Jews who do you pursue? The path of the P’rushim or the path of the Tzeddukim? Hanukkah זמן גרמא מצוה דאורייתא או קום ועושה דרבנן? The eternal mitzva of Hanukkah, the הבדלה of lighting these lights משנה תורה לשמה – Antonyms vs. שכח תורה שבעל פה לא לשמה – synonyms. Do you possess the Torah wisdom required to make logical דיוקים\inferences?

The lights of dedication: To study Torah common law through NaCH prophetic mussar דרוש\פשט-Aggada/Midrashim & רמז\וסוד ritual halachic precedents, which re-interprets again and again through every sugya of gemara on the Mishna; the original intent of the משנה תורה k’vanna language of the Mishna. Tohor time-oriented commandments צריך תנ”ך מוסר כוונה. Remember the question which the prophet אליהו הנביא asked the nation: Which God, HaShem or Ba’al do you serve? Herein defines the k’vanna of the lights of Hanukkah, doing mitzvot לשמה.

The Talmud stands upon the kabbalah logic sh’itta of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס. Vs. Assimilated Tzeddukim statute law as codified in the Av tuma Greek/Roman egg-crate organized assimilated halachic codes: Yad ha-Hazaka, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch. Which base these Av tuma Halachic Order-organization upon the syllogism logic of ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle & Plato. Clearly no mussar k’vanna learns out of assimilated Greek logic. Tohor time oriented commandments, according to the B’HaG, can raise a מצוה דרבנן like Hanukkah unto a מצוה דאורייתא.

The B’hag, also known as the Ba’al HaMaor, Rabbi Zerachiah HaLevi  lived during the late Geonic period (approximately 12th century CE). His major work is Sefer HaMaor, a critical commentary on the Halachot pos’kined by the Rif (Rabbi Isaac Alfasi). He lived in Vitry (in northern France), a major center of Jewish learning at the time. The B’HaG was a student of Rabbi Isaac Alfasi (the Rif) and Rabbi Gershom ben Judah (known as Rabbeinu Gershom), two influential figures in Jewish law. Eleazar ben Isaac was a prominent disciple of Rabbeinu Gershom. His scholarship and teachings contributed significantly to the development of Ashkenazi Jewish thought.

Rabbeinu Gershom’s takkanot became part of the evolving Talmudic common law. Rabbeinu Gershom and his students left a lasting impact on Talmudic common law, introducing moral and practical innovations that resonate even today.

Rabbeinu Gershom was a renowned Talmudist during the Geonic period. While Rabbeinu Gershom focused on practical halakhic decisions, Rabbeinu Tam emphasized textual analysis and cross-referencing. Both scholars sought to enhance understanding, but their priorities differed: Rabbeinu Gershom prioritized communal welfare, while Rabbeinu Tam emphasized rigorous study.

The B’HaG includes explanations and expansions on the halakhot, often providing sources from the Talmud and Tosefta, as well as Geonic responsa and early legal traditions. The Halakhot Gedolot was especially valued by scholars in Provence and France, where it was frequently cited and commented upon in both legal and philosophical discussions.

The B’HaG (Rabbi Simcha ben Samuel) not only authored Halakhot Gedolot, but he also wrote a critical commentary on Rabbi Isaac Alfasi’s (the Rif’s) legal code, which did indeed play a significant role in sparking a response from Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (the Ramban). This commentary, and the disagreements it raised, led to the Ramban’s famous work, “Milchamot Hashem” (מלחמת השם).

The B’HaG’s critique of the Rif focused on several aspects, most notably on certain legal rulings and interpretations that the B’HaG felt were either incomplete or insufficiently explained. His commentary was not just an expansion of the Rif’s rulings, but also a critical analysis, highlighting areas where the Rif did not provide full explanations or where he differed from earlier sources, such as the Talmud or Geonic traditions.

The Ramban was deeply invested in preserving the integrity of the Rif’s legal code, and he strongly disagreed with the B’HaG’s critique, especially when it came to the B’HaG’s approach to the Rif’s rulings. Ramban’s “Milchamot Hashem” is a defense of the Rif against the B’HaG’s criticism. It is a legal and philosophical treatise in which the Ramban argues that the Rif’s decisions were valid, and he attempts to address the objections raised by the B’HaG.

The Rif’s Halakhot were pragmatic, concise, and designed for practical use. In contrast, the B’HaG’s approach was more critical and analytic, which the Ramban felt was an unnecessary departure from the Rif’s more streamlined legal method. The Ramban’s Milchamot Hashem systematically defends the Rif’s legal methodology and the principles behind the Rif’s halakhic rulings. He emphasizes that the Rif was following established Talmudic principles, and his rulings were grounded in a careful reading of the Talmud and Geonic sources.

The Ramban criticized the B’HaG for relying on a more critical and theoretical approach to halacha that he felt was inappropriate. The Ramban argued that halachic decisions should be based on the practical needs of the Jewish community, not just theoretical analysis. The famous dispute between these two great Talmudic scholars marks a key moment in the intellectual history of Jewish law, they represent the most prominent legal authorities of the time, they engaged in a public and philosophical debate over the nature of halachic methodology.

The B’HaG’s critiques continued to influence scholars who were more focused on the interpretative aspects of Jewish law. This exchange highlights the tension between codification and interpretation, a theme that has remained central in the development of Jewish legal thought. The B’HaG commentary to the Rif code stands upon the shared foundation that both the Rif and B’HaG learned the Talmud as משנה תורה/common law. Later halachic codifiers would outright abandon Talmudic common law in favor of the far more religiously practical Roman statute legal system!

It seems to me that the later halachic codifiers abandoned the Torah faith as the pursuit of judicial justice in favor of practical religion legal codifications. The dramatic shift raises into question of their “fear of heaven”.

Assimilated g’lut Jewry has lost the wisdom to pursue mitzvot לשמה. And hence they lost the skill to understand that tohor time oriented commandments create the chosen Cohen nation in all generations יש מאין. The avoda zarah practiced by the Catholic church now dominates Torah observance and Yechiva education in the sense that our people now prioritize codified halacha as dogmatic codes of law; even creeds of what Jews should believe.

But the Torah does not command belief in some Universal God(s) which Xtianity and Islam emphatically declare. The darkness of g’lut impacts Yeshiva educated Jews, they do mizvot without understand prophetic mussar as the basis of k’vanna for all time oriented commandments. לא לשמה suits them just fine! Hence they do not understand the k’vanna of שם ומלכות precondition, required to swear a Torah oath to cut a brit alliance among our Cohen people. May the time oriented mitzvot דאורייתא בארץ ישראל shine light upon assimilated and culturally distant g’lut Jewry, who dwell in פרדס darkness.

Jews who do you pursue? The path of the P’rushim or the path of the Tzeddukim? Hanukkah זמן גרמא מצוה דאורייתא או קום ועושה דרבנן? The eternal mitzva of Hanukkah, the הבדלה of lighting these lights משנה תורה לשמה – Antonyms vs. שכח תורה שבעל פה לא לשמה – synonyms. Do you possess the Torah wisdom required to make logical דיוקים\inferences?

The lights of dedication: To study Torah common law through NaCH prophetic mussar דרוש\פשט-Aggada/Midrashim & רמז\וסוד ritual halachic precedents, which re-interprets again and again through every sugya of gemara on the Mishna; the original intent of the משנה תורה k’vanna language of the Mishna. Tohor time-oriented commandments צריך תנ”ך מוסר כוונה. Remember the question which the prophet אליהו הנביא asked the nation: Which God, HaShem or Ba’al do you serve? Herein defines the k’vanna of the lights of Hanukkah, doing mitzvot לשמה.

The Talmud stands upon the kabbalah logic sh’itta of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס. Vs. Assimilated Tzeddukim statute law as codified in the Av tuma Greek/Roman egg-crate organized assimilated halachic codes: Yad ha-Hazaka, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch. Which base these Av tuma Halachic Order-organization upon the syllogism logic of ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle & Plato. Clearly no mussar k’vanna learns out of assimilated Greek logic. Tohor time oriented commandments, according to the B’HaG, can raise a מצוה דרבנן like Hanukkah unto a מצוה דאורייתא.

The B’hag, also known as the Ba’al HaMaor, Rabbi Zerachiah HaLevi  lived during the late Geonic period (approximately 12th century CE). His major work is Sefer HaMaor, a critical commentary on the Halachot pos’kined by the Rif (Rabbi Isaac Alfasi). He lived in Vitry (in northern France), a major center of Jewish learning at the time. The B’HaG was a student of Rabbi Isaac Alfasi (the Rif) and Rabbi Gershom ben Judah (known as Rabbeinu Gershom), two influential figures in Jewish law. Eleazar ben Isaac was a prominent disciple of Rabbeinu Gershom. His scholarship and teachings contributed significantly to the development of Ashkenazi Jewish thought.

Rabbeinu Gershom’s takkanot became part of the evolving Talmudic common law. Rabbeinu Gershom and his students left a lasting impact on Talmudic common law, introducing moral and practical innovations that resonate even today.

Rabbeinu Gershom was a renowned Talmudist during the Geonic period. While Rabbeinu Gershom focused on practical halakhic decisions, Rabbeinu Tam emphasized textual analysis and cross-referencing. Both scholars sought to enhance understanding, but their priorities differed: Rabbeinu Gershom prioritized communal welfare, while Rabbeinu Tam emphasized rigorous study.

The B’HaG includes explanations and expansions on the halakhot, often providing sources from the Talmud and Tosefta, as well as Geonic responsa and early legal traditions. The Halakhot Gedolot was especially valued by scholars in Provence and France, where it was frequently cited and commented upon in both legal and philosophical discussions.

The B’HaG (Rabbi Simcha ben Samuel) not only authored Halakhot Gedolot, but he also wrote a critical commentary on Rabbi Isaac Alfasi’s (the Rif’s) legal code, which did indeed play a significant role in sparking a response from Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (the Ramban). This commentary, and the disagreements it raised, led to the Ramban’s famous work, “Milchamot Hashem” (מלחמת השם).

The B’HaG’s critique of the Rif focused on several aspects, most notably on certain legal rulings and interpretations that the B’HaG felt were either incomplete or insufficiently explained. His commentary was not just an expansion of the Rif’s rulings, but also a critical analysis, highlighting areas where the Rif did not provide full explanations or where he differed from earlier sources, such as the Talmud or Geonic traditions.

The Ramban was deeply invested in preserving the integrity of the Rif’s legal code, and he strongly disagreed with the B’HaG’s critique, especially when it came to the B’HaG’s approach to the Rif’s rulings. Ramban’s “Milchamot Hashem” is a defense of the Rif against the B’HaG’s criticism. It is a legal and philosophical treatise in which the Ramban argues that the Rif’s decisions were valid, and he attempts to address the objections raised by the B’HaG.

The Rif’s Halakhot were pragmatic, concise, and designed for practical use. In contrast, the B’HaG’s approach was more critical and analytic, which the Ramban felt was an unnecessary departure from the Rif’s more streamlined legal method. The Ramban’s Milchamot Hashem systematically defends the Rif’s legal methodology and the principles behind the Rif’s halakhic rulings. He emphasizes that the Rif was following established Talmudic principles, and his rulings were grounded in a careful reading of the Talmud and Geonic sources.

The Ramban criticized the B’HaG for relying on a more critical and theoretical approach to halacha that he felt was inappropriate. The Ramban argued that halachic decisions should be based on the practical needs of the Jewish community, not just theoretical analysis. The famous dispute between these two great Talmudic scholars marks a key moment in the intellectual history of Jewish law, they represent the most prominent legal authorities of the time, they engaged in a public and philosophical debate over the nature of halachic methodology.

The B’HaG’s critiques continued to influence scholars who were more focused on the interpretative aspects of Jewish law. This exchange highlights the tension between codification and interpretation, a theme that has remained central in the development of Jewish legal thought. The B’HaG commentary to the Rif code stands upon the shared foundation that both the Rif and B’HaG learned the Talmud as משנה תורה/common law. Later halachic codifiers would outright abandon Talmudic common law in favor of the far more religiously practical Roman statute legal system!

It seems to me that the later halachic codifiers abandoned the Torah faith as the pursuit of judicial justice in favor of practical religion legal codifications. The dramatic shift raises into question of their “fear of heaven”.

Assimilated g’lut Jewry has lost the wisdom to pursue mitzvot לשמה. And hence they lost the skill to understand that tohor time oriented commandments create the chosen Cohen nation in all generations יש מאין. The avoda zarah practiced by the Catholic church now dominates Torah observance and Yechiva education in the sense that our people now prioritize codified halacha as dogmatic codes of law; even creeds of what Jews should believe.

But the Torah does not command belief in some Universal God(s) which Xtianity and Islam emphatically declare. The darkness of g’lut impacts Yeshiva educated Jews, they do mizvot without understand prophetic mussar as the basis of k’vanna for all time oriented commandments. לא לשמה suits them just fine! Hence they do not understand the k’vanna of שם ומלכות precondition, required to swear a Torah oath to cut a brit alliance among our Cohen people. May the time oriented mitzvot דאורייתא בארץ ישראל shine light upon assimilated and culturally distant g’lut Jewry, who dwell in פרדס darkness.

Jews who do you pursue? The path of the P’rushim or the path of the Tzeddukim? Hanukkah זמן גרמא מצוה דאורייתא או קום ועושה דרבנן? The eternal mitzva of Hanukkah, the הבדלה of lighting these lights משנה תורה לשמה – Antonyms vs. שכח תורה שבעל פה לא לשמה – synonyms. Do you possess the Torah wisdom required to make logical דיוקים\inferences?

The lights of dedication: To study Torah common law through NaCH prophetic mussar דרוש\פשט-Aggada/Midrashim & רמז\וסוד ritual halachic precedents, which re-interprets again and again through every sugya of gemara on the Mishna; the original intent of the משנה תורה k’vanna language of the Mishna. Tohor time-oriented commandments צריך תנ”ך מוסר כוונה. Remember the question which the prophet אליהו הנביא asked the nation: Which God, HaShem or Ba’al do you serve? Herein defines the k’vanna of the lights of Hanukkah, doing mitzvot לשמה.

The Talmud stands upon the kabbalah logic sh’itta of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס. Vs. Assimilated Tzeddukim statute law as codified in the Av tuma Greek/Roman egg-crate organized assimilated halachic codes: Yad ha-Hazaka, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch. Which base these Av tuma Halachic Order-organization upon the syllogism logic of ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle & Plato. Clearly no mussar k’vanna learns out of assimilated Greek logic. Tohor time oriented commandments, according to the B’HaG, can raise a מצוה דרבנן like Hanukkah unto a מצוה דאורייתא.

The B’hag, also known as the Ba’al HaMaor, Rabbi Zerachiah HaLevi  lived during the late Geonic period (approximately 12th century CE). His major work is Sefer HaMaor, a critical commentary on the Halachot pos’kined by the Rif (Rabbi Isaac Alfasi). He lived in Vitry (in northern France), a major center of Jewish learning at the time. The B’HaG was a student of Rabbi Isaac Alfasi (the Rif) and Rabbi Gershom ben Judah (known as Rabbeinu Gershom), two influential figures in Jewish law. Eleazar ben Isaac was a prominent disciple of Rabbeinu Gershom. His scholarship and teachings contributed significantly to the development of Ashkenazi Jewish thought.

Rabbeinu Gershom’s takkanot became part of the evolving Talmudic common law. Rabbeinu Gershom and his students left a lasting impact on Talmudic common law, introducing moral and practical innovations that resonate even today.

Rabbeinu Gershom was a renowned Talmudist during the Geonic period. While Rabbeinu Gershom focused on practical halakhic decisions, Rabbeinu Tam emphasized textual analysis and cross-referencing. Both scholars sought to enhance understanding, but their priorities differed: Rabbeinu Gershom prioritized communal welfare, while Rabbeinu Tam emphasized rigorous study.

The B’HaG includes explanations and expansions on the halakhot, often providing sources from the Talmud and Tosefta, as well as Geonic responsa and early legal traditions. The Halakhot Gedolot was especially valued by scholars in Provence and France, where it was frequently cited and commented upon in both legal and philosophical discussions.

The B’HaG (Rabbi Simcha ben Samuel) not only authored Halakhot Gedolot, but he also wrote a critical commentary on Rabbi Isaac Alfasi’s (the Rif’s) legal code, which did indeed play a significant role in sparking a response from Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (the Ramban). This commentary, and the disagreements it raised, led to the Ramban’s famous work, “Milchamot Hashem” (מלחמת השם).

The B’HaG’s critique of the Rif focused on several aspects, most notably on certain legal rulings and interpretations that the B’HaG felt were either incomplete or insufficiently explained. His commentary was not just an expansion of the Rif’s rulings, but also a critical analysis, highlighting areas where the Rif did not provide full explanations or where he differed from earlier sources, such as the Talmud or Geonic traditions.

The Ramban was deeply invested in preserving the integrity of the Rif’s legal code, and he strongly disagreed with the B’HaG’s critique, especially when it came to the B’HaG’s approach to the Rif’s rulings. Ramban’s “Milchamot Hashem” is a defense of the Rif against the B’HaG’s criticism. It is a legal and philosophical treatise in which the Ramban argues that the Rif’s decisions were valid, and he attempts to address the objections raised by the B’HaG.

The Rif’s Halakhot were pragmatic, concise, and designed for practical use. In contrast, the B’HaG’s approach was more critical and analytic, which the Ramban felt was an unnecessary departure from the Rif’s more streamlined legal method. The Ramban’s Milchamot Hashem systematically defends the Rif’s legal methodology and the principles behind the Rif’s halakhic rulings. He emphasizes that the Rif was following established Talmudic principles, and his rulings were grounded in a careful reading of the Talmud and Geonic sources.

The Ramban criticized the B’HaG for relying on a more critical and theoretical approach to halacha that he felt was inappropriate. The Ramban argued that halachic decisions should be based on the practical needs of the Jewish community, not just theoretical analysis. The famous dispute between these two great Talmudic scholars marks a key moment in the intellectual history of Jewish law, they represent the most prominent legal authorities of the time, they engaged in a public and philosophical debate over the nature of halachic methodology.

The B’HaG’s critiques continued to influence scholars who were more focused on the interpretative aspects of Jewish law. This exchange highlights the tension between codification and interpretation, a theme that has remained central in the development of Jewish legal thought. The B’HaG commentary to the Rif code stands upon the shared foundation that both the Rif and B’HaG learned the Talmud as משנה תורה/common law. Later halachic codifiers would outright abandon Talmudic common law in favor of the far more religiously practical Roman statute legal system!

It seems to me that the later halachic codifiers abandoned the Torah faith as the pursuit of judicial justice in favor of practical religion legal codifications. The dramatic shift raises into question of their “fear of heaven”.

Assimilated g’lut Jewry has lost the wisdom to pursue mitzvot לשמה. And hence they lost the skill to understand that tohor time oriented commandments create the chosen Cohen nation in all generations יש מאין. The avoda zarah practiced by the Catholic church now dominates Torah observance and Yechiva education in the sense that our people now prioritize codified halacha as dogmatic codes of law; even creeds of what Jews should believe.

But the Torah does not command belief in some Universal God(s) which Xtianity and Islam emphatically declare. The darkness of g’lut impacts Yeshiva educated Jews, they do mizvot without understand prophetic mussar as the basis of k’vanna for all time oriented commandments. לא לשמה suits them just fine! Hence they do not understand the k’vanna of שם ומלכות precondition, required to swear a Torah oath to cut a brit alliance among our Cohen people. May the time oriented mitzvot דאורייתא בארץ ישראל shine light upon assimilated and culturally distant g’lut Jewry, who dwell in פרדס darkness.

Jews who do you pursue? The path of the P’rushim or the path of the Tzeddukim? Hanukkah זמן גרמא מצוה דאורייתא או קום ועושה דרבנן? The eternal mitzva of Hanukkah, the הבדלה of lighting these lights משנה תורה לשמה – Antonyms vs. שכח תורה שבעל פה לא לשמה – synonyms. Do you possess the Torah wisdom required to make logical דיוקים\inferences?

The lights of dedication: To study Torah common law through NaCH prophetic mussar דרוש\פשט-Aggada/Midrashim & רמז\וסוד ritual halachic precedents, which re-interprets again and again through every sugya of gemara on the Mishna; the original intent of the משנה תורה k’vanna language of the Mishna. Tohor time-oriented commandments צריך תנ”ך מוסר כוונה. Remember the question which the prophet אליהו הנביא asked the nation: Which God, HaShem or Ba’al do you serve? Herein defines the k’vanna of the lights of Hanukkah, doing mitzvot לשמה.

The Talmud stands upon the kabbalah logic sh’itta of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס. Vs. Assimilated Tzeddukim statute law as codified in the Av tuma Greek/Roman egg-crate organized assimilated halachic codes: Yad ha-Hazaka, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch. Which base these Av tuma Halachic Order-organization upon the syllogism logic of ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle & Plato. Clearly no mussar k’vanna learns out of assimilated Greek logic. Tohor time oriented commandments, according to the B’HaG, can raise a מצוה דרבנן like Hanukkah unto a מצוה דאורייתא.

The B’hag, also known as the Ba’al HaMaor, Rabbi Zerachiah HaLevi  lived during the late Geonic period (approximately 12th century CE). His major work is Sefer HaMaor, a critical commentary on the Halachot pos’kined by the Rif (Rabbi Isaac Alfasi). He lived in Vitry (in northern France), a major center of Jewish learning at the time. The B’HaG was a student of Rabbi Isaac Alfasi (the Rif) and Rabbi Gershom ben Judah (known as Rabbeinu Gershom), two influential figures in Jewish law. Eleazar ben Isaac was a prominent disciple of Rabbeinu Gershom. His scholarship and teachings contributed significantly to the development of Ashkenazi Jewish thought.

Rabbeinu Gershom’s takkanot became part of the evolving Talmudic common law. Rabbeinu Gershom and his students left a lasting impact on Talmudic common law, introducing moral and practical innovations that resonate even today.

Rabbeinu Gershom was a renowned Talmudist during the Geonic period. While Rabbeinu Gershom focused on practical halakhic decisions, Rabbeinu Tam emphasized textual analysis and cross-referencing. Both scholars sought to enhance understanding, but their priorities differed: Rabbeinu Gershom prioritized communal welfare, while Rabbeinu Tam emphasized rigorous study.

The B’HaG includes explanations and expansions on the halakhot, often providing sources from the Talmud and Tosefta, as well as Geonic responsa and early legal traditions. The Halakhot Gedolot was especially valued by scholars in Provence and France, where it was frequently cited and commented upon in both legal and philosophical discussions.

The B’HaG (Rabbi Simcha ben Samuel) not only authored Halakhot Gedolot, but he also wrote a critical commentary on Rabbi Isaac Alfasi’s (the Rif’s) legal code, which did indeed play a significant role in sparking a response from Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (the Ramban). This commentary, and the disagreements it raised, led to the Ramban’s famous work, “Milchamot Hashem” (מלחמת השם).

The B’HaG’s critique of the Rif focused on several aspects, most notably on certain legal rulings and interpretations that the B’HaG felt were either incomplete or insufficiently explained. His commentary was not just an expansion of the Rif’s rulings, but also a critical analysis, highlighting areas where the Rif did not provide full explanations or where he differed from earlier sources, such as the Talmud or Geonic traditions.

The Ramban was deeply invested in preserving the integrity of the Rif’s legal code, and he strongly disagreed with the B’HaG’s critique, especially when it came to the B’HaG’s approach to the Rif’s rulings. Ramban’s “Milchamot Hashem” is a defense of the Rif against the B’HaG’s criticism. It is a legal and philosophical treatise in which the Ramban argues that the Rif’s decisions were valid, and he attempts to address the objections raised by the B’HaG.

The Rif’s Halakhot were pragmatic, concise, and designed for practical use. In contrast, the B’HaG’s approach was more critical and analytic, which the Ramban felt was an unnecessary departure from the Rif’s more streamlined legal method. The Ramban’s Milchamot Hashem systematically defends the Rif’s legal methodology and the principles behind the Rif’s halakhic rulings. He emphasizes that the Rif was following established Talmudic principles, and his rulings were grounded in a careful reading of the Talmud and Geonic sources.

The Ramban criticized the B’HaG for relying on a more critical and theoretical approach to halacha that he felt was inappropriate. The Ramban argued that halachic decisions should be based on the practical needs of the Jewish community, not just theoretical analysis. The famous dispute between these two great Talmudic scholars marks a key moment in the intellectual history of Jewish law, they represent the most prominent legal authorities of the time, they engaged in a public and philosophical debate over the nature of halachic methodology.

The B’HaG’s critiques continued to influence scholars who were more focused on the interpretative aspects of Jewish law. This exchange highlights the tension between codification and interpretation, a theme that has remained central in the development of Jewish legal thought. The B’HaG commentary to the Rif code stands upon the shared foundation that both the Rif and B’HaG learned the Talmud as משנה תורה/common law. Later halachic codifiers would outright abandon Talmudic common law in favor of the far more religiously practical Roman statute legal system!

It seems to me that the later halachic codifiers abandoned the Torah faith as the pursuit of judicial justice in favor of practical religion legal codifications. The dramatic shift raises into question of their “fear of heaven”.

Assimilated g’lut Jewry has lost the wisdom to pursue mitzvot לשמה. And hence they lost the skill to understand that tohor time oriented commandments create the chosen Cohen nation in all generations יש מאין. The avoda zarah practiced by the Catholic church now dominates Torah observance and Yechiva education in the sense that our people now prioritize codified halacha as dogmatic codes of law; even creeds of what Jews should believe.

But the Torah does not command belief in some Universal God(s) which Xtianity and Islam emphatically declare. The darkness of g’lut impacts Yeshiva educated Jews, they do mizvot without understand prophetic mussar as the basis of k’vanna for all time oriented commandments. לא לשמה suits them just fine! Hence they do not understand the k’vanna of שם ומלכות precondition, required to swear a Torah oath to cut a brit alliance among our Cohen people. May the time oriented mitzvot דאורייתא בארץ ישראל shine light upon assimilated and culturally distant g’lut Jewry, who dwell in פרדס darkness.

Jews who do you pursue? The path of the P’rushim or the path of the Tzeddukim? Hanukkah זמן גרמא מצוה דאורייתא או קום ועושה דרבנן? The eternal mitzva of Hanukkah, the הבדלה of lighting these lights משנה תורה לשמה – Antonyms vs. שכח תורה שבעל פה לא לשמה – synonyms. Do you possess the Torah wisdom required to make logical דיוקים\inferences?

The lights of dedication: To study Torah common law through NaCH prophetic mussar דרוש\פשט-Aggada/Midrashim & רמז\וסוד ritual halachic precedents, which re-interprets again and again through every sugya of gemara on the Mishna; the original intent of the משנה תורה k’vanna language of the Mishna. Tohor time-oriented commandments צריך תנ”ך מוסר כוונה. Remember the question which the prophet אליהו הנביא asked the nation: Which God, HaShem or Ba’al do you serve? Herein defines the k’vanna of the lights of Hanukkah, doing mitzvot לשמה.

The Talmud stands upon the kabbalah logic sh’itta of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס. Vs. Assimilated Tzeddukim statute law as codified in the Av tuma Greek/Roman egg-crate organized assimilated halachic codes: Yad ha-Hazaka, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch. Which base these Av tuma Halachic Order-organization upon the syllogism logic of ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle & Plato. Clearly no mussar k’vanna learns out of assimilated Greek logic. Tohor time oriented commandments, according to the B’HaG, can raise a מצוה דרבנן like Hanukkah unto a מצוה דאורייתא.

The B’hag, also known as the Ba’al HaMaor, Rabbi Zerachiah HaLevi  lived during the late Geonic period (approximately 12th century CE). His major work is Sefer HaMaor, a critical commentary on the Halachot pos’kined by the Rif (Rabbi Isaac Alfasi). He lived in Vitry (in northern France), a major center of Jewish learning at the time. The B’HaG was a student of Rabbi Isaac Alfasi (the Rif) and Rabbi Gershom ben Judah (known as Rabbeinu Gershom), two influential figures in Jewish law. Eleazar ben Isaac was a prominent disciple of Rabbeinu Gershom. His scholarship and teachings contributed significantly to the development of Ashkenazi Jewish thought.

Rabbeinu Gershom’s takkanot became part of the evolving Talmudic common law. Rabbeinu Gershom and his students left a lasting impact on Talmudic common law, introducing moral and practical innovations that resonate even today.

Rabbeinu Gershom was a renowned Talmudist during the Geonic period. While Rabbeinu Gershom focused on practical halakhic decisions, Rabbeinu Tam emphasized textual analysis and cross-referencing. Both scholars sought to enhance understanding, but their priorities differed: Rabbeinu Gershom prioritized communal welfare, while Rabbeinu Tam emphasized rigorous study.

The B’HaG includes explanations and expansions on the halakhot, often providing sources from the Talmud and Tosefta, as well as Geonic responsa and early legal traditions. The Halakhot Gedolot was especially valued by scholars in Provence and France, where it was frequently cited and commented upon in both legal and philosophical discussions.

The B’HaG (Rabbi Simcha ben Samuel) not only authored Halakhot Gedolot, but he also wrote a critical commentary on Rabbi Isaac Alfasi’s (the Rif’s) legal code, which did indeed play a significant role in sparking a response from Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (the Ramban). This commentary, and the disagreements it raised, led to the Ramban’s famous work, “Milchamot Hashem” (מלחמת השם).

The B’HaG’s critique of the Rif focused on several aspects, most notably on certain legal rulings and interpretations that the B’HaG felt were either incomplete or insufficiently explained. His commentary was not just an expansion of the Rif’s rulings, but also a critical analysis, highlighting areas where the Rif did not provide full explanations or where he differed from earlier sources, such as the Talmud or Geonic traditions.

The Ramban was deeply invested in preserving the integrity of the Rif’s legal code, and he strongly disagreed with the B’HaG’s critique, especially when it came to the B’HaG’s approach to the Rif’s rulings. Ramban’s “Milchamot Hashem” is a defense of the Rif against the B’HaG’s criticism. It is a legal and philosophical treatise in which the Ramban argues that the Rif’s decisions were valid, and he attempts to address the objections raised by the B’HaG.

The Rif’s Halakhot were pragmatic, concise, and designed for practical use. In contrast, the B’HaG’s approach was more critical and analytic, which the Ramban felt was an unnecessary departure from the Rif’s more streamlined legal method. The Ramban’s Milchamot Hashem systematically defends the Rif’s legal methodology and the principles behind the Rif’s halakhic rulings. He emphasizes that the Rif was following established Talmudic principles, and his rulings were grounded in a careful reading of the Talmud and Geonic sources.

The Ramban criticized the B’HaG for relying on a more critical and theoretical approach to halacha that he felt was inappropriate. The Ramban argued that halachic decisions should be based on the practical needs of the Jewish community, not just theoretical analysis. The famous dispute between these two great Talmudic scholars marks a key moment in the intellectual history of Jewish law, they represent the most prominent legal authorities of the time, they engaged in a public and philosophical debate over the nature of halachic methodology.

The B’HaG’s critiques continued to influence scholars who were more focused on the interpretative aspects of Jewish law. This exchange highlights the tension between codification and interpretation, a theme that has remained central in the development of Jewish legal thought. The B’HaG commentary to the Rif code stands upon the shared foundation that both the Rif and B’HaG learned the Talmud as משנה תורה/common law. Later halachic codifiers would outright abandon Talmudic common law in favor of the far more religiously practical Roman statute legal system!

It seems to me that the later halachic codifiers abandoned the Torah faith as the pursuit of judicial justice in favor of practical religion legal codifications. The dramatic shift raises into question of their “fear of heaven”.

Assimilated g’lut Jewry has lost the wisdom to pursue mitzvot לשמה. And hence they lost the skill to understand that tohor time oriented commandments create the chosen Cohen nation in all generations יש מאין. The avoda zarah practiced by the Catholic church now dominates Torah observance and Yechiva education in the sense that our people now prioritize codified halacha as dogmatic codes of law; even creeds of what Jews should believe.

But the Torah does not command belief in some Universal God(s) which Xtianity and Islam emphatically declare. The darkness of g’lut impacts Yeshiva educated Jews, they do mizvot without understand prophetic mussar as the basis of k’vanna for all time oriented commandments. לא לשמה suits them just fine! Hence they do not understand the k’vanna of שם ומלכות precondition, required to swear a Torah oath to cut a brit alliance among our Cohen people. May the time oriented mitzvot דאורייתא בארץ ישראל shine light upon assimilated and culturally distant g’lut Jewry, who dwell in פרדס darkness.

Jews who do you pursue? The path of the P’rushim or the path of the Tzeddukim? Hanukkah זמן גרמא מצוה דאורייתא או קום ועושה דרבנן? The eternal mitzva of Hanukkah, the הבדלה of lighting these lights משנה תורה לשמה – Antonyms vs. שכח תורה שבעל פה לא לשמה – synonyms. Do you possess the Torah wisdom required to make logical דיוקים\inferences?

The lights of dedication: To study Torah common law through NaCH prophetic mussar דרוש\פשט-Aggada/Midrashim & רמז\וסוד ritual halachic precedents, which re-interprets again and again through every sugya of gemara on the Mishna; the original intent of the משנה תורה k’vanna language of the Mishna. Tohor time-oriented commandments צריך תנ”ך מוסר כוונה. Remember the question which the prophet אליהו הנביא asked the nation: Which God, HaShem or Ba’al do you serve? Herein defines the k’vanna of the lights of Hanukkah, doing mitzvot לשמה.

The Talmud stands upon the kabbalah logic sh’itta of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס. Vs. Assimilated Tzeddukim statute law as codified in the Av tuma Greek/Roman egg-crate organized assimilated halachic codes: Yad ha-Hazaka, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch. Which base these Av tuma Halachic Order-organization upon the syllogism logic of ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle & Plato. Clearly no mussar k’vanna learns out of assimilated Greek logic. Tohor time oriented commandments, according to the B’HaG, can raise a מצוה דרבנן like Hanukkah unto a מצוה דאורייתא.

The B’hag, also known as the Ba’al HaMaor, Rabbi Zerachiah HaLevi  lived during the late Geonic period (approximately 12th century CE). His major work is Sefer HaMaor, a critical commentary on the Halachot pos’kined by the Rif (Rabbi Isaac Alfasi). He lived in Vitry (in northern France), a major center of Jewish learning at the time. The B’HaG was a student of Rabbi Isaac Alfasi (the Rif) and Rabbi Gershom ben Judah (known as Rabbeinu Gershom), two influential figures in Jewish law. Eleazar ben Isaac was a prominent disciple of Rabbeinu Gershom. His scholarship and teachings contributed significantly to the development of Ashkenazi Jewish thought.

Rabbeinu Gershom’s takkanot became part of the evolving Talmudic common law. Rabbeinu Gershom and his students left a lasting impact on Talmudic common law, introducing moral and practical innovations that resonate even today.

Rabbeinu Gershom was a renowned Talmudist during the Geonic period. While Rabbeinu Gershom focused on practical halakhic decisions, Rabbeinu Tam emphasized textual analysis and cross-referencing. Both scholars sought to enhance understanding, but their priorities differed: Rabbeinu Gershom prioritized communal welfare, while Rabbeinu Tam emphasized rigorous study.

The B’HaG includes explanations and expansions on the halakhot, often providing sources from the Talmud and Tosefta, as well as Geonic responsa and early legal traditions. The Halakhot Gedolot was especially valued by scholars in Provence and France, where it was frequently cited and commented upon in both legal and philosophical discussions.

The B’HaG (Rabbi Simcha ben Samuel) not only authored Halakhot Gedolot, but he also wrote a critical commentary on Rabbi Isaac Alfasi’s (the Rif’s) legal code, which did indeed play a significant role in sparking a response from Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (the Ramban). This commentary, and the disagreements it raised, led to the Ramban’s famous work, “Milchamot Hashem” (מלחמת השם).

The B’HaG’s critique of the Rif focused on several aspects, most notably on certain legal rulings and interpretations that the B’HaG felt were either incomplete or insufficiently explained. His commentary was not just an expansion of the Rif’s rulings, but also a critical analysis, highlighting areas where the Rif did not provide full explanations or where he differed from earlier sources, such as the Talmud or Geonic traditions.

The Ramban was deeply invested in preserving the integrity of the Rif’s legal code, and he strongly disagreed with the B’HaG’s critique, especially when it came to the B’HaG’s approach to the Rif’s rulings. Ramban’s “Milchamot Hashem” is a defense of the Rif against the B’HaG’s criticism. It is a legal and philosophical treatise in which the Ramban argues that the Rif’s decisions were valid, and he attempts to address the objections raised by the B’HaG.

The Rif’s Halakhot were pragmatic, concise, and designed for practical use. In contrast, the B’HaG’s approach was more critical and analytic, which the Ramban felt was an unnecessary departure from the Rif’s more streamlined legal method. The Ramban’s Milchamot Hashem systematically defends the Rif’s legal methodology and the principles behind the Rif’s halakhic rulings. He emphasizes that the Rif was following established Talmudic principles, and his rulings were grounded in a careful reading of the Talmud and Geonic sources.

The Ramban criticized the B’HaG for relying on a more critical and theoretical approach to halacha that he felt was inappropriate. The Ramban argued that halachic decisions should be based on the practical needs of the Jewish community, not just theoretical analysis. The famous dispute between these two great Talmudic scholars marks a key moment in the intellectual history of Jewish law, they represent the most prominent legal authorities of the time, they engaged in a public and philosophical debate over the nature of halachic methodology.

The B’HaG’s critiques continued to influence scholars who were more focused on the interpretative aspects of Jewish law. This exchange highlights the tension between codification and interpretation, a theme that has remained central in the development of Jewish legal thought. The B’HaG commentary to the Rif code stands upon the shared foundation that both the Rif and B’HaG learned the Talmud as משנה תורה/common law. Later halachic codifiers would outright abandon Talmudic common law in favor of the far more religiously practical Roman statute legal system!

It seems to me that the later halachic codifiers abandoned the Torah faith as the pursuit of judicial justice in favor of practical religion legal codifications. The dramatic shift raises into question of their “fear of heaven”.

Assimilated g’lut Jewry has lost the wisdom to pursue mitzvot לשמה. And hence they lost the skill to understand that tohor time oriented commandments create the chosen Cohen nation in all generations יש מאין. The avoda zarah practiced by the Catholic church now dominates Torah observance and Yechiva education in the sense that our people now prioritize codified halacha as dogmatic codes of law; even creeds of what Jews should believe.

But the Torah does not command belief in some Universal God(s) which Xtianity and Islam emphatically declare. The darkness of g’lut impacts Yeshiva educated Jews, they do mizvot without understand prophetic mussar as the basis of k’vanna for all time oriented commandments. לא לשמה suits them just fine! Hence they do not understand the k’vanna of שם ומלכות precondition, required to swear a Torah oath to cut a brit alliance among our Cohen people. May the time oriented mitzvot דאורייתא בארץ ישראל shine light upon assimilated and culturally distant g’lut Jewry, who dwell in פרדס darkness.