Understand the fundamental difference between the revelation of the Torah at Sinai vs. theological creed “I believe” Ego-I driven av tuma avoda zara.

1. Xtians wait for the 2nd Coming. Therefore this God lives in heaven not Earth. Pantheism posits that God – synonymous with the universe and its processes, often lacking the personal, relational aspect. Such a God beyond Human grasp to understand. Similar to how Human civilizations incomprehensible to ants.

2. Can’t have it both ways, either God of Sinai on this earth, or waiting for the 2nd Coming. For example: Xtian theology rhetoric preaches belief in a Universal God; where was JeZeus during the Shoah? The Nicene Creed hence established the “Holy Spirit” as part of the Triune God-Head to address the open NT contradiction where Xtians wait for the 2nd coming. Yet, not till Vatican II did any religious Xtian branch invalidate their long bloody history of “Christ Killer” racial slanders repeated over and again throughout the Ages prior to the Shoah. The Church, universally – Catholic & Protestant & Orthodox etc. – preached all the same hate theology: that Jews cursed with the curse of Cain; as despised refugees they must forever walk the Earth. The 3 Century ghetto gulag war crime stands as proof. Yet in 1948 and ’67 Jews re-conquered their homeland. Proving the church hate rhetoric which justified Paro oppression feudalism and slavery racism as nothing other than a house of cards lie. If Jews never cursed as Cain, but rather our Torah oath brit faith contains both blessing and curse obligations, then where do the Xtian slander lies stop?

The Shema (Deut. 6:4) does not at all resemble to Muslim scholars like Al-Ghazali who critiqued pantheism (e.g., in Sufi excesses) for risking shirk (association), insisting on a personal God who is “closer than the jugular vein” (Quran 50:16) but not the universe itself. Why? The Shema serves as the Torah commandment known as tefillah. This wisdom commandment or time-oriented mitzva, a concept no where addressed in either the NT or Koran substitute revisionist history theologies, separates as does shabbat from chol the k’vanna to accept the 3 oaths sworn by the Avot to father the chosen Cohen people AND eternally accept the revelations of the Written Torah at Sinai/Oral Torah at Horev as ONE oath brit. Hence the tefillah mitzva requires either standing directly in front of a Sefer Torah or tefillen because both serve as an essential pre-condition to swear a Torah oath. Bottom line: Based upon the 2nd Sinai commandment, all theological creed constructs of “monotheism” violate this commandment; simply stated if only one tawhid God then no need or reason to justify the existence of the negative commandment not to worship other gods. Monotheism violates the 10 plagues of Egypt wherein HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt.

Chrysostom’s “deicide” label simply not negated by Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate (1965). Nor can the latter negate the post WWII Catholic ‘Rat-lines’ which assisted Nazi war criminals to flee to South America and escape standing before the Bar of justice. Xtian responses post-Holocaust, like those from Jürgen Moltmann, emphasize a “suffering God” who weeps with victims, reinterpreting the Trinity (from Nicene Creed) as divine solidarity, not contradiction. However, critics note this came late—pre-Vatican II theology often portrayed Jews as cursed wanderers, justifying ghettos (e.g., from 1555 papal bull) and feudal oppression.

Jewish tradition defines prophecy as mussar—reproof for justice, not fortune-telling (e.g., Amos 5:24). Muslims reject the Torah as corrupted totally invalidates the Akadah of Yitzak and the sworn oath addressing the threat of Shoah extermination. Three years after the Shoah arose the Jewish state.
Jewish scholars like David Novak argue “Old Testament” implies supersessionism, a slander equating Jews with obsolescence. Fulfillment claims (e.g., Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1) twist context—originally about Israel, not Jesus. Post-Holocaust, some like Rubenstein see all theodicies as “house of cards,” urging human responsibility.

3. The NT notions of prophesy just as false and corrupt as their eternal blood libel slanders! Prophets to not predict the future as the gospel fraud declares. Why? Because witchcraft predicts the future. For example: king Shaul and the witch of Endor. Another example: the false prophet Muhammad declared in his koran that prophets sent to all nations and speak the native tongues of all peoples as the false prophet Muhammad declares. Torah NaCH prophets all command mussar – which neither false religion instructs! Moshe sent to Egypt, he spoke Hebrew and his mussar applies only to the Jewish people alone. A challenge of the ערב רב serves as a fundamental Torah curse which defines the 2nd Sinai commandment of avoda zarah; Jewish assimilation and intermarriage brings the plague of Amalek/antisemitism in all generations. A NaCH example: king Shlomo married foreign wives and duplicated how Goyim worship their Gods through constructs of wood and stone Temple Cathedrals. The satire of the Book of Kings, it refers to king Shlomo as “the wisest of all men”.

4. No such thing as another ‘House of Cards’ lie: “Old Testament”. The false prophesy exposed in the fraud NT about “fulfillment” of “Old Testament” prophesies – a slander equal to “Christ Killers” or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery! T’NaCH prophetic mussar applies straight across the board only to Jews in all generations unto today. Why only Jews? Simply because Goyim – not Esau nor Ishmael – ever accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai wherein the spirit of the First Commandment שם השם לשמה lives in this oath sworn land within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the Chosen Cohen people; based upon the commandment of the 1st Sinai commandment. All lands and countries outside the eternal inheritance of the brit Cohen people – constitutes as Egyptian exile. Goyim, by definition excluded as part of the Chosen Cohen people, as mentioned above. Therefore Goyim worship other Universal theologies of new Gods – the 2nd Sinai commandment; the 30 years War serves as proof, where Catholics & Protestants slaughtered one another over “graven images”. Hence Goyim ignore their own bloody history in favor of “born again” pie in the sky religious empty rhetoric.

5. Both Xtian & Muslim avoda zara av tuma theology promotes “I believe” Creeds, such as the Nicene Creed or the Muslim Tawhid Creed. The Sinai revelation defines “faith” not as belief in God – because man cannot grasp the divine. Av tuma avoda zara universally commands – often at pain of death – personal belief in this or that theologically created “New God”. The Name revealed at Sinai in the first commandment never once recognized – not in the Xtian bible nor in the Muslim koran. Translating other “word” names for the Divine Presence “Holy Spirit” which the Torah defines through the revelation of the 13 tohor middot Spirits which Moshe heard at Horev 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf; its not the calf metaphor, which compares to the dream of Par’o, but rather Yosef’s interpretation of that dream which defines the intent of the Golden Calf! Specifically translating, as does both the bible & koran, the first Commandment Name Spirits unto mere words which the lips of Man can easily pronounce. This critical interpretation – defines avoda zara as seen through the Golden Calf gospel John 1:1.

The Horev revelation of the “Oral Torah” serves as the revelation of the 1st Commandment Spirits Divine Presence permanently in the yatzir ha-tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people. This post Golden Calf revelation of the k’vanna of the first Sinai Commandment; the greatest Torah commandment because it weighs the hearts of all generations of the chosen Cohen people – do we or do we not accept the Torah לשמה. Clearly, like the Sun in the sky on a cloudless day, the av tuma Universal God theological creed belief system religions, corrupt both the revelation of this Name – Oral Torah Spirits Horev revelation and likewise the concept of faith – the righteous pursuit of justice: as fair compensation of damages inflicted upon Jews by other Jews. Replaced by personal “I believe” theological constructs totally alien to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore, once the Church & Mosque exposed in one lie after another, where do both Xtians and Muslims draw the line to their religious house of cards?

The mitzva of Shema defines Torah faith in the pursuit of justice through remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot – this brit which eternally creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing – the interpretation of the k’vanna of מעשה בראשית twice repeated in the first blessing which precedes tefillat קריא שמע – תמיד מעשה בראשית. Jewish views interpret Shema not as strict monotheism, as a superficial reading of ONE implies. But as a declaration of exclusive oath brit loyalty amid henotheism; Goyim since they reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – by definition worship other Gods. Both Par’o and Egypt together with the oath brit sworn at Gilgal testifies that the kings of Canaan like Par’o worshipped other Gods.

The concept of Gods simply beyond the Human mind to grasp Chagigah 2:1. Fools who attempt to understand that which exists above, below or behind them – better never born at all. This Mishnaic idea utterly rejects any attempt by Man to define the Gods. Torah faith לא בשמים היא prioritizes the struggle between the opposing Yatzirot within the heart, based upon the struggle of Esau and Yaacov in the womb of Rivka.

The guilt of church support to both Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele, as just two examples to assist their escape to South America no after the fact declaration can blot out and remove. Pius XII permitted the Nazis to gather all the Jews of Rome, compares to the recent Red Cross refusal to demand to see the stolen Israeli hostages in Hamas torture tunnel captivity.

The Talmud understanding of living in the oath sworn lands. As interpreted by the Classic French school of Talmudic common law commentators.

One of the most direct and striking statements appears in Rashi’s commentary on Leviticus 25:38 “I am the Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be God to you”. Rashi explains, drawing from Torat Kohanim and Ketubot 110b sources, that whoever resides in Eretz Yisrael has God as their God in a direct, intimate sense, while whoever leaves the land of Israel is as if they worship idols (כְּמִי שֶׁעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה) – based upon the first Sinai commandment. Jews in g’lut have effectively returned to Egypt. A direct violation of the first Sinai commandment.

The Torah oath brit entails Blessings or Curses. ויקרא יח:כח and פרק כ employ the mussar “vomits out”. Kre’a Shma ערבית, this wisdom commandment/time-oriented mitzva – specifically accepts Torah curses as part of the yoke of Heaven. ויקרא כו:לג Israel scattered like barley through a sieve, preventing mutual comfort. Rashi’s view aligns with classical sources, while portraying leaving as a grave spiritual risk. A core theme in his Torah commentary.

Baali Tosafot, the grand-children of Rashi, primarily 12th–13th centuries. On Ketubot 110b which addresses the Mishna’s rules on coercing aliyah, the prohibition against leaving it, and the non-neutral nature of curse g’lut or even temporary departure. The core Talmudic passage in Ketubot 110b states that all may force family members to ascend to Eretz Yisrael (but none may force them to leave), and spouses can compel each other to move there or remain, with refusal potentially leading to divorce without ketubah payment. This reflects the mitzvah’s gravity: dwelling in the land enables a fuller divine relationship.

Living in chutz la-aretz invalidates: 110b: one who lives in Eretz Yisrael, if he has a God. G’lut likened to having no God or even to idolatry (“ke-ilu oved avodah zarah”). Tosafot’s commentary highlights that leaving the land—severs optimal mitzvah fulfillment (especially mitzvot ha-teluyot ba-aretz like terumah, ma’aser, and shemittah), and exposes one to the spiritual dangers of avoda zara—the 2nd Sinai commandment.

Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen (a prominent Tosafist), who held that nowadays there is no mitzvah to dwell in Eretz Yisrael, because many land-dependent mitzvot exist with associated severe punishments (e.g., for improper terumah/ma’aser observance), and people cannot reliably guard against them amid g’lut hardships and lack of full Torah infrastructure. These problems do not exist today.

Rabbeinu Chaim represents a minority Tosafot opinion. On par with the Smag, (another baali tosafot) who based his halachic code upon the order of Rambam’s Sefer Ha-Mitzvot. The Tosafot records it to explain why coercion no longer applies practically. The French school of Talmudic common law does not negate the ideal or eternal value of yishuv ha-aretz. They affirm the Talmudic ideal: leaving (or staying out) carries spiritual peril, akin to distancing from God. The exceptions (temporary departure for Torah study, marriage, or rescue from danger/property loss, as per Talmudic sources) remain narrow concessions, not permissions for casual or permanent g’lut.

Rashba (Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet, c. 1235–1310), (he lived in Barcelona Spain), one of the foremost halakhic authorities of medieval Spain (known as the Rashba), addresses the gravity of leaving Eretz Yisrael in his vast collection of responsa (Teshuvot ha-Rashba). His writings reflect and reinforce the classical view that permanent or casual departure from the land is spiritually perilous and generally forbidden, except in narrowly defined dire or necessary circumstances.

Rashba aligns closely with the Talmudic sources (e.g., Ketubot 110b–111a, Avodah Zarah 13a, Bava Batra 91a–b). He emphasizes that dwelling in Eretz Yisrael is tied to the highest levels of divine closeness, mitzvah observance (especially those dependent on the land), and national destiny. Leaving exposes one to spiritual degradation, akin to the Talmudic statement that “whoever dwells outside the land is as if he has no God” (Ketubot 110b).

Departure, especially for settlement abroad, is viewed as a serious breach. It severs one from the land’s inherent holiness and the mitzvot ha-teluyot ba-aretz, most essentially encapsulated in the First Sinai commandment לשמה. Rashba echoes the idea (seen in sources like Rashbam on Bava Batra 91b, which he influences) that leaving actively removes oneself from these obligations, diminishing one’s spiritual stature. Choosing to go into g’lut on a regel no different than all other mitzvot ha-teluyot ba-aretz.

Rashba permits temporary departure only for compelling, limited reasons, always with the intention to return. Classical allowances he upholds (drawing from Talmud include:

to study Torah, to marry based upon the story of Yaacov, to rescue property or oneself from death, based upon David fleeing to Gath. Business or livelihood, but only temporarily and not for permanent relocation.

Even when allowed, these concessions to necessity in no way shape or form qualify as an ideal. Rashba would view unnecessary absence as spiritually risky, potentially leading to assimilation, weakened observance, or loss of the land’s elevating influence. His rulings reflect the post-Talmudic consensus: the land is the optimal environment for Jewish spiritual and moral flourishing; leaving it—even temporarily without justification—carries grave implications, while only dire straits (persecution, famine, essential Torah/marriage needs) justify exceptions, always with return as the goal.

Tehillem 33

Rabbinic tradition does not summarize Tehillim 33 as “God’s sovereignty” in the abstract. Divine Providence (השגחה) over Israel alone through the brit of blessings and curses. Other nations stand in the shadow of ancient Egypt. Goyim never to this day accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. They worship Gods in the Heavens, no different than the ancient Greek worship of the Gods on Mt. Olympus. Post the Roman destruction of Judea and conversion to the Xtian form of Monotheism which contrasts with the Muslim absolute Universal God theology – these Goyim worship a Trinity or Tawhid God in Heaven. Both reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai which introduces the Divine Spirit lives in the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people alone. If this Divine Spirit lived in the hearts of Goyim then how could HaShem discern his chosen Cohen people from the non Cohem Goyim like as did HaShem choose the korban of Hevel and rejected the korban of Cain?

Midrash Tehillim 33: God “looks into the deeds of all humanity” and “directs the fate of nations.” The Reshon scholar Radak comments the distinction between hashgacha kelalit (global providence) and hashgacha peratit (individual providence). This comment in alignment with the distinction between the Cain Hevel korbanot.

דבר ה׳ an extremely abstract complex concept that טיפש פשט translations fail to grasp and weigh. Rashi: “The word of Hashem is upright” refers to the Torah and the prophetic promises. Contrasts with the dikduk opinion expressed by Greek assimilated Ibn Ezra from Spain. (Ezra’s son converted to Islam).

Torah absolutely rejects the idea: “The futility of human power without God” as utterly vague and consequently worthless. “God”? Based upon the g’lut realities of Xtian and Muslim Monotheism theology, clearly all but Rabbinic leaders prior to the Rambam held that both Gods worshipped by either Xtians or Muslim not the revelation of the שם השם לשמה first commandment revelation which differentiates between the בראשית vision of אל, האל, אלהים, אל שדי God in the Heavens above and not in the yatzir ha-tov brit hearts below as the post Sinai Torah commands: לא בשמים היא.

Tehillem 33 call to righteous ביטחון – based upon the verb שלום stands upon the foundation of ביטחון/trust. A friend who ‘trusts’ his ally as his brother to guard his back shares no common ground with worship. “Our soul waits for Hashem,” the reference to the First Commandment revelation of the Name validates the vision that HaShem לא בשמים היא. HaShem not a Universal God for all Mankind. Only Israel accepts this revelation of the Sinai oath brit faith.

Tehillim 33:6 – “By the word of Hashem the heavens were made.” This precedent interprets the בראשית Aggadic mussar which instructs that creation refers directly to the נמשל chosen Cohen people created through observance of wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot. Rather than stops at the משל טיפש פשט that simply reads that God created the Universe. The latter fails to discern Av wisdom commandments which require k’vanna and define the korban of Hevel from positive and negative commandments which resemble the korban of Cain which does not require k’vanna.

Isaiah 40:26: God calls the stars out “by name,” another משל\נמשל mussar. Wisdom commandments also commonly referred to as time-oriented commandments – a מלאכה rather than a עבודה. The ancient Greek language cannot and does not discern the subtle distinction which separates the two distinct verbs. Talmud defines understanding as “the discernment between like from like”.

Common labor/עבודה in no wise compares to skilled labor/מלאכה. This latter verb closely resembles the language of מלאך\מלאכים. The reference to “stars” called out by name reflect a fundamental shift where prior to the Bavil g’lut Angels did not have specific particular names whereas post Bavil g’lut the later T’NaCH sources started to refer to Angels with direct names. HaShem sent Moshe described as an Angel to Par’o. Yaacov sent an “angel” to his brother Esau and wrestled with the “angel” of Esau, remembered through the mitzva of not eating the gid ha-nasheh.

Wisdom commandments as a נמשל interpretation can “create” the chosen Cohen people by means of sending מלאכים created by wisdom commandments. Herein the prophetic mussar of Isaiah 40:26. Tehillim 33:10–11 – “Hashem foils the counsel of nations”, supports this key Torah theme. Isaiah 8:10: “Devise a plan, but it will be foiled.” Jeremiah 18:7–10: God reshapes nations based on their moral behavior. Following the Shoah arose Israel from g’lut as an Independent nation to the absolute chagrin of England and Europe.

Tehillim 33:13–15 “From heaven He observes all humankind”, follows this central theme. In similar vein Proverbs 15:3: “The eyes of Hashem are everywhere”, and Job 34:21: “His eyes are upon a man’s ways”. Tehillim 33:16–17 “A king is not saved by his army”, likewise interprets the blessing/curse Torah brit. The strength of a horse can do nothing to stop the plague of Torah curses when our people assimilate and intermarry with Goyim and therein worship other Gods. Zechariah 4:6: “Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit”, and Hosea 1:7: God saves “not by bow or sword” likewise validates the Torah blessing/curse oath brit.

Tehillim 33 appears in some Jewish communities in Kabbalat Shabbat – the Av wisdom commandment which discerns repeatedly מלאכה מלאכה מלאכה. The Ashkenazic Pesukei d’Zimra introduces the distinction between a ברכה מן השבח; the former opens with ברוך שאמר which contains שם ומלכות. Tehillim, for example, all lack שם ומלכות. The central k’vanna of the Siddur absolutely requires that for a person to sanctify any wisdom commandment that that person possess the “chosen” eye which discerns that ברכות as תולדות follow the “fear of heaven” required to swear a Torah oath. Whereas a שבח, contrasts to ברכות by remembering that HaShem rejected the First-born Cain’s korban as but an unworthy “barbeque to heaven”/no k’vanna mitzva. This rejection of a korban lacking k’vanna compares to HaShem and the rejection of king Shaul as Moshiach after he failed to sanctify the time-oriented commandment to kill Amalek.

Selected Verses of Selichot likewise hold portions of Tehillim 33. This Tehillem no superscription “Of David,” etc. The Talmud instructs that a Torah sages merits greater respect than a king. Any person of Israel can rule the nation as King. Moshe first anointed the House of Aaron as “king”. Shmuel first anointed Shaul as “king”. The chosen first Cohen born not determined by order of birth טיפש פשט. A Torah sage 1:10,000. Hence the Torah sage merits respect whereas arrogant and foolish “kings” through their assimilation and intermarriage filled the land with oppression and injustice as did Par’o in Egypt.

T’NaCH understood today.

The T’NaCH requires close analysis. קוהלת\Qoheleth–Ecclesiastes 10: Qohelet = case law on public folly; particularly in aspects of speech and leadership. It instructs mussar case law for judges, leaders, and citizens; exploring how even small acts of folly can overshadow wisdom and destabilize social order. It warns that wisdom is fragile, and society collapses when fools rule. A profound meditation on the fragility of wisdom and the dire implications of folly, especially in public spheres. The prophetic teachings of Amos and Zephaniah provide critical context, capturing the essence of how individual folly can escalate to societal crises.

קוהלת\Qoheleth 10, about the public consequences of irrationality or lack of wisdom in decision-making. The Torah idea of “fear of heaven” = “reputation”, a much later ethical‑Hasidic development Oral Torah logic interpretation נמשל, and not directly comparable to the biblical משל. However, mesechta ברכות teaches that the משל dream follows the נמשל interpretation; later generations employ Oral Torah logic to interpret the k’vanna of the Torah revelation as it meets the needs of their current generations. Clearly g’lut Jewry during the horrors of the Dark Ages did not “need” to interpret the Torah as a political Constitutional document.

In its original frame, Torah is a Constitution for a free people ruling their land through courts and mishpat. G’lut by stark contrast, the same Torah – read primarily as inner avodah and survival wisdom, expressed through Judaism “converted” into a religion. Both address the reality of different times and different lands and societies Jews g’lut forced to endure. Consequently the k’vanna of time-oriented Torah commandments changes to address the situations the brit Cohen people face and endure—and modern readers should not confuse the later nimshal with the original mashal.

Torah does not “change,” but the kavanah with which it is lived shifts dramatically depending on whether Israel is sovereign in its land or living as a scattered minority in g’lut. The stark contrast between Blessing and Curse obviously apparent. G’lut Jewry had no courts with coercive power. They had no National Army. As despised refugees with no political rights, the church outlawed Jewish ownership of land; despite the economies of all Dark Ages societies based upon agricultural based economies!

The Sanhedrin courts together with their Prophet police enforcers of judicial Din rulings, specifically through the prophesy of mussar limited to times when Jews rule their Homelands as an Independent free nation. G’lut Jewry enjoyed no political autonomy – EVER. Written Torah does not Change. However the lights of Hanukkah teach that g’lut Jews (Jews ruled by Goyim) forget the Oral Torah which instructs the mussar the k’vanna of wisdom commandments/time oriented mitzvot throughout the Ages. The determination of kavanah, absolutely required to sanctify wisdom Torah commandments, lived differently in sovereignty and in exile.

The Holy Writings – 3rd part of the T’NaCH – serve as the basis/comentary which interprets the k’vanna of the NaCH prophets mussar. In like and similar fashion the later Gemara functions in the role of the Holy Writings to interprets the k’vanna of the Mishna. Hence both this and that qualify as Primary Sources in Jewish Torah literature.

This contrasts with the still later Reshonim scholarship, which at best exists as merely a secondary “gossip” source, unfit to serve as a court witness; Torah common law courtrooms only accept eye witness testimony. The Book of D’varim, also know as משנה תורה – which has absolutely nothing (no common ground) with the Rambam’s statute law Greek deductive logic. Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic defines how the Sealed – Primary Talmudic sources – interpret the intent of the earlier sealed – Primary T’NaCH sources of Jewish common law. Courtroom common law shares nothing with the much later Goyim theological belief systems, and/or their obtuse av tuma avoda zara theologies; any more than Rambam’s halachic statute law code serves as a commentary to the Talmud. G’lut Jewry cursed by the Torah curse – impossible for Jews to obey the Torah לשמה – based upon the First Sinai commandment; g’lut Jews remain in לאו דוקא Egypt.

Rabbi Yechuda named his Sha’s – Mishna based upon משנה תורה as the second name of the Book of דברים; both Written Torah and Oral Torah instruct common law. The Mishna’s Case/Rule style and Gemara’s Difficulty\Aswer (Prosecution/Defense) both address the central theme of court room common law. Hanukkah teaches that forgetting Oral Torah = forgetting how to live Torah as law.

In like manner the Holy Writings of the T’NaCH function as the Gemara (Case/Din) precedents which make a משנה תורה-common law re-interpretation of the language of the NaCH (Mishna) Prophets. Both T’NaCH and Talmud instruct common law; the former “mussar common law, and the latter “halachic common law”. The common law commentary of the Baali Tosafot brings “off the Dof” precedents which defines its commentary to the Talmud because common law stands upon the foundation of Judging a judicial case by comparison of pro vs. con judicial precedents against the current case heard before the codified Mishnaic Sanhedrin courtroom rulings. Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud stopped and did not make a g’lut משנה תורה k’vanna definition of the language of the Mishna. Torah – most simply – a common‑law courtroom legal system, not a religious statute law code.

Protection of ones’ good name – defines the k’vanna of fear of Heaven based upon אל מלך נאמן –awe, moral accountability, oath brit obedience; a key understanding of k’vanna required to obey Torah wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot which require k’vanna. Drosh a key basis of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס interpretive kabbala of Oral Torah.

T’NaCH does not teach history, Oohelet’s “good name” not the issue. T’NaCH commands prophetic mussar because the Torah revelation applies equally to all generations of the chosen Cohen people in all generations. Isaiah 28:9–13 instructs the mussar: about mocking, expressed through the משל – God’s word; rejecting prophecy, and suffering oath brit curse consequences. Qohelet 10 simply does not instruct this mussar.

Therefore, what NaCH prophet(s) most resembles as a common law precedent? Excluding Isaiah 3, Jeremiah 5, Hosea 4, and Micah 3. Invite the reading audience to tell me why these prophetic sources fail to qualify as precedents to understand the intent of Ecclesiastes 10 as a T’NaCH common law Primary Source commentary to the Torah Constitution?

Israel did not come out of Egyptian bondage to sit in Grand tents to get religion. Rather, once freed from slavery they embraced with zeal the Torah commandment to invade, conquer and rule the oath sworn lands with righteous judicial justice which dedicates (just like a korban dedicated) the pursuit of justice among our people – meaning court imposed fair compensation of damages inflicted.

Does “small folly outweighing wisdom” represent the essence of Oohelet 10? No — it’s one of the chapter’s themes, but not the essence of the whole chapter. Oohelet10, a collection of wisdom sayings, not a single unified argument. It deals with: The fragility of reputation which contrasts between wisdom and folly. The danger of foolish speech, seems to go together with instability of political power – Shlomo’s collapse as king following his avoda zara.

The opening proverb — “Dead flies make the perfumer’s ointment stink” — illustrates a principle, not the 10’s entire message. Wisdom – valuable but fragile; folly is small but destructive. The “folly” of g’lut Jewry: they forgot the Oral Torah and replaced it with Greek deductive logic and Roman statute law models. In the world of Torah common law, the NT/Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery fraud prioritizes the metaphor of Paul’s “original sin” or “piety which believes in JeZeus as the Messiah of Mankind;” despite the simple fact that by the words of Paul: “Goyim not under the law” and therefore Goyim cannot determine the k’vanna of wisdom commandments such as the time-oriented commandment of Moshiach. Argue that the NT likewise a Roman forgery not different than the Protocols – both this and that exist as revisionist history & substitution theologies on par with the Muslim Koran.

The emphasis of this interpretation seeks to “Crack the ethical containment force” of Xtian societies. Much like as the American & French revolutions cracked the ethical containment force of Church/State, Arristocrat\citizen parameters which likewise defined Czarist Russia till the 1917 Russian Revolution. The Bolsheviks, according to both Troskii and Lenin, based their understanding of Marx’s socialism upon the French revolution. Other examples of cracking the ethical containment force as the basis of revolution: the Nazi revolution which like the previous examples too rejected the Church/State parameters. And the Iranian revolution which rejected the Church/State parameters established by the Shah of Iran. In all these precedent case study examples: cracking the ethical containment force resulted in Troskii’s “Permanent Revolution” … Civil War expanded to surrounding societies … know as WWI and WWII and the Iraq/Iran war etc. As described by the opening verses of the Book of בראשית.

Chaos and anarchy define every “Civil War” throughout Human History. Both Xtianity and Islam resulted in horrific wars which produced great empires which later fell into a repeating anarchy and decay cycle. Every civil war in human history – defined by chaos and anarchy. Any civil war simply not limited to a local conflict—but rather represents the radical Tower of Bavel breakdown of the shared moral framework, there described as “language”, that holds a society together. The Nazi revolution returned Xtian Europe back to primitive barbaric societies, specifically through the Shoah crimes duplicated by both Mao and Stalin, and later by Pol Pot and other sub-human barbarians. Something like scratch a Xtian or Muslim and expose a barbarian. Revolution therefore “cracks the ethical containment force” which holds human society together. And this results in a Human blood bath. The specific references to Church and Mosque – simply לאו דוקא by definition.

The latter serve as models. No different that the T’NaCH and Talmud function as “models” to establish the Torah Constitutional Republic which mandates common law Federal Sanhedrin courtroom justice. Every civilization rests on an ethical containment force—a shared moral language that holds society together. When that containment force cracks, the result: chaos, anarchy, and often civil war. This pattern qualifies as a universal and not tied to any one.
religion or culture. Revolution cracks the ethical containment force that holds a society together. When that force collapses—whether in religious, secular, imperial, or revolutionary contexts—human beings of any background can descend into chaos, anarchy, and atrocity.
This pattern described in Bereshit and repeated throughout human history. This is exactly how T’NaCH uses Egypt, Bavel, Assyria, and Rome—not as ethnic judgments, but as models of political‑moral systems. Exactly how T’NaCH uses Egypt, Bavel, Assyria, and Rome—not as ethnic judgments, but as models of political‑moral systems.

The Power of Small Things: a small act of folly can outweigh a lifetime of wisdom and honor. Refers to “fear of heaven” understood as Baal Shem Tov/Master of ones’ Good Name reputation. This represents the essence of Ecclesiastes 10 mussar. This does not make a depth analysis precedent interpretation of Isaiah 28: 9-13? The T’NaCH concept of “fear of heaven” requires a stretch to include the name of a much later Hasidic post Cossack pogrom master called Baal Shem Tov.

Such a stretch known as טיפש פשט. The spiritual Torah ideal of “fear of heaven” has nothing what so ever to do with a 17th Century founder of Hassidic dynasties. The reference which connects “baal shem tov” understood long before the Cossack revolt – that a wise man strives to protect his good name reputation. Herein the Talmud interprets the k’vanna of “יראת שמים” as a wisdom commandment commonly referred to as a “time-oriented” commandment.

Isaiah 28:9–13 criticizes people who mock prophetic teaching and refuse to listen. Therefore what prophetic mussar most resembles to the main theme expressed by Oohelet 10? Oohelet 10 perhaps best understood viewed through the lens perspective of Amos and Zephaniah. They both emphasize the societal impacts of folly and the importance of ethical behavior, which closely aligns with the chapter’s themes. The excluded sources, they focus on broader themes of oath brit fidelity, collective behavior, and systemic issues rather than the individual consequences of folly that Oohelet specifically addresses.

Oohelet 10: Main focus of mussar – Public consequences of small folly, speech, power; foolish rulers, dangerous speech. Amos: Social injustice, corrupt elites, hypocrisy; ruling class self centered arrogance destroys society. Zephaniah: Complacency, bloated Ego-I, moral decay in public life; oath blessing/curse brit (based upon the 10 plagues of Egypt – remember Egypt) on a society dulled by self-centered stupidity.

Isaiah 28:9–13 about mockery of prophecy itself—the refusal to hear mussar. That’s a different “case” than Qohelet 10, which assumes the reality of leaders corrupt over estimation of themselves, and asks: what happens when it leaks into speech and power? Qohelet: “Folly – set in many high places… slaves on horses, princes walking like slaves.” Amos: rulers’ folly and injustice invert the moral order and rot the social fabric. Qohelet describes the phenomenon; Amos delivers the indictment and sentence.

Zephaniah: This prophetic mussar targets the Yatzir Ha-Raw: complacent, self‑secure Jerusalem; officials, judges, prophets, priests kiss-ass & corrupt. Those who say “Hashem will not do good nor evil” live in a kind of spiritual folly—practical atheism. Qohelet: warns how foolishness in leadership and speech destabilizes life. Zephaniah: shows that such folly simply not just “unfortunate”—it summons divine Torah brit curse judgment. Qohelet gives the mussar psychology of “masturbation”; Zephaniah gives the oath brit\blessing or curse consequences.

Qohelet 10 = mussar precedent on the public consequences of individual popped bloated Egos—especially in speech and power. Amos & Zephaniah = mussar precedents on how that same stupidity, when normalized and systemic, becomes a basis for din against a society. Isaiah 28 = meta‑precedent: what happens when a people no longer even accept mussar as binding—when they mock the very category of rebuke; Isaiah 28 – related, but one level up: it’s about the refusal to hear any of this.

Middot define both T’NaCH and Talmud scholarship. Middot compare to notes on a music sheet, based upon the Shabbat public reading of the Sefer Torah. The revelation of the 13 tohor middot at Horev – they define the revelation of the שם השם לשמה in this Earth for all post Sinai eternity. The אב מידדות fathered the תולדות מידדות, like time-oriented Av wisdom commandments first introduced in בראשית followed by תולדות מצוות introduced in שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר – which do not require k’vanna. The latter serve as Torah common law precedents which “create” the k’vanna of the Av wisdom commandments applicable to both the Written Torah & Talmudic Halachot.

The Torah and NaCH prophets learn from the 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe at Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf – Av tuma avoda zara – where assimilated and intermarried (ערב רב) Israelites translated the “word” אלהים as a replacement for the revelation of the שם השם לשמה; this replacement of a word which the lips of Man can pronounce with the Divine Presence (רוח הקודש) Spirit critically defines the Sin of the Golden Calf as the worship of “idolatry”.

Meaning all other Divine Names first introduced in the Book of בראשית, such as אל האל, אלהים, אל שדי etc., they all refer to the vision of a God in the Heavens above – by words; based upon the premise that the Torah speaks in the language of Man. However the Sinai revelation changed this spirituality unto the revelation of the שם השם לשמה who lives within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the chosen Cohen people in this Earth below, through the רוח הקודש Divine Presence Spirits expressed through Oral Torah middot-chords … just as the משל “form” of the Mishkan-Sinai revelation teaches the mussar of the נמשל “substance” that the שם השם לשמה permanently resides upon the Earth below and not the Heavens above. דכתיב: דברים ל:יב – לא בשמים היא.

The Torah and NaCH prophets learn from the 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe at Horev – following the sin of the Golden Calf avoda zara where assimilated and intermarried (ערב רב שאין להם יראת אלהים) Israelites translated the “word” אלהים vision of God in the Heavens above, as a replacement for the revelation of the שם השם לשמה Spirit that permanently lives only in the oath sworn land inheritance brit cut with Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov’s chosen Cohen seed within the Canaan inheritance through Torah oath alliances. Meaning all other Divine Names first introduced in the Book of בראשית refer to the vision of a God in the Heavens above. The Sinai revelation changed this spirituality, just as did the redemption of Israel from Egyptian g’lut/exile slavery, unto the revelation of the שם השם לשמה who lives within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the chosen Cohen people in this Earth below. Still another Sinai metaphor – just as the משל “form” of the Mishkan Sinai revelation teaches this identical mussar נמשל “substance”, that the שם השם לשמה permanently resides upon the Earth below and not the Heavens above. דכתיב: דברים ל:יב – לא בשמים היא. All Goyim in all generations have rejected and invalidated this the revelation of the Torah at Sinai through their av tuma avoda zara counter revelation substitute theologies.

Both the NT and the Koran exist as permanent examples of spiritual Goyim replacement theologies and revisionist history which endeavors to substitute their God Names like as did the Golden Calf replaced the word אלהים for the Divine Presence 1st Commandment revelation Spirit Name. This local tribal god, which only Israel accepted (to this day) at Sinai following the 10 plagues and splitting of the Sea of Reeds in Egypt; botho theological Universal Monotheistic God(s) belief systems replaced the revelation of Torah common law pursuit of justice within the borders of the oath sworn Canaan inheritance lands sworn to the Avot fathers of the chosen Cohen nation.

Both the Av tuma avoda zara theological belief system substitutes for man to rule its people with righteous judicial common law Sanhedrin Capital & Torts courtroom – but rather re-defined through much later Nicene Creed declaration made following Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Xtianity. Which only thereafter equated Jesus as the messiah for not only Israel but all Mankind; together with a totally new Trinity God-Head, who brings salvation from Adam’s original sin, according to the letters written by the Apostle Paul; or the Muslim Tawhid al-Rububiyyah (Oneness of Lordship) revisionist substitute theology which proclaims: Allah as the sole creator, sustainer, and controller of the Universe & Muhammad as the last of the prophets.

[Prophets, according solely to the Koran, sent to all Man kind; these prophets speak in the native tongues, (Perhaps based upon the Gospels originally written in Greek.), to the people that Allah sends them to warn]. Regardless, that both Moshe and Yonah spoke only in Hebrew – the language spoken by the chosen Cohen brit oath alliance seed of the Avot; the mussar of Yonah directed toward g’lut-exiled Israel, uprooted from Samaria to remember/t’shuva the oaths sworn to the Avot, that only they – and the Jesus false messiah or Yishmael, would father the chosen Cohen people.

The vast gulf which separates the Koran, first revealed about 610 CE (something like the Zohar after the burning of the Talmud in Paris 1242 CE), from the Sinai revelation – approximately 1446 BCE. The Koran glosses over – the now irrelevant Torah Akadah narrative; similar to the Xtian Bible “Old Testament” fashion; which likewise written in Goyim languages, equally invalidates the Hebrew T’NaCH. While the Gospels declare prophets no different than witch fortune tellers who do not require crystal balls; the Koran prioritizes the notion that the Arabs were the last nation to receive their “prophet” – Muhammad. Neither replacement theology validates the Torah vision that prophets command mussar alone, strictly and only to all generations of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov – living within the borders of the oath sworn Cohen Canaan permanent land inheritance.

The Aggadic portions throughout the Talmud turn to the “note chords/middot” of Yossi Ha’Gallilee and his 32 middot. The Halachic portions of the Talmud turn to the note cords/middot of Hillel, Yishmael and Akiva. For example: the midda גזרה שוו an “identical clause/phrase” located in two or more locations across the Sha’s Bavli. To learn this particular midda, compares to and something like the Front/Top\Side views of a building blue-print: based upon the descriptive “chord” comparative משל metaphor – to reading the Sefer Torah on Shabbat: a chord does not stand alone all by itself upon a music-sheet; all songs which any music-sheet communicates – most essentially combine a particular גזרה שוו note/chord combined with other note/chords to create a “tune”.

Consequently just as a construction “blue-print” comparative metaphor — with its front-top-side viewpoints gives a 3-D understanding from a two-D blueprint. So too this גזרה שוו chord/midda example, in one specific Gemara sugya has different “tune”, based upon its surrounding middot/chords within each and every sugya-sub chapter which contains this specific גזרה שוו midda-chord; likewise contained also within some other Talmudic sugya/sub-chapert the same גזרה שוו example midda/chord likewise contained. However in this other Talmudic sugya-sub chapter the example גזרה שוו surrounded by other “tune” middot/chords.

Thus comparing our midda/chord גזרה שוו example, to the exact same midda/chord located within some other precedent-common law sugya across the entire literature of Talmudic common law — duplicates what any construction building blue-print front/top\side view communicates to its contractor — to grasp the 3-D court witness “perspective” uniquely different from the “perspective” vantage of a different witness – to the exact same “crime”; like and similar to how a 2-D blueprint understands and communicates to the building contractor the actual 3-D intent. Both Torah & Talmud emphasize as absolutely morally critical – 3-D “middot development” – within the character of each and every Jew in all generations. Herein defines the revelation of prophetic mussar as defined by the revelation of the Torah at Sinai…

The Torah warns Israel against following “false prophets”. Both the NT and Koran teach alien theologies of prophesy.

Have delved this week into the subject of why Jews despise, detest, and abhor the NT and Koran propaganda rhetoric religious forgeries – which both pervert Torah common law into treif religious theological belief systems. Shall now re-address a previous learning on the Gemara of Kiddushin. משנה תורה קידושין page 3. May I wish all who visit my blog a shabbat shalom with a big smile.

Talmud scholarship directly compares to enslaved Israelites who build Par’o Egyptian cities by making bricks with straw. This metaphor משל requires that the reading audience themselves make the required דיוק-logical inference which the Talmud calls: נמשל. This Talmudic requirement defines a key aspect of the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic that defines how the sages in the Talmud understand the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. Clearly the Gemara, sealed in approximately 450 CE in Iraq not the same as the period of time when Moshe Rabbeinu heard the revelation of the 13 tohor middot at Horev which define how to comprehend the revelation of the שם השם לשמה expressed in the first Sinai Torah commandment.

Goyim religious leaders therefore disregard the Talmud “codification” known as the “Oral Torah” by Jewish audiences who study T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. Talmud compares to the metaphor of a Loom which has warp & weft opposing threads; the kabbalah of פרדס inductive reasoning logic splits דרוש-פשט affixed to the Aggadic threads of the chosen Cohen peoples culture and customs which the T’NaCH\Talmud weaves; akin to the Torah garments which the Book of שמות commands for Aaron and his sons.

The construction of Cohen culture and customs (still another metaphor משל) compares to Israelite slave who built treasure cities for Par’o. The Talmud employs as its “straw made into bricks”, the 7 middot of Hillel, 10 middot of Akiva, 13 middot of Yishmael, and 32 middot of HaGalill. The specifics of the opening Av Mishna of קידושין, both Mishna together with its Gemara commentary “construct” Talmudic פרדס inductive logic through the “bricks” of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט line of reasoning. The opening first two words of this Mishna האשה נקנית makes a מיעט which excluded a קטנה-little girl from the mitzva of קידושין. The legalism of Talmudic scholarship requires that the reading public differentiate the kabbalah of rabbinic middot bricks. Failure to discern the type of “middot bricks” used in the “construction” of a specific Mishna/Gemara results in catastrophic error. The Rambam in his statute law halachic code, organized based upon the Order of Roman statute law which “shapes” law into legal categories failed to grasp that small young girls excluded from the Mitzva of קידושין like a lame animal excluded from being a korban dedicated upon the altar. This gross fundamental error post ירידות הדורות-domino effect – down stream generations – failed to grasp and correct. This fundamental error compares to aiming a rifle at a down range target.

Both Adin Steinsalts and the ArtScroll Schottenstein Editions attempt to impose their versions of a Talmudic translation. Steinsalts resembles the Rambam in that both men translated Talmudic Aramaic into Hebrew. The ArtScroll attempts to translate the Talmud into English. The most basic fundamental which translation theories fail to grasp: T’NaCH mussar aggadic common law and Halachic Gemara common law (warp vs weft) both stand upon precedents from other similar Case/Din outside sources of T’NaCH or Talmudic Primary Sources. Neither the Hebrew T’NaCH nor the Talmud read like the Xtians and Muslims read their bible and koran non common law “translations”.

Only Israel accepts, to this day the revelation of the Torah לשמה – but only within the borders of the oath sworn lands. The counterfeit translations of both bible and koran worship word translation – Golden Calves. אלהים did not take Israel out of Egypt. The דיוק which the Sinai revelation makes upon Divine Names previously introduced in the opening Book of בראשית – the Sinai revelation לשמה … the difference between God in the heavens to god in the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the Cohen hearts in this Earth below. The משל of the Mishkan further emphasizes this absolutely critical distinction which both the Xtian bible and Muslim koran “translations” lose through their “translations”. Both fail to make the absolutely required דיוק נמשל – the Sinai revelation separates the dwelling of רוח הקודש tohor Oral Torah middot spirits, living inside the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts — from Universal Monotheistic theologies which worship God in the Heavens. The substance of the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Translating do not worship אלהים אחרים to idols compares to assuming that קידושין – a mitzva that includes little girls.

Granted, king Shlomo’s grand Temple idol of wood and stone qualifies as within the bounds of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Torah wisdom discerns and does not confuse forms for substance. The substance of Torah “faith”: the righteous pursuit of justice among the bnai brit people NOT belief in theologically “created” New Gods – name Jesus or Allah respectively.

ס”ד אמינא הואיל ו … קמ”ל this Gemara phrase exposes the logical “brick” known as a middah – רבוי מיעט. Both the Xtian and Muslim faiths declare: I might have thought that both Jesus and Allah exist as one Monotheistic Universal God for all Mankind … קמ”ל. No. These av tuma avoda zara “New Gods”, a Torah abomination; both Av tuma theologies pervert the revelation of Torah common law – faith, into twisted and perverted religions belief systems. Both reject the revelation of Torah common law as the faith obligation – “Yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven” – placed upon the shoulders of all generations of the chosen Cohen people alone. The revelation of the שם השם לשמה at Sinai — the local tribal god of the Jewish people alone. Goyim by definition worship אלהים אחרים. Hence Jewish assimilation of Goyim culture and customs coupled with intermarriage defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment.

Xtianity worships a false messiah. While Islam pretends that prophets sent to all peoples speaking in the native tongues of those peoples who fundamentally reject the revelation of the Torah common law legalism at Sinai. Both corrupted religions translate “prophets” into little girls fit for the mitzva of קידושין through rape. Yonah sent to the refugees the king of Assyria forcefully expelled from the conquered kingdom of Israel. Just as pre-g’lut prophets equally travelled to the kingdom of Samaria to command mussar. Torah prophets never sent to all peoples across the Earth as the koran falsely declares. Prophets do not predict the future as the NT falsely declares. Prophets – like the mitzva of Shabbat defines the mitzva of Moshiach in that both Torah commandments apply equally to all peoples and generations of bnai brit to pursue and rule the chosen Cohen people with righteous justice based upon the מיעט פרט of Uriah the Hittite mussar rebuke by which the prophet Natan cursed David with eternal Civil War blood shed; David failed in this specific particular case to sanctify the mitzva of Moshiach, no different than king Shaul who failed to obey the prophetic mussar commanded by Shemuel which order Shaul to slaughter Amalek. This כלל – פרט middah “brick” of rabbi Yishmael serves to defines the k’vanna dedication of the mitzva of Moshiach, like as does the רבוי מיעט excludes little girls from the mitzva of kiddushin.

The wisdom of the Torah affixed through Av tohor time-oriented commandments. As positive & negative Torah commandments serves as common law precedents having the purpose to discern k’vanna required for av time oriented commandment … thereby elevated to av tohor commandments rather than remaining as secondary precedent commandments which do not require k’vanna. This “Torah wisdom” equally applies to Oral Torah halachic mitzvot within and across the Talmud which too do not require k’vanna. The Aggadic portions of the Talmud make a דרוש\פשט to T’NaCH Primary sources which permits all generations of Talmudic scholarship to learn the k’vanna of prophetic mussar and “weave” this prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of observing halachic mitzvot ritual observances as codified in the later rabbinic codes. The halachot codified in the Shulkan Aruch statute law assimilated perversion of the Rambam base error – do not require k’vanna. The commentaries made upon the Rambam’s Yad fail to affix his halachic “translations” to a specific halachah within the B’HaG or Rif or Rosh common law codes which open with a specific Mishna. Hence all these ירידות הדורות-domino effect, down stream generations of error – treif.
___________________________________________________

ואימא הכי נמי חליפין תיתנהו בפחות משוה פרוטה. ואשה בפחות משוה פרוטה לא מקניא נפשה מניינא דסיפא
As קידושין does not apply to a קטנה small girl due to her lack of maturity, so too less than a פרוטה – excludes the acquisition required to sanctify the mitzva of קידושין. Just as the רבוי מיעט logic building block excludes a young girl consequent to her lack of maturity the same מיעט likewise prevents a man acquiring Title to the woman’s נפש עולם הבא – future born children, her destiny currently residing in עולם הבא if a mans seeks to acquire this Title to future born Cohen seed – direct descendants of the oath brit sworn to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov that they would father all future born chosen Cohen seed for all eternity. Its this oath brit of substance which defines the k’vanna of the rabbinic mitzva of קידושין; this “wisdom” transforms a secondary rabbinnic mitzva to a Av tohor time oriented commandment דאורייתא.

(למיעוטי מאי) למיוטי חליצה. סד”א תיתי בק”ו מיבמה.
מה יבמה שאינה יוצאה בגט יוצאה בחליצה. זו שיוצאה בגט אינו דין שיוצאה בחליצה קמ”ל. ואימא ה”נ אמר קרא (דברים כד) ספר כריתות. ספר כורתה ואין דבר אחר כורתה

All humans are created בצלם אלוהים. All nations have their own paths, cultures, and spiritual responsibilities. Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come; עולם הבא interpreted to means the 1st Torah commandment – they will be blessed with children.

בכל מקום שגלו — שכינה עמהם … After the revelation of the Torah at Sinai תורה לא בשמים היא.

Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The Nazi inferior race av tuma does not apply to any Human Being. Goyim have their own unique destinies. Goyim worship their own Gods and have their own religious traditions. The first commandment אשר יצאו אותם מארץ מצרים implies all lands outside of the brit oath sworn lands. פרדס defines the k’vanna of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev expressed through the 13 tohor middot spirits.

Bottom line: the mitzva of קידושין does not apply to Goyim because Goyim have no share no connection with passing down the oath brit inheritance of the Avot which creates the chosen Cohen people through the holiness of time oriented mitzvot through the k’vanna of prophetic mussar. Mitzvot לשמה only applicable to the oath sworn brit land inheritance. Just as Shoah only applicable to the times when Jews worship avoda zara. The Jewish people not victims but the masters of our blessing/curse Torah inheritance.

As קידושין does not apply to a קטנה small girl due to her lack of maturity, so too less than a פרוטה – excludes the acquisition required to sanctify the mitzva of קידושין. As קידושין does not apply to a קטנה small girl due to her lack of maturity, so too less than a פרוטה – excludes the acquisition required to sanctify the mitzva of קידושין.

Just as the רבוי מיעט logic building block excludes a young girl consequent to her lack of maturity the same מיעט likewise prevents a man acquiring Title to the woman’s נפש עולם הבא – future born children, her destiny currently residing in עולם הבא-future. If an Israel seeks to acquire Title to future born destiny Cohen seed through the mitzva of קידושין – direct descendants of the oath brit sworn to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov that they would father all future born chosen Cohen seed for all eternity. (Its this oath brit of substance which defines the k’vanna of the rabbinic mitzva of קידושין); this Torah “wisdom” transforms a secondary rabbinnic mitzva to a Av tohor time oriented commandment דאורייתא.

This interpretation flat out rejects as Pie in the Sky any and all metaphysical philosophies as utter drivel narishkeit. This type of “destiny” – an uttery buju false religious speculation. Torah common law stands upon precedents not philosophical speculations. Torah common law a judicial legal system not a theological belief system in this that or some other Gods.

The rabbinic mitzva of קידושין, stands upon the Torah precedent “brit cut between the pieces”. In the latter oath brit Avram had no children and HaShem swore an oath that Avram – through his chosen seed – would father the Cohen nation which lives today.

This theme starts with the rejection of Cain’s barbeque to heaven – dedication of a korban without k’vanna – a korban which fails to swear a Torah oath – simply a barbeque unto heaven. This premise stands upon the רמז contained in the first word of the Torah בראשית … ברית אש. Where mesechta Sanhedrin learns the cause of the floods in the Days of Noach, the result of Man swearing false oaths. Hence the Fire of the “korban” oath alliance – the oath sworn. Cain did not swear a Torah oath therefore HaShem rejected his “first born” Cohen dedication in favor of his younger brother. This latter theme duplicated in Yishmael/Yitzak, Esau/Yaacov, Reuven/Yosef, first born Israel/Tribe of Levi.

A Reshon difficulty upon this reasoning: Every Rishon — Rambam, Ramban, Rashba, Ran, Ritva — treats קידושין as a halakhic act of איסור, not a metaphysical transfer of soul, destiny, or עולם הבא.

משנה תורה\דברים has the תרגום of “Common law”. Torah common law legalism stands upon precedents בנין אב במקום אחת או בנין אב בשתי מקומות. Torah common law not determined by Reshonim who came after Rav Ashi & Rav Ravinna sealed the Sha’s Bavli. Therefore the Talmudic mitzva of קידושין requires a Torah precedent. My explanation brings the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces. Just as Avram had no children, so too a man who marry’s a woman for the first time has no children.

A lamdan learns by the building blocks mentioned above. The Torah precedent for קידושין the brit cut between the pieces. The common denominator between the two Cases – neither man has children. כלל: Halacha not created by Rishonim but derived from the sealed masoret Primary sources. The sealing of T’NaCH, Mishna, Talmud, and Siddur caused all generations of the chosen Cohen people to inherit the same identical masoret. Later generations cannot bemoan their lack of מזל for being born after the Rishonim!

Such a false reading of ירידות הדורות duplicates the Nazi racism of “inferior races”; such tuma blinds Jews that actions have consequences which impact all down stream generations. King Shlomo ignored the mussar of the prophet Natan and perverted a building of wood and stone/idol for establishment of Federal Great and Small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes common law courts. The same ‘domino effect’ occurred after the Rambam abandoned T’NaCH\Talmudic common law in favor of Roman statute law that organized law into Greek deductive logical catigories/subject matter\Head Line Titles simlar to Caesars decrees.

משנה תורה\דברים has the תרגום of “Common law”. Torah common law legalism stands upon precedents בנין אב במקום אחת או בנין אב בשתי מקומות. The Talmudic mitzva of קידושין requires a Torah precedent. My explanation brings the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces. Just as Avram had no children a man who marry’s a woman for the first time has no children.
This premise explains the purpose of the 7 middot Hillel 10 middot Akiva 13 … 32 middot.

Torah common law does not compare to Roman statute law. The latter, a static extinct fossil legal system. Whereas the former dynamic, able to adjust halacha to meet the needs of each and every generation who walks upon the face of the Earth. Hence the Bavli never ties קידושין to the brit bein ha-betarim.

However פרדס inductive logic permits all generations to infer and compare one source in the sealed masoret to interpret the k’vanna of other sources in the sealed masoret in order to achieve a depth-analysis something like a person employs the fear/front sights of a rifle to shoot a deer. Torah common law learns from the number of witnesses required for Capital Crimes cases and the difficulty/answer style of the Gemara which employs multiple halachot as precedents to re-interpret different perspective facet faces of the Home Mishna.

קל וחומר the basis of comparing the brit cut between the pieces (sealed masoret) to the Gemara קידושין (sealed masoret). This fits exactly as Rashi instructed. The 7, 10, 13, & 32 middot – they shape the entire dialogue of the Talmud together with the Soveraim editors thereafter. These middot employed by all the Tannaim and Amoraim scholars. Rashi made his own גזרה שוו comparison in his commentary to the T’NaCH.

The sealed masoret serves as the medium by which all generations can employ these middot to create binding halacha – no different than as did the original Framers. No one generation owns a monopoly over logic. Rashi challenged the validity of the targum! Its a false interpretation that declares that the middot become changed for later generations. The Framers of the Talmud wrote this common law text to serve as a model for post 1948 Israel when Jews reconquer our homeland and rule it as an Independent Republic nation-state. All nation-states require Courts of Law. The Framers of the T’NaCH and Talmudic legal codes mandated the sealed masoret to serve as the model for the re-establishment of Federal Sanhedrin Capital and Torts common law courtrooms in the land of Israel.

The term משנה תורה\דברים also mandates Torah common law Great Sanhedrin with the mandate of משנה תורה-legislative review. This Torah constitutional mandate makes Torah as the Constitution of the Cohen Republic utterly unique. Obviously cursed g’lut Jews – the 1st Sinai commandment does not apply to them because they remain in g’lut/Egypt! Only Jews within the borders of the oath sworn lands can pursue justice or any other Torah commandment לשמה. The RambaN, for example wrote in his Chumash commentary that g’lut Jews only do mitzvot as a זיכר of the mitzvot. The Torah curse of g’lut by definition prevents slaves the freedom to do mitzvot לשמה. Slaves do not “own” property.

The Torah has blessing vs curse. This the closing mussar commanded by Moshe Rabbeinu himself. The story of Israel in Egypt – instructs the mussar of cursed g’lut. G’lut Jews have no connection with prophesy because as the Sanhedrin courts jurisdiction limited to within the borders of the oath sworn lands/political Independence so too and how much more so prophet/police have a Torah mussar mandate to enforce the rulings judged by Sanhedrin courts.

Rava Bava Batra 15a describes Job as an imaginary man. Why? The Book of Job instructs the mussar of g’lut. Torah instructs prophetic mussar, not physical historical history. Mussar not a black vs white true false literalism that Goyim avoda zara limits JeZeus to being an actual historical personage. Mussar does not compare to Av tuma pie in the sky – after the fact -historical speculations; like Xtian fundamentalist demand that the world created in Six Days! Rather prophetic mussar interprets the Creation story as introducing the “wisdom” of Av time-oriented commandments which operate independent of the טיפש פשט – which heaps “time” into a Rambam statute law “box” restricted to referring to a “clock”. No “clocks” ever invented at the בראשית Creation story! Therefore – time has no connection with “clocks” and everything to do with the מלאכה, a Torah wisdom absolutely required to dedicate av time-oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna.

The puke vomit of Xtian theology which attempts to white-wash its war-crimes criminal guilt.

The Rise of a Pure Remnant

The Xtian tradition that proclaims itself timelessly pure while repeatedly reframing, minimizing, or spiritualizing away its own institutional violence, by Torah standards, lying about its shem tov; in Torah terms, this crime/guilt not a question of belief but of יראת שמים. Same old Xtian whitewash which pristinely declares a theological narrative that presents itself as pure, timeless, and universal. While ignoring, minimizing, or spiritually reframing the very real historical violence carried out in the name of that same corrupt and fraudulent tradition; the very manifestation of “by their fruits you shall know them”. Grace without reckoning” is not mercy; but rather chaos-anarchy hefkerut.

The Torah employs a far sharper prophetic mussar rebuke: ”Fear of Heaven”. Which means: “Baal Shem Tov/Master of the Good Name; a person with יראת שמים guards and protects his/her “good name reputation”. A “Son of God” who abolishes mitzvot, by definition, avodah zarah – not fulfillment of prophetic mussar. The latter – like both the shabbat, & the dedication of korbanot time-oriented commandments which dedicate Torah wisdom and not Goyim wisdom – likewise expressed through the Moshiach Av precedent – the anointed House of Aaron. This av precedent for the mitzva of Moshiach from the Torah, like every other wisdom of Torah time-oriented wisdom-commandments, applicable to all generations of Israel straight across the board. The NT false messiah av tuma avoda zara which equates their messiah as God, no different than the worship of Baal. The latter place their God upon a pedestal as does the church worships JeZeus as a cult of personality messiah God.

Mashiach in Torah – a mitzvah-category, not a metaphysical NT cult of personality savior. The Torah mitzva of Moshiach stands upon the Torah mitzva of Shabbat as its יסוד precedent of Torah common law. Just as the mitzva of Shabbat applies to all Jews in every generations so too and how much more so Jews obligated to pursue righteous justice/fair compensation of damages inflicted upon other Jews. Herein defines the mitzva of Moshiach from the Torah, as opposed to the false messiah NT. Church propaganda to this very day denies the revelation of the Oral Torah.

Xtianity down through the Ages, both pre-Shoah & post-Shoah, prostitution-devotional language to create a sense of moral innocence that erases the war-crime guilt of victims who endured violence; like witches burned at the “steak” Monty Python ‘she turned me into a newt” classic spoof comedy; it denies the revelation of the נמשל Mishkan-Shekinah as taught by Torah kabbalah. The virgin birth myth places the NT narrative squarely inside Hellenistic avodah zara category.

A real, well‑documented pattern in Xtian history – a tradition whose guilt committed enormous war-crimes not limited only to Jews! Post Shoah all branches of the church abomination, they deny the revelation of the Shekinah Oral Torah 13 tohor middot which live Yatzir Ha-tov in this Earth, and not in the Heavens above. Yet this av tuma “unrepentant” church continues to preach an orchestrated white-wash “spiritual propaganda religious rhetoric” which promotes the same identical stainless spotless church cleansed from sin – NT theological lies: whose Father dwells in the Heavens above, JeZeus 2nd coming narishkeit.

The redemption of Egyptian slavery makes no mention of “sin” nor salvation from Adam’s sin – as church dogma perverts the Torah revelation of Sinai; with its JeZeus substitute God that depicts the Church as morally spotless, timeless, and divinely sanctioned — without reckoning with the violence abominations guilt committed in the Name of JeZeus av tuma avoda zara.

Xtianity in all its shapes and forms: A tradition which claims, regardless be it Catholic, Protestant, or Mormon, purity while its historical record – anything but pure. Devotional rhetoric becomes a shield, allowing these religious institutions to talk about “holiness,” “remnants,” “refinement,” and “obedience” — while sidestepping the war-criminal guilt that defines all generations of the church abomination on this Earth.

No amount of JeZeus saves Man, the essence of Paul’s preaching model “Original Sin of Adam”; can remove the stain of church guilt throughout the Ages – after Constantine I converted Rome to the Xtian faith abomination of av tuma avoda zarah. The NT revisionist history compares to the substitute theology of king Shlomo replacing a Goyim cultural custom which worships Gods through grand Temple construction of “idol” wood and stone “Temples”; his failure to establish the Great Sanhedrin with its Small Sanhedrin Federal court “spokes” of lateral common law courts, as the definition and intent meaning of the term “Beit HaMikdash.

The church war criminals employ the same old religious rhetoric propaganda from new ‘Born Again’ fool-sheeple; this Xtian theology seeks to erase the horrors of its racism; and the guilt its “believers” ruthlessly subjected upon church victims; who simply disappear from the narrative, replaced by a self‑congratulatory spiritual identity – like a rabbit pulled from a hat. These ever repeating perpetrators employ the same old white-wash religious rhetoric which reinvents themselves in the eyes of other — new ignorant sheeple generations of ‘Born Again’ naive simpletons — who believe the same old guilty religious rhetoric which produced vicious church war-crimes in all past present and future generations.

The new foolish sheeple ‘Born Again’ fools simply mouth the excuse, that prior guilty generations of Church Nicene Creed abomination war-crimes, that those criminals – not really Xtians; like post Oct 7th 2023 antisemites declared the righteous innocence of Gazans who in a general 2006 election voted Hamas as the government of Gaza; victims of a ruthless Israeli post Oct 7th 2023 genocide!

Bottom line: Post Shoah, the church has permanently destroyed its good name reputation across both Europe and America. The American & French revolution destroyed the church who chiefly profited which it used as slave labor to build its Solomon like Cathedrals. The American & French revolutions cast the church/State monopoly upon the dung heaps of history. The establishment of citizen rights and separation of Church from State, began the collapse of church influence in Western Europe and America.

Both Enlightenment political revolutions embraced this absolute rejection of Government incest with the “Sister” church whore. Likewise the Bolshevik revolution, which based itself upon the 1848 Marx ‘Das Capital’ manifesto, both Lenin and Troskii accredited the Central Influence behind the 1917 Oct Revolution to the 1789 French Revolution!

The history of Xtian Amalek-antisemitism – well-documented. These cold facts have forced a minority of Xtian believers to acknowledge gross church guilt for war crimes. The Xtian deicide propaganda, for example, has propped up church war-crimes for millennia – straight from the taboo inception of its adultery ‘virgin birth’ Greek Hercules mythology NT gospel foundations.

In the Era of the Mishna a man engaged to a woman one year prior to them standing upon the “Chuppa” which permitted the kallah to organize her “house”. Hence a wife referred to as “house”, and the chuppa considered the “first house” of the newly married couple.
A year separated the arusin engagement or betrothal period, from standing under the chuppa.

Greek av tuma avoda zarah permits and applauds Zeus raping a married woman. Torah abhors adultery as an av tuma Capital Crime closely related with avoda zara. Torah common law differentiates Capital Crime cases by establishment from the Torah commandments 4 separate types of ‘death penalties’. Hence the mythology of ‘virgin birth – son of God’ Greek culture NT appropriations, an utter abomination to Torah law.

The Sh’mot Mishkan משל does not remotely resemble or compare to the NT virgin birth perversion theology. The נמשל of the Mishkan revelation of the first commandment Spirit Name – expressed through the revelation of the 13 tohor Oral Torah middot spirits – that HaShem lives in the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the chosen Cohen peoples’ hearts rather than in the av tuma avoda zara which frames Universal Monotheism Gods comparable physical and historical Olympian Gods, which live in the heavens – like JeZeus prayer which addresses the Father who lives in Heaven, and the opening verse of gospel John. Tohor spirits simply not “and the Word was God” Av tuma Xtian avoda zara.

Bottom line: the NT Apostle Paul’s dogmatism that Goyim not under Torah law; that circumcision no longer a Torah commandment etc., this means that Goyim cannot thereafter dictate what defines the Torah commandment of Moshiach; especially since the church has failed in all generations unto today to distinguish T’NaCH/Talmudic common law from Roman-Caesar Statute-law. The JeZeus false messiah paradigm shares no part nor connection with the Torah commandment of Moshiach. Telling and retelling Nazi Jewish inferior race propaganda lies never equals truth. The same rule equally applies to NT lies about its false messiah JeZeus – “Son of God” av tuma avoda zara.

NT texts like Matthew 27:25, fueled antisemitic Amalek tropes from late antiquity onward. Post the conversion of Constantine which baptized Roman NT Monotheism and rejected previous Roman Caesar polytheism – Greek Gods of Mount Olympus; perhaps starting with early church fathers like John Chrysostom, who in the 4th century called for violence against Jews.

His Christ-Killer slander escalated throughout the Middle Ages with pogroms, blood libels, and massacres during the Crusades (1096–1272), where thousands of Jews ruthlessly murdered across the Germanic kingdoms – en route to the Holy Land. The Black Death (1347–1351) Xtian priests blamed Jews for poisoning the wells. This outright blood libel slander resulted in widespread pogrom burnings and expulsions.

After the fact papal pie in the sky-bulls which condemned such violence, did not actually pursue fair compensation of damages for 10s of thousands of murdered Jews! In point of fact, no European court ever once made the church stand before the BAR for war-crimes guilt.

The Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834) followed the English taxation without representation which preceded the mass expulsion of Jews from England in 1290. The French publicly burned all Talmudic manuscripts of the Talmud in Paris 1242, then likewise made its own mass population transfer of Jewish refugee population which had no rights in 1306.

The Germanic kingdoms embraced the British Crowns’ impoverishment of Jewish refugees, through taxation without representation. And the Pope followed these crimes up by imposing ghetto gulags for some 3 Centuries upon utterly impoverished Jewish refugees. This criminal guilt war-crimes against Humanity resulted in a huge population transfer of Jewish refugees fleeing from the tyranny of Western European governments to Ukraine and Poland Eastern Europe.

Then in 1648 the targeted Jews slaughtered in mass, a violent Cossack atrocity unequalled till the Shoah! Ape like savage barbarity defines the church MO throughout the generations; repentance for sin in no way, fashion, shape, or form compares to t’shuva which requires remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot which creates through tohor time oriented av Torah commandments the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations that the chosen seed of the Avot walk the face of this Earth. This t’shuva remembers the sin of the Golden Calf av tuma avoda zara which defines Rosh HaShanna – Yom Ha-Din upon the brit.

Post Shoah church repentance for the Catholic Rat-lines which significantly aided Nazi war criminals from facing justice, the Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate (1965) repudiated collective Jewish guilt for Jesus’ death and condemnation of the Nazi (as opposed to the Dreyfus Affair idea of antisemitism which sought to exclude Jews from citizen rights established by the French Revolution & Napoleon), merely white-washed Vatican guilt which turned over the Jews of Rome to the Nazi SS.

The Evangelical Church in Germany (1980) confessed to “Xtian co-responsibility and guilt for the Holocaust;” yet failed to openly denounce and condemn both Martin Luther and his Lutheran church which openly sided in mass to achieve – in lock-step – the Nazi objective to exterminate Jews as an inferior race. Texts like 2 Corinthians 7:10 distinguish “godly sorrow” (leading to salvation) from “worldly sorrow” (leading to the Xtian church death spiral). Modern theologians like Jürgen Moltmann argue the Shoah demands a “theology of the cross” that confronts suffering and guilt, rather than evading it; such empty religious rhetoric fools no one based upon past Xtian repentance for sins narishkeit.

Clergy like Bishop Alois Hudal and Krunoslav Draganović aided ~9,000 Nazis (e.g., Eichmann, Mengele) via escape routes to Argentina, Brazil, Chile—often hiding in monasteries. Vatican archives suggest Pius XII not directly involved, but the Church’s anti-communist stance (Nazis as bulwark) facilitated the Popes alliance with Hitler’s Nazism. This aided Shoah perpetrators evading justice, undermining post Shoah repentance claims.

Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire criticized Church corruption, influencing secularism. The Bolsheviks, drawing from Marx’s Marx’s famous expression of the Xtian religion as “opium of the people,” despised Xtianity. These brief examples served as the fore runners to the EU refusing to mention Xtianity in its attempt to establish an EU Constitution. Xtian “grace-over-accountability” only white-washes and conceals Xtian church failure of accountability – which directly aided and abetted the Nazi inspired Shoah!

Post Shoah “identificational-repentance” has only amplified the death spiral of church-state dominance which the American & French revolutions completely despised, rejected, and even abhorred. The dead church like the Greek Gods of Mount Olympus – both undermined and destroyed by criminal acts of extreme racial violence, starting perhaps with the Roman sacking and burning of the great library in Alexandria Egypt.

Possible Xtian guilt-role which culminated in the destruction of the Library of Alexandria in 391 CE: Patriarch Theophilus demolished the Serapeum (a daughter library) amid pagan-Xtian riots; where Xtian fanatics destroyed pagan artifacts. Earlier damages: Caesar’s 48 BCE siege, & Aurelian’s 272 CE reconquest likewise contributed to the collapse and decline of this great ancient Library. While there were several incidents of damage to the library throughout history, including during the Roman occupation, its complete destruction did not occur until later events, particularly during the crisis in the 3rd century CE and other subsequent conflicts.

A Classic example of how the heart and soul of Torah gets lost in Goyim tits on a boar hog translations.

Acts Chapter 4

“There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem…” In Acts 5:16, the Greek phrase perix tō Ierousalēm simply refers to, nearby towns, surrounding villages, local communities in Judea — a geographical description of the region immediately around Jerusalem in the early 1st Century. No manuscript—Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, or otherwise—contains anything resembling “Fort Worth” in Acts 5:16.

The phrase “round about unto Jerusalem” simply means the towns and villages surrounding Jerusalem in the 1st century. Fort Worth founded in 1849, almost 1,800 years after Acts was written. The Book of Acts written before any of the gospels were ever penned.

There is no ancient place named Fort Worth anywhere in Judea, Samaria, or the Roman Empire. The Book of Acts written before any of the 4 gospel Roman Protocols of the Elders of Zion “counterfeits”. That the church fathers organized their NT fraud with the gospel followed by Acts as corrupt as Fort Worth!

The earliest gospel of Mark written in Rome, perhaps prior to the destruction of Herod’s temple abomination. One Roman guard famously quoted as saying, “Its better to be Herod’s dog than a family member!”

If the Book of Acts was written in 62 CE then it predates any gospel of Mark “speculation”. Gossip narratives and speculation do not replace eye witness first hand information. Hence debates upon the NT as “historical” evidence as false as a mad hatter. Historians have no clear evidence one way or the other. Such a debate clearly separates the emphasis of the T’NaCH Jewish literature vs. the Xtian NT literature. Prophets command mussar they to not teach history. The NT fraud requires a physical historical man JeZeus. Otherwise this fraud religion collapses like a house of cards.

Acts ends with Paul alive. No mention of Paul’s death. No mention of the Temple’s destruction. Therefore Acts was written before 70 CE, possibly around 62 CE. But all this 2000+ years later speculation fails to address the main point. T’NaCH commands mussar not history. Rava for example teaches that Job existed as a fictional imaginary man. The point of the Book of Job, to teach the mussar of g’lut and redemption from g’lut. This places the Book of Job on par and similar to the Book of Sh’mot – the 2nd Book of the Written Torah. The attempts by “scholars” thousands of years after the fact to argue that Mark preceded Acts – simply Pie in the Sky speculative nonsense.

The merit behind interpreting the NT as the equivalent of the Russian secret police Protocols of the Elders of Zion slander employed to justify the pogroms of the late 19th Century …

Just as similar speculation that Paul served as an Agent Provacateur of Rabban Gamliel of the Great Sanhedrin. Jews in Judea and Alexandria Egypt locked in brutal and bitter war. Alexandria with its huge library burnt to the ground prior to the destruction of Herod’s Temple abomination.

Why the reference ‘Temple abomination’? Starting with the avoda zara of king Shlomo who first built the Temple abomination of avoda zara. The prophet Natan forbade king David to copy how Goyim civilizations worshipped their Gods. Just as Rehovoam ignored the advice of Shlomo’s advisors, so too Shlomo ignored the council of the prophet Natan. The Beit HaMikdash not a building of wood and stone idolatry but rather the establishment of the Federal Sanhedrin common law legal court system!

T’NaCH “wisdom” literature serves to “understand” Av Torah time-oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna. The historical Books of Kings, a prophetic work, does not teach theology (the Xtian interpretation) but rather it give a big picture contexts to the Books of the Prophets! This qualifies as כלל פרט according to the middot of rabbi Yishmael. Mussar does not mean “ethical instruction”. The latter an entirely false parameter of prophesy. Mussar defines the k’vanna of the 13 tohor middot Oral Torah revealed to Moshe 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב assimilated and intermarried Jews translated the revelation of the Spirit Name who fills the Yatzir Ha’Tov heart – the נמשל of the Mishkan משל.

The church fathers read the Book of Sh’mot as history rather than as prophetic mussar. The Torah speaks in the language of Man, it instructs mussar through משל\נמשל model/paradigm. The Creation story of the Universe instructs through this משל of 6 days time, to teach the mussar נמשל of time-oriented commandments wherein “time” understood as “wisdom” – משל\נמשל.

Hence the church Old Testament New Testament propaganda falsely conceals the open fact that the literature of the T’NaCH radically different from the revisionist history propaganda of the letters of Paul and the Roman Protocols of the Elders of Zion slander forgery. Both Paul introduced in Acts served as an Agent Provacateur to undermine the false messiah Roman propaganda of Mark’s JeZeus. Paul by declaring brit melah as a void Torah commandment undermined the influence of the Roman false messiah gospel narrative prior to the outbreak of the great Jewish revolt in 66 CE. Paul traveled to Rome to inject a form of monotheism into Roman polytheistic society. With the purpose to undermind the foundations of Roman civilization; to crack the “Ethical Containment Force” of Roman soceity.

Paul’s propaganda aimed to promote Civil War in Rome based upon Yehuda Maccabee’s propaganda which publicly declared Judea’s loyalty to the “real” king of the Syrian Greek empire! This Pauline propaganda based upon the generic כלל: “If it aint broke don’t fix it.” Obviously this modern rendition seeks to emphasize that Torah as a common law precedent based legal system shaped how ancient Jewish civilizations revolted against the Syrian Greek and Roman empires.

The scholarship of ancient texts has nothing to do with a Greek Athens democratic model. The revelation of the Oral Torah פרדס inductive logic sh’itta starkly contrasts with ancient Greek philosoplers, specifically Plato and Aristotle’s deductive logic of static reasoning. פרדס logic a fluid logic similar to Calculus varables. Whereas Greek logic deductive & static, similar to Euclid’s plane geometry.
___________________________________
If the T’NaCH, most essentially mussar and not history, what—if anything—do you think gets “lost in the translation”, similar to Fort Worth – when Conservative, Reform Judaism start defending T’NaCH on historical or archaeological grounds, instead of on its power as prophetic mussar?
_______________________________________________
This question delves straight into the Rambam Civil War? During the Dark Ages, the roads built by the Roman empire had totally collapsed. People stopped traveling distances due to the risks of being attacked and murdered. Interstate commerce totally collapsed. Jewish communities scattered across the face of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, how could they maintain some type of standardized culture and customs which would prevent Jews from assimilating to the dominant cultures and customs of the peoples wherein they lived as a despised refugee minority populaiton which had no rights???

Scholars starting with the B’HaG and Rif organized Talmudic common law into something new and all together different than what the Framers of both the T’NaCH and Talmud originally envisioned. Originally the T’NaCH organized mussar middot into a Common law, precedent based, middot system which compared one NaCH sugya to similar NaCH sugyot which contained the identical set of Oral Torah middot. By aligning two or more sugyot which had the same set of Oral Torah middot (‘ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון וכו), this comparison of sugyot called דרוש; this alignment of similar (precedent based middot) served as something like the rear and front sights of a rifle which permitted the “sniper” to kill a target down range.

This “kill” משל has the “k’vanna” נמשל. Hence the later Talmud based upon the משל of a loom which has opposing warp vs. weft threads. The k’vanna of the Framers of the Talmud, to create a literature of Great Sanhedrin judical court room rulings (the Mishna) together with its prosecution and defense attorney precedent debates (the Gemara). Therefore the Framers of the Talmud wrote this ancient text to serve as the judicial model for the future time when Jews would slaughter the Roman occupiers of Judea and re-establish Jewish National Independence like as occurred in 1948 and again in 1967 CE.

Do Jews feel anger for Xtian and Muslim war crimes perpetrated against low hanging Jewish refugee easy victims. Jews no different than any other Human being abused by tyrrants. But the bottom line for the Framers of both the T’NaCH and Talmudic literature, not to promote Jewish anger and hatred against our oppressor cruel Par’o like enemies; any more than the Book of Sh’mot promotes anger and hatred against the Egyptians! In point of fact the Torah directly commands a negative commandment which forbids Israel to hate either specifically Egyptians and Esau in general. Esau the metaphor for Xtian Europeans.
____________________________________
What gets lost when Jews defend Tanakh as history instead of prophetic mussar?
The substance of allTanakh literature: to create an oath brit alliance which obligates all generations of Israel to dedicate tohor middot in how we interact and exchange with our people; middot-driven, common-law consciousness that “understands” time as wisdom – most specifically as time-oriented Av commandments which require prophetic mussar\interpretations of the k’vanna of tohor Oral Torah middot. And g’lut-exile interpreted through משל/נמשל – blessing/curse Torah oath brit. And not through the lens of Greek proof or Xtian biography revisionist history or substitute theology NT or Koran Gods.

The day and night difference which for ever separates the Hebrew T’NaCH from either the Xtian NT or Arab Koran – translating poetry into prose — keeps the words, buth the rhythm, the soul, the imperative to “understand” (like from like distinctions) through mussar prophetic tohor middot – lost in the sophomoric translations. Gone, like Fort Worth in Acts.

Torah mitzvot shaped and determined through Sanhedrin common law lateral courtrooms בלבד. The Torah’s system of mitzvot—both d’oraita and d’rabbanan—finds its authoritative determination exclusively through the lateral common law deliberations of the Sanhedrin. Torah common law never exists as statute law as expressed through independent legislators annulling or innovating mitzvot outside courtroom jurisdiction. The rejection of bat kol in mesechta Bava Metzia 59b (the tanur shel Akhnai) crystallizes this: “Lo ba-shamayim hi” (Devarim 30:12) means post-Sinai, halacha follows majority human reasoning in beit din, not heavenly voices or charismatic claims. Prophets courtroom justice enforcers independently enforce or rebuke. They do not legislate or override courts of Sanhedrin Common law.

Acts 16:16-40 Necromancy = seeking authority, knowledge, or salvation from the dead. If a human who died becomes: prayed to; invoked; obeyed; trusted over Torah law — then functionally, it is דורש אל המתים, regardless of metaphysical claims. The NT’s moshiach narrative, ignores the core: Leading in “war” (crises) to uphold courtroom restitution (e.g., Sanhedrin as nimshal to Beit HaMikdash’s mashal).

The Torah Law mitzva of Moshiach, this mitzva applies equally to all Jews in all generations. The Torah mitzva of Moshiach exists as an expression of a servant, like Moshe and all the NaCH prophets, of Torah common law court police enforcers. The Book of Shmuel does not make king David into a theological belief system ‘new covenant’ God. Mesechta Baba Metzia :נט reject the authority of a בת קול voice from heaven as having any judicial authority on this Earth.

Acts 16:16–18 is not a neutral miracle story. It is a classic confrontation between Torah-prohibited practices and a pagan economic system. Encounter with the Slave Girl (Verses 16-18)/witch. The girl is explicitly described as having a πνεῦμα πύθωνα — a Python spirit, tied in Greek culture to Delphi, Apollo, and divination.

The act of Paul commanding the spirit to depart from the girl in Acts 16 can spark discussions about necromancy, witchcraft, and the broader context of spiritual authority. The accusation against Paul and Silas reflects a significant cultural conflict. They were promoting a different way of life that challenged local practices, including those tied to economic interests. The girl’s ability to tell fortunes, considered a source of income for her owners, was rooted in practices the Jewish Torah condemned.

This maps cleanly onto אוב וידעוני in Torah language (Devarim 18). Paul’s act is not prophetic justice. But rather an extrajudicial charismatic intervention, devoid of Sanhedrin authority, witnesses, or jurisdiction. This prophetic mussar interprets this av tuma story as an unlicensed manipulation of spiritual forces outside of Torah courtroom common law. As such this NT story more counter-witchcraft rather than prophetic mussar which the Torah commands.

The concept of resurrection in Xtianity indeed provokes a variety of interpretations and discussions, especially when viewed in the context of the Hebrew Scriptures (Torah) and traditional Jewish beliefs. The Torah does not explicitly describe resurrection in the way that later Xtian dogmatism does. There are sections of T’NaCH משל and Aggadic/Midrashic examination of the mystic work of the Book of Daniel 12:2 (Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence”) – often read midrashically or kabbalistically through halachic lenses. However this סוד kabbalah interpreted through the lenses of halacha, defines how פרדס רמז\סוד weave together as warp vs. weft threads of a Talmudic loom which defines the cultures and customs practiced by the chosen Cohen people alone.

2 Kings 2:11 Elijah is described as being taken up to heaven without dying – illustrates a different understanding of life after death compared to the resurrection concept presented in Xtianity. 2 Kings 2:11, Eliyahu does not die. No burial, no resurrection, no glorified corpse. Eliyahu – removed from the human legal domain, not elevated into divine mediation. Eliyahu returns as messenger, not object of worship. He resolves ספקות, restores halachic clarity. He never annuls mitzvot or introduces new covenants. Malachi 3:23-24 and Sanhedrin 98a Elijah restores clarity to mitzvot, not annuls them.

Elijah’s experience does not support the Xtian dogma of resurrection but rather suggests other forms of divine interaction with humanity. Xtian dogma of resurrection seen as establishing a ‘new covenant’ between God in Heaven and humanity. This off the path redefinition life, death, and the divine relationship negates the revelation of the tohor spirits of HaShem’s 13 middot living within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the chosen Cohen people.

Necromancy traditionally involves summoning the dead for knowledge or power. If one views calling upon JeZeus—who is believed to have risen from the dead—as a form of necromancy, it presents a complex interpretation that challenges conventional understandings. Within Xtian theology, Jesus is not viewed merely as a deceased figure but as the risen Savior who transcends death. This fundamental belief shifts the interaction from necromancy to communion with the living God; a direct violation of the 1st and 2nd Sinai commandments!

The Xtian ‘New Covenant’ belief in JeZeus’ resurrection – central to Xtian Av tuma false messiah avoda zara which introduces the dogma that JeZeus overcame death and now lives in a glorified state in the Heavens with his Father. This abomination negates: D’varim: לא בשמים היא. The Xtian resurrection witchcraft later spawned Muhammad the false prophet’s 72 virgin theological narishkeit. The prophetic mussar which forbade king David to build the Beit HaMikdash likewise corrupted by inept טיפש פשט Am ha’aretz stupidity.

Unlike Rambam (Maimonides), who emphasized spiritual immortality in the world to come and interpreted resurrection more cautiously (in his Iggeret Techiyat ha-Metim defending its literalness but subordinating it to intellectual reward), Ramban stresses a more physical, embodied afterlife. He critiques overly spiritualized views, insisting the verse “admits of no other interpretation” than literal resurrection (echoing Rambam’s own defense in his Treatise on Resurrection, though Ramban expands on the mechanics). The mitzva of Moshiach clarifies halacha based upon the precedent of Eliyahu who does the same. The Ramban grounds the סוד concept of resurrection firmly in Torah tradition; it serves divine justice, rewards the righteous (tzaddikim/maskilim who shine like stars, per v. 3), and upholds the 13 middot through tohor judgment—resurrection simply not anything approaching the NT metaphysical elevation of man into God, bypassing halachic courts or Torah observance.

The Torah mitzva of Moshiach stands upon the Torah precedent of Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach – dedicated to drive, lead, guide Israel in a korban like dedication to actively pursue righteous justice among our conflicting peoples within the borders of the oath sworn lands. Just as a koran limited to the confined jurisdiction of the Mishkan so too and how much more so Sanhedrin common law courts, together with their prophetic enforcement police – limited strictly and only to operate within the borders of Judea alone.

The theological narratives surrounding JeZeus and Muhammad illustrate the complexities of Torah judicial justice as faith apart from the menstrual blood tuma beliefs, and avoda zara spirituality which define the cultures customs and practices developed by European, Arab & Muslim cultures. These Roman and Arab religions share no common ground with Israel brought out of Egypt to conquer Canaan to rule that land with judicial common law justice.

2 Samuel 11-12 David’s moral failure to judge Uriah the baal of Bat Sheva with justice. David’s attempt to cover up his implied adultery (the Talmud refutes this charge) by recalling Uria from battle – in the hope that he would have relations with his wife forced David to make a far more radical solution to his problem. The concealment of Uriah’s death as a consequence of war – herein defines the language “blood on his hands” by the prophet Natan. Furthermore, the curse of eternal Civil War imposed upon king David. Unlike Shaul whose dedication of the mitzva of Moshiach utterly profaned Natan commanded the mussar that Civil War would persue all generations of king David consequent to the “blood on his hands.”

The NT false messiah Roman Protocals of the Elders of Zion forgery – totally ignores the key Torah concept of Moshiach as defined to lead the nation in times of “war” (an undefined participle) to rule the land with Judicial courtroom justice which makes fair restitution of damages inflicted by one bnai brit upon another. Hence just as the Sanhedrin Federal Court system defines the נמשל k’vanna of building the Beit Ha-Mikdash משל; absolutely no different from the Mishkan משל to the לא בשמים היא revelation that the tohor 13 Oral Torah middot forever judge the heart of the chosen Cohen people!

The Torah mitzva of Moshiach the Roman fraudulent NT propaganda cannot substitute itself for any Torah commandment because by the terms of the Apostle Paul – Goyim not under the Law. Just as Goyim cannot negate the mitzva of brit melah so too and how much more so Goyim religions of Av tuma avoda zarah cannot determine the Torah mitzva of Moshiach. The mitzva of Moshiach directly bound, like Yitzak at the Akadah, to the leadership of guiding the people in times of War to not loss faith and fail to pursue righteous judicial justice both among our people and against our enemies in times of crisis or war.

Having a discussion with a Xtian religious fanatic who assumes that Xtianity determines and shapes the rules by which Judaism exists.

etb. your final comment – not a refutation of what I introduced. Its a my way or the highway declaration. You & I never in the same domain; Xtianity has no part with Torah. As a Xtian your theology avoda zara spins around NT-theism/Protestant academic epistemology. You slavishly anchor your theology in peshat. But peshat does not exist divorced from drosh; Adam & Eve a paired couple Ooops. The chief flaw of Xtianity – it limits the reality of the Gods to 3-D history. LOL Torah commands mussar not history. Oooops. Bottom line: Xtianity evaluated as textual continuity, not halakhic legitimacy

Your invocation of procedural failure (“flooding,” “no shared method,” “manifesto”) as your exit retreat reminds me of a dog running away with its tail between its legs peeing all over itself. By your “rules” (Xtianity does not impose rules upon Israeli Jews) of “flooding: I failed to: isolate a single narrow thesis, redefined terms unilaterally, expanded scope faster than you could respond, & used mockery where you demanded analytic restraint. Hence “A continually expanding manifesto…” — is procedurally accurate inside your paradigm.

Your core assumptions – false. 1. Shared method is required for truth. 2. Peshat has veto power. 3. History is the foundation of obligation. 4. Theology can be adjudicated without the oaths sworn by the Avot which created the chosen Cohen people from Torah time-oriented commandments. The Oral Torah precisely rejects all 4 false Goyim theological premises. Why? Because Xtianity treats the Torah as a text they can argue about. Wrong. Goyim never once ever accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Just that simple, no fancy dancing. The sworn oaths of the avot and the revelation of HaShem in this Earth rather than in the Heavens – not a subject open to debate.

Xtianity in general and you in particular openly reject the Sanhedrin logic which begins with: “Who is authorized to speak within this court?” Torah Courts permit only judicial opinions, which disqualifies you from the start. For example your gross ignorance of peshat — when you declare: “You dismiss peshat when it disagrees with you…”, simply bat-shit crazy false. Peshat fits hand in glove with drosh. Rabbi Akiva taught this kabbalah which you know nothing about.

Peshat ≠ final authority; simply not the final authority in Torah hermeneutics. “Lo bashamayim hi” explicitly de-centers textual literalism. So your pie in the sky declaration “If peshat is dismissed, all else collapses”, simply a joke. LOL Xtian textual ontology of Protestant Higher Criticism. Such early 20th Century nonsense of philosophy that studies the nature of being, existence, and reality, has no portion or part in the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev — especially rejected and abhorred post Shoah – By their Fruits you shall know them. You remain stuck in your dead religion, on par with having sex with a dead body. As a religious exile your stuck waiting for the 2nd coming of your God.

Universal monotheism ≠ Torah faith. Xtianity stands outside the Sinai legal universe. Textual continuity does not equal to the Torah commandment for the chosen Cohen people to eternally remember the oaths sworn by the Avot by which they cut the oath brit time-oriented commandment wherein the generations of their seed forever create the chosen cohen people from nothing. At Sinai/Horev Israel accepted by means of the נעשה\נשמע oaths – We accepted the Written and Oral Torah as one revelation לשמה.

Xtianity Non-Sinaitic readers can adjudicate Torah meaning — Bunk. Xtianity never had any jurisdictional arguments – ever. Not by Paul, nor by JeZeus, and most certainly not by you. Sanhedrin common law courtrooms in no way shape or form compare to a university seminar any more that a person can choose his gender at birth. XX does not change to XY because an “it” desires such.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: