The 3rd sugya of mesechta קידושין introduces some of the middot as taught by rabbi Yossi HaGalli in this Aggada. Just as the Siddur organizes the Shemone Esrei into a precise order so too the each and every sugya of Gemara organizes halachic or aggadic upon pricise Orders of either “sets” of middot; based upon the mitzva of tefillen which has two separate “set” of boxes. This 3rd sugya instructs an aggadic mussar drosh back to multiple Primary Source T’NaCH בניני אבות judicial common law precedents.

As in the previous 2nd sugya compared רמב”ם\כסף משנה – Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale – statute law spy villains to contrast Greek/Roman “cult of personality” religious legislative statute law as a foil to understand the day and night difference between judicial common law from g’lut Par’o law. Cursed all false prophets who call day – night and Night – Day. Cursed g’lut Jews cannot obey the Torah לשמה, based upon the 1st Sinai commandment – Egypt לאו דוקא. As the Yovel mitzva only applies to ארץ ישראל so too doing mitzvot לשמה.

The T’NaCH and Talmud masoret define the tohor middot which defines the k’vanna which elevates ritual commandments – both positive & negative + halachot – from ritual observances no different that klippah of the Ari’s kabbalah tzimtzum unto wisdom commandments which forever defines and separates Torah wisdom from Goyim wisdom. Wisdom commandments, also known as time-oriented mitzvot, unique to the Torah revelation at Sinai – starting with Sefer בראשית. This first Book of the Torah revelation subsumed under the first and second Sinai commandment revelation which Israel alone accepted prior to the sin of the Golden Calf.

The revelation of the Golden Calf does not refer to a physical idol but rather to the 2nd Sinai commandment. Specifically not to translate the רוח הקודש שם השם לשמה to other words; words which declare God in the heavens rather than the משל משכן whose דיוק נמשל instructs that the רוח הקודש middot fill the Yatzir Ha’Tov heart of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov תמיד מעשה בראשית created in all times and generations through the wisdom of time-oriented Torah commandments. The mitzva of קידושין serves as a פרט to this כלל.

The 3rd sugya starts דף ג: תנן בכסף: מנ”ל and concludes on דף ד. אימא דידה הוו צריכה. The central premise introduced in this sugya Aggadic middot as taught by rabbi Yossi. Its starts with his 18th middah: כל הלמד מעניינו, דבר זה בעייתו, דבר זה נברא להוראתם. This teaching reflects the idea that every experience has something to teach us, reinforcing the value of personal growth and understanding. The 19th middah of Rabbi Yossi, “כל העוסק בתורה בשמחה, והכנה להקל על עצמו ולא להקשות על עצמו, בנין אב מכתוב אחד,” interprets the phrase: מה אמה מעשה ידיה לרבה אף בת מעשה ידיה לאביה. If the father gives his נערה daughter in marriage, (a girl between 12 to 12.5 years) the money logically belongs to him. The actions and efforts of both sons and daughters have intrinsic value and can positively impact their parents.

The 28th Midda of rabbi Yossi – היקש, כל דבר שכתוב, אם כן יש בזה דבר מה. Hekesh, serves as a principle for drawing connections between similar concepts in Jewish law and texts; in this case it compares the “common denominator” which connects mother to the daughter through “profit/yield” – יציאה as applicable to inheritance and responsibilities. It serves as the basis for understanding the interconnectedness of familial roles and emphasizes the importance of both mother and daughter in the Jewish community.

The 10th midda of rabbi Yossi מיעוט, part of Rabbi Akiva’s kabbala he received from Nachum Ish Gamzu. Which contrasts with Rabbi Yishmael’s כלל ופרט. This midda מיעוט used to narrow the scope of halakha or teaching from verses, meaning to limit the domain of application of a specific law and not to extend it to every possible case. The expression “ההולך בדרך צר” appears as a classic metaphor for the attribute of minimization. If something that teaches and obligates, this restriction shapes the priority. Specifically to instruct the law in these particular cases, and not in a general and broad manner.
The minimization emphasizes limitation – not every similar case must be included in the general teaching; meant specifically to instruct on that narrow case – and not to extend beyond it. מיעוט – למעט או להמעיט את היקף או את תחום ההוראה, בכך עושה אנו מדגישים כי לא כל מקרה צריך להיות מוחל באופן כללי
the essential principle of this midda.

This “conservative” way avoids over-extension of laws and therein maintains halachic precision. This contrasts with רבוי that expand, the depth between אל שדי which envisions God in the Heavens to סני שם השם which restricts the middot of רוח הקודש confined to within the Yatzir HaTov within the heart of the Cohen people as taught through the מעיט of the משל Mishkan to the נמשל Shekinah kabbala interpretation of תורה לא בשמים היא.Words such as “את”, “מן”, “כל”, etc., which expand the interpretation; followed minimization – which limit. Words or phrases, such as “רק”, “אך”, “מן” or ס”ד אמינא … קמ”ל.

The verse: ויקרא כב:יג בת כהן כי תהיה אלמנה וגרושה וזרע אין לה ושבה אל בית אביה כנעוריה מלחם אביה תאכל – qualifies as the 7th midda of rabbi Yossi (and his son Rabbi Eliezer) ריבוי מן הכתב — שאינו דומה שומע מתוך ספר לשומע מתוך פה. Specifically, וזרע אין לה — this 7th midda infers a critical דיון mussar – which concerns: compassion and understanding in marriages that turn South. The interpretation suggests that a wife’s worth in a marital relationship entails – a more complex multifaceted understanding of קידושין. A woman’s partnership in raising a family acknowledged by the Talmud which refers to her as בית. The function of קידושין goes far beyond the wedding day. A woman role in building a family involves much more than simply birthing children. Past the ritual ceremonies of chuppa, stands the substance of trust/shalom; which directly influences חנוק. The invaluable social and emotional roles women play, shaping values, education, and community involvement which they inherit from their father and mother. The 7th midda of rabbi Yossi seeks to draw a deeper insight into concept of קידושין. Marriage dynamics emphasize compassion, understanding, and the comprehensive contributions women partners play in family life. Human relationships by definition complex and multifaceted in nature.

Rabbi Yossi’s 25 middah שני כתובים צריכים זה לזה in rabbi Yossi’s middot expressed through גזרה שווה. Its logic indicates that when two verses share similar wording or themes, they are used to elucidate a single legal concept or instruction. Both texts are required to fully grasp the nuances of the law they reference. The verses may provide different perspectives or contexts regarding the same law, and both must be considered collectively to derive halachic rulings obscured by reliance upon one verse “witness” testimony. Torah Constitutional common law first and foremost mandates Sanhedrin courtroom law as the chief article of faith – צדק צדק תרדוף. Torah commandments and halacha serve as precedents to grasp the mandate of what the Torah as the Written Constitution determines as the “Protectorate” of the Revelation at Sinai. No different than the League of Nations made establishment of a Jewish National Home in “Palestine” into its definitive “Mandate/Protectorate”.

A בניין אב a Case/specific midda represents a logical inductive logic which extrapolates legal principles from an established primary case and applies them to a different but analogous situation. Learning by means of logical precedents inductive flexible and adaptive to changing times and conditions, based upon the unique aspects of the Case currently heard before the Court. Contrast this Case/specific midda with the Case/non-specific midda of the גזרה שווה which learns different perspectives of what witnesses “see” by comparing similar verses in the Torah. If two verses use the same term or phrase, a legal principle may be derived from one to the other.

The 17th midda of rabbi Yossi’s middot – דבר הלמד מסופו – דבר שמתברר מתוך סופו של הדיון. This sh’itta of inductive reasoning focuses on conclusions drawn from the final outcomes or implications of legal arguments. Inductive reasoning involves drawing general conclusions from specific instances.  Unlike deduction reasoning (which moves from general to specific), here, “the end” (the visible outcome) teaches about the beginning or the hidden principle.

An example of midda 17 –ויקרא כה:מא – ויצא מעמם, אשר עבר אליו, אל משפחתו … Kiddushn 20a instructs: the servant goes free – while the wife and children remain with the master. The phrase “אשר עבר אליו” — “those who passed over to him” — refers to the wife and children given to him by his master. This contrasts with and the verse concludes: “אל משפחתו” — “to his [own] family”. Meaning, he returns to his family who lived prior to his being made an עבד עברי, not the family formed during his 6 year servitude.

This inductive midda contrasts with most introductory history study in Universities. Dr. Dunning taught me at Texas A&M this subtle distinction between inductive vs. deductive reasoning. Examination of known recorded history: tends to focus upon decisions national leaders made as their government policy or battles famous general fought. History generally limits its research shaped by the “general conclusions”, like Lee lost the battle of Gettysburg. Governments strive to protect the reputations of their God/leaders by concealing their crimes. The Civil War primarily a States Rights autonomy to regulate trade and commerce independent of Big Brother ‘carpet bagger’ bureaucrats. Who killed John Kennedy? Government concealment of leadership disasters, compare to sex scandals. Hence people who rule and conceal their crimes, this by definition skews how later generations interpret the past.

This reactionary and shallow “grade school” deductive reasoning which relies upon conclusions rather than concealed details defines Greek rhetoric/government propaganda. Public schools instruct convenient tales of “history”. The invention of Eli Whitney’s cotton gin in 1793 together with coal based steam engines played a significant role in initiating a huge population transfer into the cities. Feudal economies rural based agricultural cottage industry economies simply could not compete. The 19th Century witness the need for bureaucratic regulation, such as child labor laws. Herein rests the crux of how Lincoln interpreted the Commerce Clause; he held that the Federal Government should regulate trade and commerce – including intra-State trade.

Just as Hegel’s philosophy of the State radically differed from Marx’s prioritization of the proletariat. Hegel considered the development of the state as central to human progress, Marx prioritized the empowerment and liberation of the working class, fundamentally critiquing the state as a tool of ‘capitalist oppression’. This key term of political rhetoric ‘capitalist oppression’ a direct consequence of the Industrial Revolution which transformed the economies of both Europe and America. Therefore, the instruction of the American Civil War as a war against slavery, a false conclusion based upon corrupt deductive propaganda. Greek rhetoric frames issues into emotional knee jerk reactions. The man on the street to busy trying not to starve to delve into complex issues of state.

The Order of this “middot code” democrates how Torah common law shines through disciplined “Constitutional mandated Sanhedrin common law” – textual reasoning rather than ideological static cult of personality legislative authorities.