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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

משנה תורה – קידושין Common Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Justice Pursue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Torah faith understood differently that the Xtian avoda zarah treif abomination – guilty of the Shoah.

The Talmud rejects the Xtian simplistic reading of the Jewish Torah. Israel only accepted the opening first two commandments until Moshe came down from Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf avoda zarah wherein the ערב רב שאין יראת שמים translated the Spirit Name to a profane word “אלהים”.

Why the repetition of the so called 10 commandments in the Books of Sh’mot and D’varim? Torah a common law legal system. Paul’s declaration: “Goyim you are not under the Law” morphed Jewish common law with Roman statute law. Wrong – big error of Xtian theological propaganda. Common law stands upon the foundation of precedents. The repetition of the so called 10 commandments emphasizes through this central repetition the remembrance of coming out of Egyptian slavery as commanded in the acceptance of the Yoke of Heaven commandment known as kre’a shma. שמע ישראל ה’ אלהינו ה’ אחד.

Churchianity reads this as Monotheism. Again dead as a doornail – Wrong. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. If only One God then no need to forbid the worship of other Gods. The entire Torah revelation hinges upon these opening first two commandments, which Israel accepted before the sin of the Golden calf word translation av tuma avoda zara.

The bible translation ignores the first commandment. The translation of the 1st commandment Spirit Name to a word defines the sin of the Golden Calf … the 2nd Sinai commandment. Just that simple, no fancy dance’n.

Notice that the שמע employs 3 Divine Names. Only the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev does another verse ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון וכו — the revelation of the Oral Torah 13 tohor middot — like the שמע, this verse too employs 3 Divine Names in succession. Within the entire literature of the T’NaCH, these two verse stand totally unique.

This has nothing what so ever to do with the Nicene Creed theology of 325 hocus pocus father, son & holy ghost pie in the sky creation of Gods through theology. The Book of בראשית where the 3 Avot swore an oath brit alliance concerning the future born birth of the chosen Cohen people. This first Torah Book introduces “how” this brit sworn to the Avot achieved.

Acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven requires that ALL down stream generations remember the oaths which the Avot swore to cut a brit alliance with HaShem – upon their World to Come/Olam Ha’Bah souls – the birth in all future born generations of the chosen Cohen people. Created not through sex but rather through observance of tohor time oriented commandments. The Book of בראשית introduces this unique type of Torah commandment.

The Nazis av tuma accused Jews of being a “race”. The Book of בראשית teaches otherwise. The Cohen people live from generation to generation through Jewish observance of time oriented commandments … קריא שמע an example of time oriented commandments which the Book of בראשית introduces with the משל of the Creation of the Universe in 6 days.

Torah instructs through משל\נמשל. Torah does not define faith as belief in this Trinity God or that strict Monotheism Allah God; it does not link faith to belief in the Greek Gods of Mt. Olympus or the multitude of Hindu Gods etc. The arrogance of Monotheism presumes that believers in Allah as the only God can negate the peoples of Asia and their belief systems!

The precedent of Moshe standing before the Court of Par’o on the matter of the Egyptian overlords beating the Israelite slaves, over their failure to meet our quota of brick production when Par’o withheld the required straw … coupled with Yetro, Moshe’s father in law, who rebuked Moshe over his failure to establish courts of law; upon these two essential Torah precedents of common law, stands the commandment – according to all the prophets of the NaCH – for Israel to invade and conquer Canaan. Specifically: To rule the conquered land with courtroom judicial justice as the Torah act of Sinai faith. Justice where the common law court dedicate to make fair restoration of damages inflicted upon others. That’s the entire Torah NaCH Mishna Gemara Talmud Midrashim and Siddur – just that simple. No fancy dance’n.

Boris Badenov & Natasha Fatale rabbinic villain show erev shabbat


The Rambam’s ruling that vegetables or fruits picked during the Shmittah year, even if they were fully developed before Rosh Hashanah, are considered produce of the seventh year and thus subject to its laws. This reflects a principle where the time of harvesting determines the status of the produce, regardless of its previous state. Just as the time of picking determines the status of produce (Shmita), the method and timing of the acquisition affect the status of the marriage. Both contexts emphasize how the action (picking or acquisition) solidifies the legal status of the item or relationship.

The halacha defines the produce’s status based on when it is harvested (in Shmittah) as well as the Mishna’s definition of how a woman is acquired. Both are based on specific legal frameworks where actions and timing are critical. The connection lies in how timing and actions play a critical role in determining legal status, whether in agricultural law or marital law. Both areas reflect broader themes of commitment, ownership, and the implications of actions taken in time-bound contexts. This halachic ruling by the Rambam and the commentary made by the כסף משנה fails to address the blatant contradiction the Rambam made wherein he ruled that forced ביאה with a young girl, without her consent (her young age – she does not understand the sex act at all) constitutes as the mitzva of קידושין.

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
הלכות שמיטה ויובל פ”ד:יב

הירק בשעת לקיטתו והתרוג אפילו היה כפול קודם ר”ה ונעשה ברבר בשביעית חייב במעשרות כפירות ששית. ואפילו היה ככבר בששית הואיל ונלקט בשביעית הרי הוא כפירות שביעית. ומתעשר כפירות ששית להחמיר.


כסף משנה:

הירק בשעת לקיטתא וכו’. פרק קמא דר”ה (דף י”ב) אמרינן הכי לענין תרומה ומעשר לרבינו דה”ה לענין שביעית — והאתרוג אפילו היה כפול וכו’. יש בקצת ספרי רבינו חסרון מט”ז בסוף בבא זו וכך צריך להגיה ואפילו היה כככר בששית הואיל ונלקט בשביעית הרי הוא כפירות שביעת והדין הוא בפ”ב דברורים (משנה ו) תנן אתרוג שוה לאילן בג’ דרכים ולירק בדרך אחד שוה לאילן בערלה וברבעי ובשביעית ולירק בדרך אחד שבשעת לקיטתו עישורו דברי ר”ג. רבי אליעזר אומר שוה לאילן בכל דבר. ובפ”ק דר”ה (דף ט”ו) אמר רבה אתרוג בת ששית שנכנסה לשביעית פטורה מן המעשר וכו’ עד חייבים עליהם משום טבל ופירש”י אמר רבה אתרוג בת ששית שחנטה בששית וכו’ עד חייתת משום טבל דבתר חנטה אזלינן ובפרק לולב הגדול (דף ל”ט:) אמרינן דסתם מתני’ דהתם סבר כרבותינו דאושא גאמרינן אתרוג בתר לקיטה לשביעית ורבינו נראה דספוקי מספקא ליה אי אזלינן ביה אחר חנטה לשתיעית כחמשה זננים וכמתניתין דפ”ב דבכורים או אחר לקיטתו כרבותינו דאושא וכסתם מתניתין דפ’ לולב הגסול וכן מספקא ליה אי אזלינן ביה אחר חנטה למעשרות כרבי אליעזר דפ”ב דבכורים וכר”י ור”ל דבתראי נינהו או אזלינן ביה בתר לקיטה כר”ע דפ”ב דבכורים וכחמשה זקנים וכרבותינו ופסק תתריייהו לחומרא
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Etrog – maturity plays a deciding factor in determining if its fruit qualifies as fit for the mitzva of the 4 species on Chag Sukkot. Maturity determines the kashrut of an etrog but does not likewise determine the kashrut of forced ביאה with a young girl who lack דעת due to her immaturity? This gross contradiction in the Rambam’s ruling the כסף משנה either ignored or failed to grasp its patent immorality. The reason why post the Rambam Civil War that rabbinic off the דרך Judaism failed to correctly understand the judicial precedent established by the Talmud that קידושין fundamentally requires the consent of the woman, rabbinic Judaism switch learning Talmud as common law and “converted” to the religion of Roman statute law. Comparable to the Czar at the turn of the 20th Century who demanded that Yeshivot in Russia learn only the Rambam halachic code and stop Talmudic study all together.

Quantum Physics – perhaps pie in the sky. The notion of some “New” logic, what a load of hogwash.

The truth values of quantum propositions can depend on the context and the measurement processes involved. This is distinct from classical logic, where truth values are absolute. False statement. פרדס logic a legal system which compares court room judicial rulings to other yet similar courtroom rulings. The idea that truth values are absolute – utter hogwash. The attending audience to a court proceeding can and often has influenced the decision reached by the bench ie judges. A clear cut example being a lynch mob! פרדס logic share no common ground with A∧(B∨C)=(A∧B)∨(A∧C). Unlike classical propositions (true or false), פרדס logic rejects such black vs. white thinking.

The human eye views the world as having multiple shades of color – so too and how much more so פרדס logic. The lattice system rigid. The rules established by rabbis Yishmael 13 rules and Yossi HaGalilee 32 rules fluid and variable. Talmudic common law applies to all generations and time or situations. Hence this fits into a superposition of states until a measurement is made; multiple states simutaneously – represented mathematically by wave functions or calculus variables.

Wave function compares to the Supreme Court Roe vs Wade ruling and later another Supreme Court invalidating that ruling in favor of States Rights to regulate State trade and commerce based upon the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Roe vs Wade reflects the massive support for abortion choice made by individuals rather than some State or Federal rule which determined the matter straight up out of hand. The generation of the 1970s a completely different generation of the 2020s. Hence, abortion like the issue of slavery became a variable that changes over time.

פרדס logic in like manner … since the Rambam published his Mishna Torah that became the model for Jewish halachic rulings till the 1948 Israeli Independence war. After Jews ruled their homeland rather than being stateless refugee populations which had no political or civil rights, the Israeli court system absolutely rejects the Rambam statute law code in favor of the Talmudic common law model of precedent law.

Hilbert space theory prophetic mussar absolutely rejects. Mussar defines T’NaCH prophesy for the simple reason that mussar – unlike witchcraft does not pretend to predict the future as did Bil’aam the Goy “prophet”. Mussar instructs rebukes which require a person to grow that rebuke inside the spirit of their hearts and mature that idea as their own. For example the growth of a tree on sandy dry soil develops completely different than the same species of tree grown on flat mineral rich soil. פרדס logic stands upon the foundations of prophetic T’NaCH mussar. But how a person matures that mussar within the spirits of their hearts – this has no fixed equation.