The opening Av Mishna of קידושין – האשה נקנית, previously shot a bearing through the fixed known points of the opening and closing of the first sugya:  
האשה נקנית מאי שנא (שהוא דומה למאי נפקא מינא? זה אחד מן הי”ג מידות תורה שבעל פה – שנקרא רב חסד.) הכא דתני האשה נקנית ומ”ש התם דתני האיש מקדש.
And compared this fixed point upon my Gemara “Map” to a point which concludes, my error with the closing fixed point of the 2nd sugya of this “Map” Gemara:

 מיבמה שאינה יוצאה בגט יוצאה בחליצה

However, made a mistake, the end of the first sugya of this Gemara on dof .ג wherein the Gemara brings the fixed point location “on the Map” of:

זו אחת מן הדרכים ששוו גיטי נשים לשחרורי עבדים ניתני דברים אלא כל היכא דאיכא פלוגתא תני  דרכים וכל היכא דליכא פלוגתא תני דברים.  דיקא נמי דקתני סיפא ר”א אומר אתרוג שוה לאילן לכל דבר ש”מ.

Now a virgin girl acquired through קידושין simply does not compare not to divorce nor to Yibbum – as concludes the 2nd point on the “Map” of the 2nd sugya of our Gemara.  The issue in question: what exactly does the Mishna language נקנית refer to?  The point of zero disputes the language of the Chumash concerning the acquisition of both slaves and Yibbum widows.  The dispute, which בנין אב sh’itta precedent does the Court accept to make an inductive reasoned conclusion –  “interpretation”.

A common law court – by definition – both the defense and prosecuting attorney submit precedent briefs which support how their respective sh’itta interprets the language of the Torah.  The “acquisition” through קידושין of a virgin young woman, does not compare to how slaves acquire their freedom or widows “acquired” by the brother of their deceased husband.  

So why compare the Case/Rule cases of either this or that to the our case of the acquisition of a young virgin girl?  Herein defines the opening thesis statement question which our Gemara makes on this the Av Mishna of קידושין. 

The scholarship and inductive reasoning required to “shoot a bearing” in Talmudic common law, simply a completely different wisdom than that of reading a novel word for word.  Herein the explanation why the translations made upon both the T’NaCH and Talmud – utterly worthless sophomoric undergraduate inferior learning.

The opening מאי נפקא מינא to האיש מקדש likewise contrasts rather than compares.  A man simply not a woman any more than a virgin “compares” to a widow or a divorcee or a slave.  The study of any literature requires sharpening the skills of “comparison and contrast”.  English literature 101. Our Gemara compares to a topographical military map that has elevation rings.  By shooting a bearing azimuth, likened to the employ of a compass in orienteering.  T’NaCH\Talmudic common law examines precedent cases to other precedent cases in order to reach a conclusive judicial ruling of the case currently heard before the Court.

The Talmud language likewise compares to the warp/weft of a loom.  Wherein the rabbis weave the fabric of culture and custom which defines the society of the chosen Cohen people.  It’s this very scholarship – defining the culture and customs of the chosen Cohen people – which defines the sum total of the entire T’NaCH/Talmudic literature in one sentence.

Contrast the 2nd Sinai commandment – avoda zara.  The Koran prioritized the theological creed known as Monotheism.  Whereas the Torah language of the ערב רב openingly acknowledges, especially through the Av metaphor, sin of the Golden Calf, that assimilated Jews, no different than from Goyim, both this and that worship other Gods.  Intermarriage contrasts with קידושין.  

The Torah oath brit alliance has blessing vs. curse; life vs. death.  Keep the terms of the sworn alliance and live as the chosen Cohen people through the Av commandments known as time-oriented mitzvot, within the borders of the nation of the Cohen people inside the Middle East.  קידושין, like shabbat or Moshiach, a tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.  

The Rambam views Kiddushin as a rabbinic enactment rather than a direct commandment from the Torah. He emphasizes that while the Torah provides the framework for marriage, the specific act of Kiddushin, established through rabbinic authority. He reads the Torah exactly like Xtians “read” their sophomoric bible translations. His Yad attempts to Translate the Talmudic halachot into Hebrew! His utter and total ignorance of פרדס inductive reasoning, his avoda zara replacement theology substituted the Order which Aristotle’s deductive syllogism mandates.

The downstream generations of rabbis failed to understand this gross error and correct it; despite the rebuke made by the Rosh common law halachic code!  The mussar of the Rosh, who followed the vision of the B’HaG\Rif/Tosafot model, rabbinic orthodox Judaism totally refused to hear.  Swept under the rug, the decree of נידוי – not simply limited to the court of Rabbeinu Yonah in Spain – as the post Rambam Civil War rabbis falsely teaches Yeshiva students!  But far more significant, the Rashi\Baali Tosafot common law school in France.  In 1232 the rabbis of Paris imposed the ban of נידוי upon the assimilated perversions written by the Rambam Karaite.

Both this and that “literalist-טיפש פשט” heretics, both read the T’NaCH or Talmud from a strictly literalist perspective.  A simple glance of his Sefer HaMitzvot, which excludes the Torah commandment of קידושין exposes the crud Av tuma avoda zarah which the Rambam perversion worships.  Jews who “obey” halacha as determined by the “cross-dress” Rambam code, walk off the path of the Chosen Cohen oath brit alliance faith – to actively pursue judicial justice which dedicates to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among our chosen Cohen People – who have the burden to rule our brit lands – unlike how Par’o, and his court which judicially oppressed g’lut Israel.

However, the Rashi opening likewise failed to prioritize the central issue of Torah נקנית. The Baali Tosafot delves into the Torah subject of acquisitions and points out that it does not specify, “virgin”. This seems false to me. The Rivka Torah precedent, emphasized her virginity. Rivka serves as the Torah precedent-model for our Av Mishna and its Gemara here. Non the less the commentary of the Tosafot makes a similar “Map” bearing sh’itta as did my commentary. This sharply contrasts with the Rashi dictionary like definition approach to Talmudic scholarship.

The opening Rosh fails to emphasize the contrast between a virgin girl to Avraham’s plot of burial lands. Acquisition of a virgin girl for marriage simply does not compare to the Case of Avraham burying Sarah following the horror of the Akedah. The dismal failure of rabbinic downstream commentaries to connect this Av Mishna to 1. the resurrection of the dead, connected to the death of Sarah. This story serves as a tremendous Torah event. Why?

The mitzva from the Torah of קידושין, a man acquires the נפש עולם הבא of his wife through the future born children which he baal intends through the mitzva of קידושין. Hence this mitzva, directly linked to the brit cut between the pieces wherein childless Avram cut a brit that time-oriented Torah commandments eternally create יש מאין the Chosen Cohen seed of the Avot. This Cohen seed, not conceived through sex and sperm or genetics or race but only through Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.

The Samaritans, Tzeddukim, Karaim – one and all fail to learn Torah common law. Hence they deny the mitzva of the resurrection from the dead found in the language of the Written Torah. Rambam, no different that he too excludes the Torah commandment of קידושין from the Torah! Great and mighty empires have risen and fallen, but the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot live unto all generations! How? Through tohor time-oriented Av Torah commandments which require prophetic mussar as their internal k’vanna.

The Opening first two words of our Mishna holds a Torah commandment “BIG PICTURE” vision. Alas the famous commentators could not see the forest through the trees. It seems to me that every Av Mishna throughout Rabbi Yechuda’s common law Sha’s directly plugs into Torah commandments. ברכות opens with kr’ea shma as tefillah דאורייתא. Shabbat distinguishes between the עשר דיבורות in שמות ודברים.

The chiddushim of the Sha’s Mishna on the Chumash requires immediate address. The contrast between the Chumash and the Talmud a day vs. night obvious distinction. Hence this begs the question, how does the one express the other? The subject of קידושין way down the list of the B’HaG mitzvot דאורייתא priorities. The comparison to Avram acquiring a burial plot with money, what connection to a rabbinic commandment? Hence קידושין like all other “rabbinic” mitzvot, when elevated to tohor time-oriented commandments – their status achieves the aliyah to ארץ ישראל-mitzvot from the Torah! Just as the resurrection from the dead, a mitzva of the Torah – as a tohor time-oriented commandment! How?

The precedent of Avram’s stern mussar to HaShem – “I have no children to inherit my Name”. The cycle of life & death common to all man-kind. What makes the brit cut between the pieces unique? The Torah vision known as time-oriented commandments which both the NT and Koran ignore like they do the revelation of the first commandment Sinai Name – the greatest commandment in the whole of the Torah. The commandment to love God and Man merely a פרט ולא הכלל. This gross fundamental error proves the NT as a Protocols of the Elders of Zion – an utter fraud.

The דאורייתא of the time-oriented mitzva of Moshiach dedicates the Yatzir Ha’Tov spirits of middot to pursue righteous judicial courtroom common law justices within the borders of brit ארץ ישראל. The Pauline “original sin of Adam’s fall from the Garden”, compares to how the “prophet” Natan foisted Shabbatai Tzvi (1626–1676) as a false messiah. The genesis of that avoda zara error, Jews lacked clarity that Parshat שופטים ושוטרים in the Book of דברים understands the latter as prophet “policemen” enforcers of judicial courtroom rulings. Prophets, as agents of the Sanhedrin courts empowered through Torah constitutional mandate to anoint and depose kings! No Sanhedrin court has jurisdiction in g’lut. Hence the theological narishkeit vomited by Natan – not prophetic, most definitely not mussar.

A Torah prophet commands mussar to all generations of the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot. Chag יום הזכרון – a call through the sounding of the shofar for Jews to remember the oaths which the Avot swore a brit with HaShem to father the chosen Cohen seed for eternity. The language eternity implies the language: “resurrection from the dead” by means of a logical דיוק/inference.
____________________________________
____________________________________
[[[ The term kinyan in this context reflects sanctification (hekdesh) — not legal possession (reshut). That’s a key Talmudic distinction upheld in both sugyot and later halachic development.]]] The verb choice language of the Mishna, compares to the required explanation how a korban does not exist as a “barbeque offered up to Heaven”. Both terms of kiddushin and korban make a dedication of “holiness”, through the root verb of ק-ד-ש. Hence just as a the precedent of קידושין serves as a בנין אב which makes a depth analysis interpretation of the “brit cut between the pieces” — made in response to Avram’s complaint “What can you give me, I have no children”, so too all later korbanot dedicated at the Mishkan require swearing a Torah oath. To do this requires swearing a blessing which contains שם ומלכות. Saying Tehillem prayers by contrast, far less “holy” because they do not swear a Torah oath which requires שם ומלכות.

[[[You assert Kiddushin is not daorayta — aligning with Rambam’s supposed “Karaite” misstep — but this, respectfully, misrepresents both Rambam and the structure of Torah law.]]] Incorrect. I דוקא rebuke the Rambam who makes a literal reading of the language of the Chumash (the 5 Books of Torah) wherein he rules the mitzva of kiddushin a rabbinic commandment. I compared this mitzva of kiddushin to the time-oriented Torah commandments of Shabbat and Moshiach. Both Torah commandments not rabbinic commandments.

[[[ But Rambam, in all his philosophical articulation, was never guilty of that. His use of Aristotelian language was functional, not theological. His Yad HaChazaka is an attempt to organize law, not supplant the chiyuv of Mussar or prophetic command. If anything, he created a bridge for minds of his generation to see the inner harmony of halacha.]]] The Rambam replaced the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva/Yishmael’s פרדס\י”ג מידות inductive reasoning which compares a Case/Rule Mishnaic judicial ruling to lower court Baraitot wherein the Gemara employs פרדס וי”ג מידות comparisons of Case/Rule cases “compared” to similar but different Case\Rule cases. The Rambam code organizes his halachic rulings into statute halachic categories. He therein switched Mishnaic/Gemara common law unto Greek/Roman statute law. A direct Torah violation of דברים 12:30-31.

The summation of the entire Talmud – to one sentence: to shape and determine culture and customs practiced by the chosen Cohen people, the Rambam code directly and flagrantly violated. פרדס logic simply not a Greek/Roman syllogism logic any more than Day is Night or Night is Day.

The Hilchot of the Rambam Yad, systematically categorizes Jewish law into 14 books, each addressing different aspects of halacha – based upon the Order attained through Greek deductive reasoning.

This systematic organization of Hilchot into egg-crate/\shoe-boxed – categories sets the Yad completely apart from the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh Hilchot, organized around Mishnaic language. The Order of the Rambam Hilchot uprooted and destroyed all Talmudic points of reference where-from the Talmud, this much later Reshon made his Halachic rulings.

All the commentaries written on the Yad directly address this fundamental flaw. However, the damage already done. Quoting a Gemara source as does for example Karo’s כסף משנה, fails to make the required משנה תורה which makes a re-interpretation of the language of the Mishna which that Gemara comments upon. To correctly understand how to validate the invalid Yad, necessary to affix a Rambam halachic ruling to a similar B’HaG, Rif, or Rosh ruling wherein the latter scholars open, as does my commentary here, back to the language of the Mishna itself.

What does Midah k’neged Midah mean? The concept of “Midah k’neged Midah” (measure for measure) is a fundamental principle in Jewish thought and ethics, particularly within the context of the Torah and later interpretations in the Talmud. This principle emphasizes the idea that one’s actions have corresponding consequences, reflecting a moral order in the universe.

This phrase, divorced from the Torah constitutional mandate which authorizes Great Sanhedrin courts to exercise Legislative Review over the governments of Tribes or even kings of Israel, suggests something akin to an assimilated idea of Karma. Which literally means “action” or “deed” in Sanskrit. It encompasses not just physical actions but also thoughts and intentions. The principle asserts that good actions lead to positive outcomes, while negative actions result in adverse consequences.

Jews in exile often navigate between their traditional beliefs and the surrounding cultures. This can lead to varying degrees of assimilation, which may affect their understanding and practice of concepts like “Midah k’neged Midah.” Jews in exile often face the challenge of maintaining their identity while adapting to the surrounding cultures. This can lead to a reinterpretation of traditional concepts, such as “Midah k’neged Midah,” as they integrate elements from their host cultures. The assimilation of ideas can sometimes dilute the original meanings or lead to new interpretations that resonate with contemporary experiences.

Jews living in exile often navigate the complexities of maintaining their cultural and religious identity while adapting to the surrounding societies. This can lead to a reinterpretation of traditional concepts, including Midah k’neged Midah. The integration of surrounding cultural elements can influence how Jewish communities understand and practice their beliefs. This may result in a blending of ideas, where traditional concepts are viewed through the lens of contemporary experiences and values. This dynamic Midah k’neged Midah directly refers to the conflict between the Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. the Yatzir Ha’Raw within the heart. Specifically it contrast tohor vs. tumah middot! ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון וכו, the revelation of the 13 Oral Torah middot at Horev on Yom Kippur serves as the יסוד meaning of Midah k’neged Midah. Yet g’lut Jews cursed by the Torah curse of not obeying the Torah לשמה, they can not discern one tohor middah from another or even tohor middot vs tumah middot in the eternal struggle of Yaacov and Esau within the womb of Rivka.