboo word, commonly raped pillaged and burned among people who abhor the Israeli response to the Oct 7th 2023 massacre. Genocide in this context, amounts to Holocaust denial. A word meant to prevent another Shoah has been weaponized to accuse Jews of committing the very crime inflicted upon them.

Genocide — a word forged in the ashes of the Shoah — has become a profane taboo, violated, cheapened, and weaponized by those who abhor Israel’s response to the Oct. 7th 2023 massacre. In this context, the accusation is not merely false; it amounts to Holocaust denial. A term meant to prevent another genocide is now hurled against the Jewish state in a grotesque inversion of history: the victims accused of the crime that nearly annihilated them.

This version of the Xtian Church infamous blood libel. Manufactured and disseminated by the UN, EU bureaucrats, Moscow, Beijing, and the media conglomerates that sell “genocide headlines” the way pornography sells clicks. Genocide sells. Justice does not. And so, the word violently and brutally raped and pillaged for political theatre rather than applied with legal integrity. Genocide occurs when those in power worship power itself, not justice. But no one dares question the motives of the institutions promoting this Blood Libel slander. Why? Because the same leaders, together with their institutions, have grown dependent on the “Jewish problem” narrative to justify their own existence.

Never once has anyone questioned the agenda of an organization that promotes this “Blood Libel Slander” made against Israel. Israel did not sign the Rome Agreement which established the International Court of the Hague. In point of fact, NEVER AGAIN, as PM Begin expressly communicated to Jimmy Carter at Camp David, means that Israelis post the European “Final Solution” will ever again permit, specifically European Goyim States, to dictate their “SOLUTION” to “THE JEWISH PROPLEM”. Israel rejects the idea that: (1) Jews exist again a ward of Europe. (2) Jewish sovereignty pre-conditional to UN approval. (3) Jewish self-defense is subject to foreign veto. Thus, the ICC’s attempted jurisdiction is a political fiction—an extension of the pre-1948 mindset that Jews do not have independent standing among nations. The ICC’s claim of jurisdiction over Israel: a fiction built on an older fiction. This accusation of “genocide” guilt imposed by Press decree upon Israel, simply the old paternalism in a new legal wrapper of classic South African Apartheid racism.

The accusation of “genocide” against Israel after Oct. 7, a form of modernized Holocaust denial — a mutation of the classic European blood libel — and the UN’s usage of the term reveals a long-standing imperial contempt for Jewish sovereignty. The UN never had moral universality. It functioned from birth as a colonial power-balancing instrument, and its treatment of Israel, merely the most concentrated exposure of its original design flaws. Where medieval Xtendom accused Jews of murdering Xtian children, the modern UN-Leftist coalition accuses Jews of murdering Palestinian children.

The replacement theology converts the UN as the new Ersatz-Xtianity. The idea of a secularized form of Xtianity that rejects the theological trappings of the Gospel narrative, but retains dogmatic moral and ethical frameworks associated with Papal Rome. This concept often manifests in political contexts, where political ideologies adopt seemingly Xtian ethical principles, like for an example: a just war, without engaging theological ‘Good News’ yet promoting the new religion of democracy.

The UN originally set up to prevent another Shoah. Clearly the UN has failed its mandate and MUST disband. What does the UN have to do with the Xtian “Genocide” in Nigeria? Or Pol Pot, or Idi[ot] Amin? The UN promotes platitudes rather than pursues justice. The UN today totally not recognizable to the UN of 1948. Pursuit of power and political coalitions of State international alliances has completely uprooted the founding Charter. The UN systematically ignores or minimizes actual genocide, mass slaughter, and mass enslavement when politically inconvenient. The UN protects authoritarian regimes with bloc voting. The Human Rights Council institutionalizes political scapegoating. UN Bloc voting by authoritarian states has turned this pie in the sky replacement of Wilson’s post WWI League of Nations into a political marketplace where justice get bought and sold on the illegal white women, and child-slave trade-markets.

Franklin D. Roosevelt U.S. President; championed the idea of a global peace organization. Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairperson of the UN Commission on Human Rights; pivotal in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Winston Churchill – British Prime Minister; advocated for collective security and cooperation. Joseph Stalin – Soviet Dictator primarily responsible for the Allied victory over the Nazis; boycotted the UN Chapter VII dictate to North Korea. Charles de Gaulle – not included at the Yalta Conference, French Resistance leader; crucial in representing defeated France’s interests post-WWII wherein France sat as a Permanent Member in the UN Security Council. De Gaulle as a statesman, succeeded in asserting France’s interests in the aftermath of World War II. Harry S. Truman, U.S. President after FDR; supported the formation and principles of the UN which negated the Constitutional Right of Congress to Declare War.

The Yalta Conference, held in February 1945, was a pivotal meeting between Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin to discuss the post-war reorganization of Europe and the establishment of international cooperation through the United Nations. Their responses varied significantly, reflecting their distinct national interests and ideologies. Stalin showed a positive attitude towards Roosevelt’s proposal for a new international organization aimed at maintaining peace. He recognized the need for a framework to manage post-war tensions and prevent conflicts. These men who built the UN, represent colonial empires, racial hierarchies, colonial interests, and military blocs.

Stalin insisted that the new organization must include mechanisms that recognized the Soviet Union’s status as a major power. He wanted assurances that Soviet interests and security concerns, particularly in Eastern Europe, would be addressed. While agreeing to the formation of the United Nations, Stalin was adamant about establishing Soviet influence in Eastern Europe, emphasizing a security buffer to protect the Soviet Union from future aggression. Clearly the Democratic Party leadership attempt to increase the NATO alliance to include these same Eastern European countries into the NATO alliance, specifically the Ukraine, no UN Resolution has ever condemned.

Churchill was more cautious regarding Stalin’s intentions. He was supportive of the idea of a United Nations but harbored concerns about Soviet expansionism and the balance of power in Europe. Churchill advocated for a United Nations that emphasized democratic principles and human rights. He urged for a system that would prevent the imposition of totalitarian regimes, especially in nations liberated from Nazi occupation. Yet the UN promotes Arab dictatorships, specifically Palestinian Arab dictatorships, precisely following the Oct 7th 2023 massacre of Israelis. Churchill wrote the first White Paper, this man focused his interests over British domination upon any new balance of power political arrangement.

Stalin’s enthusiasm for the concept of the United Nations demonstrated a strategic acknowledgment of the necessity for international governance. This was essential for managing tensions after the war. His insistence on recognizing the Soviet Union’s status as a major power was non-negotiable. The establishment of a security buffer in Eastern Europe was paramount for him, as it aligned with the Soviet doctrine of protecting its borders from perceived threats. Stalin’s strategy foreshadowed the post-war division of Europe. His desire for influence in Eastern Europe laid the groundwork for future Cold War dynamics, where conflicting ideologies and interests between the USSR and Western nations would lead to tension.

Mali announced the expulsion of French troops, effectively ending an French economic or military domination. In similar fashion the governments of Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad, Senegal, & Côte d’Ivoire. The UN never once condemned French neocolonialism. The rise of alternative global partnerships, particularly with nations like China and Russia, has provided Sahelian countries with options to diversify their diplomatic and economic relationships. The UN never condemned Western neocolonial economic structured dominance which favored French interests over African development. Independent Sahelian countries, no thanks to the UN, have started to forge new alliances that prioritize their interests rather than continuing to rely on traditional colonial ties. African sovereignty and control over national resources the UN never recognized.

Jan Christian Smuts, a prominent South African statesman and military leader, had a contentious and complex relationship with Mahatma Gandhi. While they both played influential roles in early 20th-century India and South Africa, their interactions were often marked by significant ideological differences and personal animosity. Smuts held a more conservative viewpoint, often prioritizing colonial interests and the maintenance of order within the British Empire.

One major point of contention was the implementation of discriminatory pass laws targeting Indians in South Africa. Gandhi actively opposed these laws through protests, while Smuts supported the laws as a means of maintaining control. During discussions about Indian representation in South African politics, Smuts was seen as obstructive, further fueling Gandhi’s disdain for him.

Reports suggest that Smuts had a personal dislike for Gandhi, viewing him as a radical undermining British authority in South Africa. This animosity was reflected in their public exchanges and political opposition. Despite their differences, Gandhi’s struggle for Indian rights in South Africa remains a significant historical contribution, overshadowing Smuts’ position at that time. Today, Smuts is often critiqued for his stances, which contributed to systemic discrimination, while Gandhi is celebrated for his non-violent approach to achieving social justice. The relationship between Jan Christian Smuts and Mahatma Gandhi exemplifies the broader tensions of colonial politics, with personal ideologies and ambitions clashing in a critical period of history. Their interactions serve as a lens through which the complexities of resistance against colonial rule can be understood.

Jawaharlal Nehru, as India’s first Prime Minister played a significant role in the establishment of the United Nations (UN). Nehru was a strong proponent of internationalism and believed in the necessity of a global organization to foster peace and cooperation among nations. His vision was largely influenced by the horrors of World War II and the need to prevent future conflicts. Nehru actively participated in key discussions that shaped the UN’s formation. He was part of the Indian delegation at the San Francisco Conference in 1945, where the UN Charter was drafted.

His contributions emphasized the importance of decolonization and civil rights. Nehru advocated for the inclusion of human rights in the UN framework. As a leader from a newly independent nation, he championed the cause of oppressed peoples, aiming for a UN that would not only prevent wars but also promote social justice. Nehru’s commitment to the UN and its principles laid a foundation for India’s active participation in UN affairs, which has continued to influence its foreign policy. His advocacy for peace, cooperation, and justice remains a part of India’s global identity today.

In 1975 the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemned the Augusto Pinochet regime for its widespread human rights violations, including torture and political repression. The resolution called attention to reports of extrajudicial killings, disappearance of political opponents, and the overall lack of civil liberties in Chile under Pinochet’s dictatorship. The Augusto Pinochet regime immediately eclipsed the socialist influence of Hernán Santa Cruz.

Alger Hiss, a high-ranking official in the U.S. State Department and a key figure in the founding meetings of the United Nations. In 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a former communist and journalist, accused Hiss of being a communist spy and of passing classified documents to the Soviet Union. In 1950, Hiss was tried for perjury and was convicted, serving several years in prison. While Hiss was involved in the establishment of the United Nations, serving as a crucial part of the U.S. delegation at the founding conference in 1945, his legacy became overshadowed by the espionage allegations. Historians often debate the extent of his guilt, with some arguing that he was falsely accused.

The Weaponization of “Genocide”, the UN has perverted into a political cudgel, detached from its historical meaning. Its use against Israel, framed as a form of Holocaust denial and “blood libel.” Israel’s Sovereignty Post-Holocaust — “Never Again” means Israel will not allow external powers—especially European states—to dictate Jewish survival, our international borders or our Capital City. Israel’s refusal to sign the Rome Statute, presented as a rejection of foreign-imposed “solutions” which presume Israel remains a Protectorate Territory of the UN or post WWII European Courts of international law.

The UN was created to prevent another Shoah, but instead it promotes platitudes and power politics. Examples: ignoring atrocities in Nigeria, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Idi Amin’s Uganda, and French neocolonialism in Africa. A UN which continually remains worse than simply silent about its founding premise: preventing unilateral security expansions that could trigger world conflict. A UN which “claims” to defend human rights, built partly by men who defend racially stratified empires.

Selective Condemnations, the UN condemned Pinochet’s Chile but ignored French neocolonialism in Africa. UN resolutions often reflect political convenience rather than consistent justice. The Smuts vs. Gandhi conflict illistrates how the UN’s silence on neocolonial structures in Africa echoes the impact of Colonial legacies.

Alger Hiss’s role in founding the UN is overshadowed by espionage accusations, symbolizing the organization’s compromised legacy, matched only by the grossly perverted number of UN condemnations made against Israel. The UN has always had compromised foundations, and those cracks have widened into fissures today.

The UN never morally coherent. It stands exposed as a truce between competing empires wrapped in universal language. The same Human Rights Commission built by men like Smuts and Santa Cruz now functions as a propaganda bureau for authoritarian regimes. And the same UN founded with Alger Hiss — now shadowed by espionage accusations — continues to operate with layers of clandestine influence.

The weaponization of “genocide”, an old psychological warfare guilt trip, on par with “He died for you”. It continues the old European narative: The Jew as the world’s chief problem. Where once Jews were accused of poisoning wells, today we are accused of poisoning Gaza. Where once Jews were accused of blood crimes, today we are accused of genocide. A system built on the ashes of the Holocaust now recycles Holocaust denial under the guise of human rights.

Why Smuts? Why Gandhi? Why Pinochet? Why the Sahel? Why Nehru? These leaders and countries both tyrants and saints influenced the establishment of the UN, its the failed ‘dream vision’ which ignores the eternal conflict conducted between Power vs. Justice. All the prophets of the T’NaCH pitted justice against avoda zara – the Human worship of power as God.

Israel never signed the Rome Statute. Therefore the ICC has no jurisdiction unless Israel consents which fundamentally profanes the post Shoah sworn oath “NEVER AGAIN”. The ICC’s maneuver relies on the fiction that “Palestine” is a state with standing. British Palestine, established by the League of Nations based upon the Balfour Declaration of 1917 ceased to exist when David Ben Gurion declared Jewish national independence and named the new country Israel in 1948.

Only in 1964 did Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the name of Palestine as central to his PLO Charter. That charter did not view Jordan’s West Bank or Egypt’s Gaza as occupied territory. It limited the phrase “Occupied Territory” only to ’48 Israel. UN Resolutions 242, 338, 446, 2334 etc all political blood libel frauds. UN Resolution 3379 – Zionism is Racism – rejects the Balfour Declaration which fathered the Palestine Mandate of 1921.

Justice Justice Pursue

The concept of Ancient Consciousness Engineering involves understanding how ancient cultures perceived and interacted with the divine, particularly through the art of building and construction. This perspective often highlights the spiritual and symbolic dimensions of architecture, emphasizing how structures reflect the consciousness and beliefs of the societies that created them.

Buildings often incorporated symbols that represented gods, myths, or cosmological theories. For instance, Egyptian temples were aligned with celestial bodies, reflecting the connection between the divine and the cosmic order. Structures like temples or pyramids were often seen as physical manifestations of divine plans, mirroring cosmic structures. The layout of cities and monuments was frequently designed to reflect mythological tales or the lives of deities.

The scale, orientation, and materials used in construction often reflected social hierarchies and religious beliefs. Larger, grander structures typically represented higher spiritual significance or authority. Temples like the Parthenon were dedicated to specific deities and were built to embody their attributes and myths, serving as a focal point for worship and community.

Shlomo’s reign occurred during a time of extensive interaction with neighboring cultures (the Goyim), whose worship practices involved building grand temples dedicated to their gods. This context shaped Solomon’s approach to architecture and spirituality. Shlomo deluged with foreign wives, starting with the daughter of Par’o. Many ancient cultures valued grand temple architecture as a reflection of their gods’ majesty. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Mesopotamians built magnificent structures to honor their deities.

His construction of the Temple was a pivotal ירידות הדורות moment for Judaism. The בית שני Talmud response to king Shlomo’s avoda zara which so dominated later generations, beginning with Ezra’s rebuilding of a 2nd Temple avoda zara abomination. The Talmud Bavli prioritized the בית המקדש not as a building of wood and stone. It interpreted the Torah construction of the Mishkan as only a משל.

The anointing of the house of David as Moshiach likewise a משל through which the prophet Shmuel interpreted its נמשל response to the rebellion of Israel against the Torah, the anointing first Shaul and later David as Moshiach! Based upon the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan תוחקה mussar rebuke which he instructed both David and Shlomo. Natan saved Shlomo and his mother in the opening Book of Kings. רחבעם ignored the advise given by the elder advisors of Shlomo just as Shlomo did the exact same with the תוחקה mussar rebuke wherewith the prophet Natan commanded Shlomo not to build the בית המקדש but rather prioritize building the establishment of a Federal Sanhedrin common law court system; based upon the p’suk: צדק צדק תרדוף.

The Talmud comments on the consequences of avoda zara associated with Shlomo and later generations, emphasizing the need for prioritizing Courtroom common law justice over Pie in the Sky theological beliefs in Gods, associated with Shlomo and all later ירידות הדורות generations. Prophets like Natan admonished Shlomo regarding his actions, instructing him to focus on establishing a system of justice (Federal Sanhedrin) rather than solely on temple construction.

The anointing of David and later Shlomo as Moshiach reflects a broader narrative regarding leadership and adherence to Torah centered upon the pursuit of judicial justice based upon the memory of judicial injustice before the Court of Par’o and the מוסר תוחקה which Yitro rebuked Moshe immediately after Israel gained our National freedom from Par’o and Egypt. Israel came out of Egypt in accordance with the oath brit sworn to the Avot concerning the eternal inheritance of this land. HaShem brought Israel out of Egypt with the k’vanna that Israel would rule the land with righteous judicial justice – fair restitution of damages inflicted.

Xtianity and Islam, their av tuma avoda zarah prioritizes belief in God – just as does assimilated Rambam’s 13 essential beliefs! In point of fact, the Torah commands no belief in God or Gods. Its this distinction which separates the revelation of the Torah at Sinai from belief in av tuma avoda zara Gods – based upon Creeds, theologies or Angelic revelations! Therefore Prophets like Natan and all other prophets thereafter admonished Shlomo and all the kings of Yechuda and Israel – regarding their failure to prioritize judicial justice through common law courtrooms. The mussar תוחקה of all NaCH prophets therefore instructs both Shlomo and all generations of our Cohen people thereafter, to focus upon ruling the oath sworn lands of the chosen Cohen people with justice – Federal Sanhedrin – common law justice.

The prophetic mussar rebuke of Cain & Abel serves as the יסוד upon which stands the Torah revelation of the Mishkan with its required korbanot dedications. The central Torah theme: Who merits as the Chosen Cohen, initiated through the murder of Abel by his older brother following the korban dedications made by both sons of Adam HaReshon. Cain offered as his korban – a barbeque unto Heaven. Abel dedicated his korban to אל מלך נאמן – God the faithful King … Faith understood as meaning fair judicial justice. Hence the prophet Shmuel interpreted the נמשל mitzva of Moshiach based upon the משל mussar taught through the commandment of the Mishkan together with korbanot.

Moshe, the greatest of all Torah prophets commands prophetic mussar. Hence all other NaCH prophets – they too command mussar rebukes. Mussar defines all prophetic revelations recorded in the literature of the T’NaCH. Witchcraft and/or Goyim prophets like Bil’aam – their av tuma avoda zara predicts the future. The NT framers, they depicted their imaginary false messiah JeZeus as a person/God who fulfilled the words of the prophets. Hence the NT framers redefined T’NaCH prophets including Moshe Rabbeinu as witches because witches foretell the future.

C. S. Lewis, the moral coward, never denounced the church guilt for the Shoah. Lucy Maud Montgomery, was a Canadian author best known for her classic novel Anne of Green Gables, published in 1908. L.M. Montgomery passed away on April 24, 1942. Church’s silence during the Holocaust (Shoah), coupled with the Catholic Rat Lines that assisted Nazi War criminals to flee justice by hiding in S. American countries and the post WWII Polish pogroms! This has led to discussions about the responsibilities of faith leaders and the impact of moral cowardice in the face of atrocity. Lewis and Tolstoy both failed to address the war crimes committed by their people in their life times. Tolstoy failed to condemn the Czarist Pogroms of the 1880s and the secret police forgery: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

L.M. Montgomery, while primarily focused on themes of childhood and community in her novels, lived during a time that contained its own set of moral struggles, including the events of World War II. She never publicly condemned the 1938 pogrom: Night of Shattered Glass. The failure of figures like Lewis and Tolstoy to address grave injustices raises questions about moral courage and the obligations of public intellectuals. The Church’s silence and the concealment of war criminals spotlight the responsibilities of faith leaders in the face of atrocities.

C.S. Lewis labeled a “moral coward” for his silence regarding the Church’s role during the Holocaust. The lack of denunciation of institutional wrongs at a time when moral clarity was crucial exposed the truth of his moral spinelessness. Similarly, Leo Tolstoy’s inaction regarding the Czarist pogroms and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion reflects a pattern of moral evasion. L.M. Montgomery’s literary focus on childhood and personal growth didn’t typically address societal issues.

The silence of various Christian denominations during the Holocaust, specifically the Lutheran support for Hitler’s Nazism, coupled with actions like the Catholic Rat Lines, raises critical questions. The failure to confront and condemn atrocities reflects a broader moral cowardice among faith leaders. The concealment of Nazi war criminals illustrates a deep conflict between moral teachings and institutional actions. Pope Pius XII permitted the Nazis to murder the Jews of Rome. What is the responsibility of public intellectuals in speaking out against injustice? Should their focus include social or political obligations? How should churches and faith institutions hold themselves accountable for past inactions?

Authors and intellectuals are often perceived not just as commentators but as moral agents who can influence public opinion and action. Navigating the balance between personal beliefs and public responsibility poses complex ethical questions, particularly during times of upheaval. Religious and social institutions need to confront their past in order to guide future actions and regain credibility. Institutions must not only teach values of justice and ethics but also demonstrate commitment through action, particularly in contexts of societal injustice. These reflections challenge both individuals and organizations to consider the implications of their actions (or inactions) in the face of moral crises.

Did not write a commentary on the political content of the Obliviousness article. Rather my commentary transposes the structure of Obliviousness into a Torah-based, oath brit, judicial reading. The relationship works on the level of intent, not topic. As an Israeli my world completely different than an American perspective. The American society ruled by Power rather than justice. The Courts – utterly and totally corrupt. The contrast of Trump out of power and Trump as President – Night and Day different. The two assassination attempts and the political assassination of Charlie Kirk define the deep fractures of American political insanity.

Obliviousness — Society is falling apart because institutions have abandoned accountability.
Power replaces justice. Systems that should deliver fairness instead deliver corruption, secrecy, and self-serving elites. The public is deceived by structures that look like order (government, churches, media) but conceal rot. The consequences are systemic: shutdown, corruption, violence, failed leadership, manipulation of justice, tribalism. America exists as a nation on the verge of anarchy and collapse because justice – an utter joke. Obama Clinton and the Intelligence Agency heads have yet to stand trial for treason. Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Waters likewise have never stood trial for the charge of treason.

The Israeli Torah perspective: ancient kings abandoning צדק צדק תרדוף and falling into avoda zara. Oblivious shows what happens when a society replaces justice with spectacle, belief systems, and personality cults. While Justice Pursue argues that this likewise occurred under king Shlomo and Yeridas HaDorot of g’lut rabbinic Judaism which assimilated to Roman statute law and abandoned Torah as judicial common law. The Temple becomes a theological object (avoda zara) rather than a metaphor for judicial structures. Belief replaces courtroom justice. Theology replaces the oath alliance expressed through judicial common law. Power (kingship) replaces federal Sanhedrin.

My comment reads Oblivious as a modern example of the ancient pattern of civilizational decline caused by abandoning common-law justice. Elite corruption & hidden crimes (Epstein / Obama, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Waters, CIA, FBI, NSA Heads). Shlomo’s foreign alliances, wives, temple grandeur → political rot → prophetic rebuke; Justice Pursue interprets this modern collapse as the same pattern the prophets condemned.

Citizens suffer because leaders reject accountability — Prophetic critique: kings of Yehuda rejected תוחקה and צדק. Just as Oblivious describes democratic institutions failing their people; Justice Pursue argues that ancient Israel fell for the same reason. Party loyalty and personality cults replace honest governance. Avoda zara: divine right of kings replaces common-law rank-and-file judicial authority – the foundation upon which the American Republic stands. Oblivious sees American politics becoming a cult of personality. Justice Pursue says: this is literally the biblical definition of avoda zara.

Collapse of public trust; no one believes institutions anymore. Natan the Prophet’s warnings: society cannot survive without justice. All NaCH prophets’ focus prioritized not theology/Democracy, but legal structure. The article Obliviousness – The same spiritual mistake that the Torah warns about. A society becomes idolatrous when it substitutes belief, symbols, or buildings for courtroom justice. America today Washington has replaced Justice. Oblivious replaces justice with conspiracy narratives, personality cults, theocratic rhetoric, media mythologies, spectacle politics.

Ancient Israel did the same when it replaced the federal Sanhedrin, mussar rebuke, case law with statute law, Temple fixations, kings, theological dogmas, Greek-style creed systems (Par’o, later Rambam’s 13 ikarim). There is no civilization without צדק צדק תרדוף. Therefore my commentary functions as the נמשל to Oblivious as the משל. All civilizations collapse when they abandon common-law justice for belief systems (avoda zara). Justice Pursue reveals the ancient consciousness engineering behind the pattern of national decline.

Everything you observe in modern America – the Oblivious Article – the same pattern that destroyed ancient Israel and every empire thereafter. It is the structural sin of replacing justice with belief, power, and symbols. Torah and prophecy diagnose the disease at its root.