The style of the Gemara – difficulty answer. Why? Mishnah as blueprint, Gemara as rotation of facets. My father, to whom I referred to as a boy of 5 years of age as “Wild Bill Kerr”, based upon the TV series: “The Adventures of Wild Bill Hickok”. An American Western television series that aired from April 15, 1951, to September 24, 1958. Wild Bill Hickok, a legendary lawman and gunfighter known for his bravery and quick draw. Jingles P. Jones, Hickok’s comedic sidekick, providing humor throughout their adventures. Framed as set in the 1870s, focusing on the escapades of Hickok and Jingles as they fought outlaws and maintained law and order primarily around Fort Larabee.

My father taught me that a skilled lawyer does not really master his trade unless he can argue persuasively both sides: Prosecution and Defense. Up to this point in this commentary, made upon the opening sugya of קידושין, have framed myself as accepting the yoke of בית שמאי, the Sanhedrin Court prosecuting attorney. Having accused the רישונים חכמים of their intentional guilt, specifically their Av tuma avoda zara; which promotes Jewish assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The consequence of this fundamental lack of יראת שמים, this Reshonim ערב רב caused the Torah curse of Amalek/anti-semitism\ to plague the generations of the Jewish people like as did the plagues afflicted Par’o and Egypt during the days of Moshe and Aaron and Miriam.

Shall now likewise accept the yoke of בית הילל, the Defense attorney of the Sanhedrin Court and defend both רמב”ם וכסף משנה. The classic Pairs define Talmudic judicial common law. Absolutely essential that my commentary actively attempts a fair defense of the chief רשע – Rambam. “The act of codification in exile – pikuach nefesh for Torah, not rebellion — a suspension of precedent to preserve the covenantal body until the judicial soul of mass aliyah to the reconquered homeland restored.”

Lacking a strong defense for this Av tuma רשע, this commentary on the Av Mishna of קידושין compares to only one hand clapping; the Salem Witch Trials! This said, its essential to lay out the most obvious flaw of the Rambam code; the failure of that רשע to follow the common law Halachic codes made by the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh, and most especially by the Baali Tosafot who ruled Rambam guilty and placed him into the din of נידוי in 1232.

The Baali Tosafot criticized Rashi’s commentary as functioning primarily as a dictionary rather than a common law commentary which interprets the multiple facet perspectives which defines both T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. Only twice in the whole of the Sha’s Bavli did the Baali Tosafot make mention of the Rambam, and in both those cases they challenged and disputed his posok halacha.

But a minority of Baali Tosafot scholars approved and supported the Rambam perversion of Talmudic common law – to assimilated Greek/Roman statute law – cult of personality dictates. (Ask a religious Jew why he keeps the halacha? His standard answer: Because its written in the Shulkan Aruch.) The SMaG, (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol), authored by Rabbi Moshe ben Asher in the 13th century. This Baali Tosafot halachic code organized it’s posok halachic rulings, based upon the rules established by Reshonim conventions. Imposed due to the harsh reality of the collapse of the Roman road system and armed Robin Hood robbers. The tumultuous political and social landscape prompted scholars to consolidate halachic knowledge and attempt to establish a reliable source of Jewish law. He organized his halachic code around the frozen/static 613 Rambam (rigid egg-crate literal orthodox Xtian reading of the language of their bible Creation story). His codification of Reshonim opinions served as the model whereby the Tur based and organized his own statute law code.

Due to the simple fact that the king of France, together with the Pope – catholic church, publicly burned all the Talmudic manuscripts in Paris 1242. In 1290 the Jews of England expelled; 1306, King Philip IV of France, also known as Philip the Fair, ordered the expulsion of all Jews from his realm. These two Tsunami-like Earthquakes utterly obliterated and destroyed the French common law Rashi/Tosafot sh’itta which studied the kabbalah of Rabbis Akiva, Yishmael, and Yosi HaGalili middot. From the Paris burnings to the Khmelnytsky massacres to the Shoah, Amalek reappeared in each generation — the penalty for assimilation and the forgetting the Sinai oath brit alliance.

The latter Tanna, his 32 rules expand rabbinic middot legal scholarship; they amplifies rabbi Yishmael’s 13 rules wherein the Holy Writing serve to amplify differing perspectives made to interpret the Books of the NaCH. The realtionship of the Gemara to the Mishna models itself after how the Holy Writings interpret the NaCH Prophets.

Here’s a brief list and explanation of this famous Tanna’s 32 middot. 1 Kal V’Chomer. A form of argument from minor to major. 2 Gzerah Shavah. A principle that draws parallels between similar terms or phrases in different contexts. 3. Binyan Av. The common law principle of precedents. The anchor of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. 4. Shenei Ketuvim. Resolving contradictions between two biblical verses. 5. Tzarich L’Chatech. Requires clarification within a specific context. 6. Masar LaChaver. Transmitting a rule or principle to others. 7. Danny D’Rabi. Interpret a phrase based on rabbinical authority. 8. Chalom. A principle that allows interpretation based on dreams or visions. 9. Mikra. The textual basis for legal conclusions. 10. Davar SheBikdushah. A legal concept pertaining to sacred contexts. 11. Hekesh. A type of comparison that links two similar cases together. 12. Sefarim. Reference to books or scriptures that provide guidance. 13. Kavachomer from Torah. A derived legal principle that compares laws from the Torah to other laws. 14. Hekesh d’Rabbanan. A rabbinical comparison of legal interpretations. 15. Shema. Deriving laws that are evident in rules and practices. 16. Ribui U’Mi’ut. One of rabbi Akiva’s principles apart from rabbi Yishmael; inclusivity and exclusivity in legal terms. 17. Memashim. Interpreting terms based on similarity in context. 18. D’varim. Specific discussions within the context of Mitzvot. 19. Tanaim. Recognition of pluralism in opinions. 20. Ma’aseh. Examples that guide understanding or application of a principle. 21. Tuvaot. Philosophical principles based on faith or belief. 22. Kedushah. Principles pertaining to holiness and sacredness. 23. Chiddush. A new interpretation or novel legal ruling. 24. Omak. The principle of measuring depth or intensity in legal interpretations. 25. G’vul. Boundaries concerning laws. 26. Takanah Legal improvements made for community welfare. 27. Harsha. Interpretative techniques that adjust meanings based on context. 28. Shavah. A principle of equivalence or balance in law. 29. Edut. Laws based on testimonies and witnesses. 30. Mitzvot. Observance or fulfillment of commandments within Jewish law. 31. Machloket. The principles governing disputes and disagreements in interpretations of law. 32. Tamim. The concept of integrity and moral character in the practice of law.

My commentary relies extensively upon the rules established by Rabbi Yosi HaGalili. Yet no rabbi, other than Rav Nemuraskii – but of course – ever took the time to emphasize the absolute need to study and comprehend these 32 middot!

The supporters of the Rambam today negate not only the נידוי דין made by the court of Rabbeinu Yonah. But they, to my knowledge, due to the massive anarchy and chaos – resultant of this Civil War – which produced forced mass population transfers which effectively did not terminate till the Church three Century ghetto gulag decree. Which triggered the another tragic forced population transfer of Jews fleeing Western European church unjust tyranny to Eastern Europe. This mass population transfer contributed to the pogroms of 1648.

The 1648 Cossack Revolt, also known as the Khmelnytsky Uprising, led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Marked a pivotal moment in Ukrainian history and had enduring consequences for the region. Violent tensions boiled & brewed between the Polish nobility and the peasant Cossack feudal serfs. The latter, faced social and religious oppression, as the Polish nobility pitted aristocratic Catholics, opposed by peasant/serf Cossacks – Orthodox Christians. Peasant communist revolts against the land holding aristocrats, pretty much defines the history of Dark Ages, church oppression and slavery.

Bohdan Khmelnytsky, a prominent Cossack leader and military strategist, Khmelnytsky united various Cossack factions and sought to challenge Polish rule. This peasant/slave revolt began in the spring of 1648. Khmelnytsky attacked Polish forces and saw initial successes, capturing several key towns. This early victory, history remembers as the Battle of Zhovti Vody (May 1648), bolstered Cossack morale and led to further recruitment to his revolt. Another decisive victory the Cossacks enjoyed, which solidified Khmelnytsky’s power and territory, the Battle of Pyliavtsi (September 1648).

The uprising resulted in the Treaty of Zboriv (1649) between the Cossacks and the Commonwealth, granting significant autonomy to the Cossacks and recognition of Khmelnytsky’s leadership. The revolt led to increased Cossack autonomy and eventually contributed to the creation of the Cossack Hetmanate, a semi-autonomous region under Cossack control with considerable independence from Polish authority. The revolt, often seen as a cornerstone in the development of Ukrainian national identity – commemorated in Ukrainian history as a fight for independence and self-determination.

Not till the post WWII Catholic Pius XII inspired rat-lines which openly assisted Nazi war-criminals to escape standing trial, did the utter and complete barbarity of Church Nazi race-based guilt become so blatantly obvious. The Nazis proved that Xtian Europe eternally bears the mark of Cain. Post Shoah, no get out of jail free for Xtianity as a religion; nor for Islam who openly & publicly made open alliance to achieve the goals of Hitler – in both the 1948 and ’67 Israeli Independence Wars.

The opening defence of the רשע Rambam, based upon the 1232 נידוי ruled by French/Baali Tosafot rabbis in Paris. Outside the Land, Divine justice does not manifest through Sanhedrin jurisprudence — for HaShem Elohei Yisrael – bound by brit to the soil of the oath sworn lands. Having accused the Rambam as ha-rasha ha-gadol in Beit Shammai’s charge sheet, the Beit Hillel defense now must redeem him on grounds of intent (kavanah). Alas, this defense immediately collapses due to the Rambam’s bi-polar Sefer Ha’Mitzvot which totally ignores tohor time oriented commandments which absolutely both define and hence require — k’vanna. None the less, the essence of Gemara — that justice lives not in verdict but in the capacity to argue both sides with equal passion.

The obligation of Beit Hillel defense requires in-depth examination of the Rambam’s halachic rulings. The Rambam (1138–1204) lived through the Almohad persecutions in Spain and Morocco, when Torah academies were burned and communities forced to convert or die. In such times, the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah was not an act of rebellion but of triage — a desperate effort to preserve the body of law until neshamah chadashah could restore its soul. His code did not deny Torah shebe’al peh; it froze its surface in order to prevent total loss.

The Kesef Mishneh (R. Yosef Karo) later wrote: “He wrote a code not to uproot the Gemara, but to protect it, lest the generations forget even its bones.” The prosecution identifies codification with Avoda Zara, arguing that it transforms the living word into a fixed idol. Yet idolatry in Torah law is defined not by the form of worship but by intention — kavanah. The Rambam’s intention, as proven in his Introduction to Mishneh Torah, was not to replace the Oral Law but to “gather what is scattered” (le’asof hanidachim). Alas the Rambam replaced dynamic פרדס inductive logic with Greek syllogism deductive logic.

In his Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot he writes: “I did not intend that one abandon the Talmud, for the Talmud is the root of all decisions.” Thus, the form of his writing — systematic, Greek-like — cannot be construed as Avoda Zara unless the intent actually qualifies as alien worship which the prosecution maintains. The burden of proof for idolatrous intent cannot stand in din Torah without testimony and motive. The prosecution claims that Rambam’s move from common law to statute code, violated the dynamic precedent system (binyan av). Yet Ezra HaSofer and the Men of the Great Assembly themselves wrote down the Tanakhic canon to preserve it post-exile. Codification – in crisis – perhaps qualifies precedent, & not rebellion.

R. Yosef Karo’s Kesef Mishneh perhaps understood not as blind allegiance but as judicial commentary — a defense brief of its own. He accepts Rambam’s framework but reopens the dialectic: where ever Rambam seems to rule against the Gemara, the Kesef Mishneh restores the dialogue of possible Gemara sources, but fails to bring the language of the Mishna as does the common law codes of the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh. Does the Kesef Mishneh replicate what Beit Hillel does to Beit Shammai — not to overturn, but to temper judgment viewed from an entirely different perspective? Most definitely no.

The prosecution links Rambam’s rationalism to assimilation. Yet history shows that rationalism, in Rambam’s hands, perhaps served the opposite purpose: to rescue Judaism from the Aristotelian cults of barbaric Islam and Xtian Av tuma avoda zarah. In Guide for the Perplexed, Rambam dismantled the Greek metaphysical “gods” and reframed Torah theology in the language of the nations, to prevent the youth of his generation from apostasy. Is this לא תעשון כן לה’ אלהיכם in reverse — cleansing foreign ideas for Avodat Hashem? Again clearly No. The Rambam defense admits that he erred. However, his error limited only to method, to faith; in precision – not to loyalty, requires an עיון that this introduction can only suggest at this early stage of the trial.

The Ba’alei Tosafot indeed criticized his halachic method — a legal dispute within the precedent of the B’HaG, Rif codes? No the Rambam clearly favored systematic ease over common law judicial discipline. The Rambam’s מציאות השם radically differs from the Talmudic masoret which teaches that only the 12 Tribes of the Chosen Cohen people accepted the revelation at Sinai: the brit to continuously create the seed of the Avot through tohor time oriented Av commandments, starkly different from the Rambam opinion, embraced by the vast majority of assimilated Jews who themselves stood in absolute terror from Xtian & Islamic Av tuma avoda zarah Creed beliefs in some Universal God. G’lut Jewry endured a nightmare, an absolute panic of dread & fear. Therefore they abandoned the Sinai revelation limited to a Tribal local god.

The Cherem against the Rambam in Montpellier arose not from halachic analysis but from this precise horror experienced by the assimilated Jews of Spain. Their crude knowledge of Torah faith as common law judicial justice, utterly overwhelmed by their absolute dread of philosophy’s encroachment on the purity of common law judicial faith; that seals the focus of the oath alliance upon the Sinai brit that touches the eternal creation of the Chosen seed of the Avot through time oriented tohor commandments.

Clearly the Rambam’s vision of what defines the foundation of prophecy, stands fundamentally apart from the Talmudic definition which understands prophets as persons who command mussar to all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Its this prophetic mussar which the Aggada of the Talmud defines the k’vanna of rabbinic halachot throughout the Talmud employs to plant mussar seeds within the Yatzir Ha’Tov; elevates positive rabbinic commandments to Av tohor time oriented commandments based upon the Oral Torah 13 middot revealed at Horev; the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive dynamic reasoning akin to the variables of Calculus. The priority of pursuit of judicial common law justice vs. theological belief in a Universal omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence God — starkly different than outside of the land of Israel there exists no God. The restrictions on the Sanhedrin courtrooms obeys the model of Tribal HaShem as God of the Chosen land.

The Talmud fundamentally rejects speculation attempts to grasp the nature of the Gods as “better such person never born”. Greek philosophy’s influence upon Spanish Jewry had clearly overshadowed the shade cast by the Tree of Life. Jewish philosophers, without shame, debated the nature of God’s existence, on par with Xtian and Muslim avoda zarah believers. The Zohar’s kabbalistic mysticism promoted the large and small face of God Av tuma narishkeit.

Avoda zarah’s metziut of God as experienced through the absolute prioritization of faith in some theological belief system – artificial creed, spiritual practices, and personal encounters with the Divine. Miracles and divine providence play a significant role in affirming the existence of a Universal rather than a small tribal god. Descriptions of God mirror the sin of the Golden Calf word translations for שם השם. Rambam’s metziut of God encompasses a complex assimilation of philosophical inquiry, theological discourse, and personal experience. Understanding God’s existence requires engaging with both rational arguments and the richness of spiritual and communal experiences.

In his Introduction to the Yad Rambam writes: “My purpose is to gather the scattered, that the weary may find rest in one accessible structure.” None the less Yosef Karo failed to grasp that the sugyot of the Talmud a) require respect in and of themselves; b) serve as common law precedents to re-interpret the original language of both the Gemara sugya itself, together with the Mishnaic language – viewed from a completely different facet perspective.

Some argue that R. Yosef Karo’s Kesef Mishneh transforms the Rambam Yad from idol-statute into case law in exile — a portable court for a dispersed people. In the early 2000 sat with 70 other anointed judges in an attempt to restore Sanhedrin courts. Alas the vast majority of my peers perceived the Rambam Yad served as the ideal model by which we could re-establish Sanhedrin common law courtrooms! Does the Kesef Mishneh stands as the Rambam’s second breath — the return of neshamah chadashah into the vessel that had been frozen by necessity? Clearly no.

Rambam’s Guide dismantled the idolatries of his age — Aristotelian eternity of the Earth, Islamic predestination, and Xtian incarnation — translating Torah theology into the language consoled Goyim hostility, so that Jewish youth might survive their Christ-killer slanders. Assimilated Spanish Jewry had long ago actually embraced the concept of avoda zara altered and restricted/limited to the Goyim concept of actual physical or historical idol worship. Aristotle’s philosophy posited an eternal universe, implying that the world has no beginning or end. For Rambam, this notion contradicted the creation narrative in the Torah, where God creates the world at a specific point in time. But he failed to grasp the essence of בראשית as the introduction of tohor time oriented Av commandments vs the תולדות מצוות which do not require k’vanna.

In certain Islamic philosophies, there is a strong emphasis on predestination, where God’s will determine all events. This concept raises questions about free will. Assimilated Rambam confused the Centuries later Protestant – Calvin’s ‘free will’ – with the Talmud’s ירידות הדורות domino/ripple effect. The Rambam failed to grasp that Islam’s strict Monotheism Universal God theology uproots the 2nd Sinai commandment. Hence the Guide actually embraces the error of monotheism as the nature of God; a direct violation of the Mishna which warns man not to contemplate upon that which exists above, below, or behind the humanity of Man. Converting Greek philosophy re-labelled as Jewish philosophy, serves only as revisionist history – holocaust denial – on par with the modern-day UN declarations of a genocide in Gaza.

On the opening sugya of this the first published commentary upon this specific Mesechta; in this opening public learning of the Talmud, my opening thesis stands and accuses the ראשונים חכמים of the Capital Crime דיני נפשות crime of עבודה זרה – the 2nd Sinai commandment. Based upon גט גירושין, an Av time-oriented mitzva from the Torah. Therefore (this word employs a רמז of swearing a Torah oath), denigrating an Av tohor time oriented Torah commandment prostituted to a rabbinic positive commandment which does not require k’vanna (קידושין the דיוק of גט גירושין), the av tumah perversion of T’NaCH/Talmudic משנה תורה\common law unto Greek/Roman statute halachic law. Avoda zarah statute law determines the posok halacha, based upon cults of personality, like as represented in the statute Tur and Shulkan Aruch codes, rather than Gemara halachic בניני אבות\precedents which serve to make a different perspective reading of the language of this the Av Mishna of קידושין. This sh’itta of Reshonim g’lut scholarship merits a direct Torah curse rather than a blessing. Therefore, this Talmudic commentary calls for a Sanhedrin common law court to judge this dispute made against Reshonim Talmudic scholarship upon the both the T’NaCH & the Talmud – accused of the At tuma דיני נפשות crime of avoda zarah — enforced by NaCH prophetic mussar prophets/police of Sanhedrin Court Torah mandated Constitutional authority to enforce judicial rulings made by the Federal Sanhedrin Courtrooms.

Obviously, to publicly call for the restoration of common law/Legislative Review of Reshonim statute halachic law openly blesses the Zionist success who rose our people out of the European ashes of Shoah, after that Wilderness generations Orthodox rabbinic spies melted the heart of that generations which resulted in the Torah plague curse, known as Chamberlain’s White Paper public betrayal of the Balfour Declaration. That this false oath, comparable to the floods which destroyed the generation of Noach, obliterated and caused the Sun to permanently set upon the British empire. That dead empire gone the way of the dead Assyrian, Babylonian, Roman, Islamic, Mongrel, Ottoman, Austria-Hungarian, Japanese, 3rd Reich, French, British, and USSR, defunct empires that together with the Roman Protocols of the Elders of Zionism NT forgery as dead as the trinity God created through the Nicene Council dogma decree of statute law, together with the Av tuma avoda zarah Allah Golden Calf God which translates the שם השם First Commandment Spirit Name unto the degraded אלהים word translation of Allah. Therefore, the Siddur openly instructs the mussar that Torah oaths can Create יש מאין, תמיד מעשה בראשית מלאכים. Av tuma avoda zarah profanes with the lie that theology and creeds can create Gods either through council or by way of Angels! The latter a perversion equal to profaning Av tohor time oriented Torah commandments unto positive rabbinic mitzvot which do not require k’vanna.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
התם דבמלחמה קאי דדרכו של איש לעשות מלחמה, ואין דרכה של אשה לעשות מלחמה. כתב לה בלשון זכר מתני’ אהדדי. לא קשיין. הכא דלגבי אשה קאי קתני לה בלשון נקבה. התם דלגבי איש קאי דדרכו של איש ליבדק ואין דרכה של אשה ליבדק.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
No. Its the duty upon the woman to check that she has 11 tohor days without spots before going to the mikveh. Therefore its the דרכה של אשה ליבדק. In Jewish law, particularly in Hilchot Nida, women required to check for eleven clean days (tohor) free of any spotting before they can immerse in the mikveh. This is indeed considered part of דרכה של אשה ליבדק. Essential to clarify that women bear the primary responsibility for their own nida status. While men may guide or remind, the act of checking and counting the clean days is inherently the duty of the woman.

This distinction emphasizes the importance of personal responsibility in the observance of family purity laws. Women, not Men, bear this primary Torah responsibility.
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
דהא אשה נמי באונס מיטמאה. תני לשון זכר מ”ט? תני שלש משום דרכים ניתני דברים. וניתני שלשה משום דקבעי למיתני ביאה. וביאה דרך.
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________

Unintentional Tumah – The mention of אשה נמי באונס מיטמאה refers to the concept that a woman, alas often also become tamai unintentionally. This highlights that women, like men, are subject to the laws of tohor and tuma, particularly regarding the status of nida, which has specific ramifications in Jewish common law.

Masculine Grammar (לשון זכר) – The phrase תני לשון זכר מ”ט? raises the question of why the laws are expressed in masculine form. This can lead to a discussion on the implications of language in halachic texts, which often use masculine wording even when referring to obligations that apply to both genders.

Three Reasons (שלש משום דרכים) – The response תני שלש משום דרכים ניתני דברים indicates that the discussion might categorize the concepts into three paths or aspects. This serves to clarify that laws can apply in different contexts or scenarios; complexities around halachic language, obligations of both genders, and nuances in the application of purity laws. . The section ושלשה משום דקבעי למיתני ביאה links these implications to the concept of ביאה (intimacy), indicating that discussion about the laws also has to do with the connections and relations between men and women.

Different Contexts – The laws in question may apply differently depending on the circumstances. For example, the same law might have various implications when applied to men versus women or within different relationships. Complexities of Language – The language used in Halacha can sometimes be nuanced, requiring careful interpretation to understand the intended meaning and application. Obligations of Genders – Certain laws may impose different obligations on men and women, which needs to be acknowledged in discussions of Halacha. Tohor laws: (The most complicated subject in the entire Sha’s according to my Rav Aaron Nemuraskii. Tohor vs. tuma delves into the different “spirits” which dominate the opposing Yatzirot within the heart! The sworn oath brit of Gilgal – the basis of the order of Rabbeinu Tam tefillen – the chosen Cohen people cut a sworn oath brit alliance only to do avodat HaShem dedicating Yatzar Ha’Tov tohor middot holy to HaShem לשמה.) These laws can change based on circumstances, such as the level of ritual purity required for different people or situations.

The mitzva דאורייתא של קידושין לשמה – obey the brit between the pieces oath that the seed of Avram shall number as the stars of the sky. The Avot the fathers of the chosen Cohen people. This unique people, created through observance of time oriented Av Torah commandments places the primary burden to educate the Cohen children born through this marital union to learn and understand the obligation sworn at Gilgal, the Rabbeinu Tam tefillen k’vanna, to do Avodat HaShem service only through the dedication of Yatzir HaTov tohor spirits from within our hearts לשמה.

Hence the laws of קידושין exclude Goyim by definition. 1. Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; both the New Testament Protocols of the Elders of Zionism forgery and the Koran dictated by the מלאך גבריאל – جبرائيل (Jibril) to Muhammad exactly/perfectly duplicate the sin of the Golden Calf Av definition of tuma avoda zarah. The Torah directly condemns all word translations which pervert the Divine Presence Spirit Name unto word translations for God. Nothing in the Heavens, Earth, or Seas comparable to the revelation of the Divine Spirit Name commanded לשמה at Sinai.

This passage exemplifies the structured way halacha discusses purity—acknowledging that both men and women have responsibilities while using language that could be historically skewed towards men. Our Gemara addresses complexities around halachic language, obligations of both genders, and nuances in the application of tohor laws. תני שלש משום דרכים ניתני דברים because 3 qualifies as a חזקה.

What distinguishes a אב משנה from all other Mishnaot which the Gemara comments upon through bringing similar common law precedents from other Gemarot? The Siddur, specifically the kabbalah behind the Shemone Esrei places a “stamp” of Order upon the Talmud. As the opening blessing of Shemone Esrei contains a blessing of שם ומלכות. The Shemone Esrei, like the קריא שמע וברכת כהנים lacks שם ומלכות. The classic rabbinic blessing with שם ומלכות: ברוך אתה ה’ אלהינו מלך העולם. Av time oriented commandments absolutely unquestionably and definitely require k’vanna. The k’vanna required – the intent to swear a Torah oath brit alliance through swearing a תולדה of an oath. Yom Kippur definitively proves the power of swearing a Torah oath! Even HaShem had to make t’shuva and annul his vow to make of Moshe Rabbeinu’s seed the chosen Cohen people instead of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.

Acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven – תפילה דאורייתא קריא שמע – acceptance within the Yatzir HaTov within the heart to breath life into the soul of the Chosen Cohen People through the sanctification of Av tohor time-oriented commandments which fundamentally require this יסודי כוונה. The Torah, Nach, Holy Writings/T’NaCH, the Talmud & Midrashim, and patently but of course the Siddur – doing any and all time oriented commandment requires the יסודי כוונה of breathing חיים into the soul of the generations of the Chosen Cohen to חיי מדור לדור the oath brit cut at the brit between the pieces which Creates the Chosen Cohen people through the קידושה of Av tohor time oriented commandments. The language תמיד מעשה בראשית twice repeated in the opening “blessing” which surrounds tefillah דאורייתא קריא שמע, this language serves as a פרדס רמז to time oriented Av Torah commandments.

Tefillah דרבנן, the Shemone Esrei lacks שם ומלכות, which the opening first blessing absolutely requires! Hence translating שם ומלכות, misses the point and idea of this סוד Torah concept of swearing an oath brit alliance. Translating שם ומלכות like a screen door on a submarine. Common law does not “learn” through translations but rather only through making פרדס inductive reasoning comparison of similar precedent Cases. The T’NaCH makes its precedent Case comparison through similar sugyot containing a fixed sh’itta of counting the שם השם לשם מידות י”ג revealed to Moshe at Horev on Yom Kippur. The kabbalah of rabbis Akiva’s פרדס, Yishmael 13 rules of logical comparison methodologies which apply directed to the Holy Writings of the NaCH functioning as a Gemara to the, so to speak, Mishna Books of the prophets.

The Talmud directly resembles a loom with its warp/weft opposing threads; Talmud has its aggadah and halacha opposing threads which in scholars in each and every generation determine the Way, Path, Truth that the culture and customs of the Chosen Cohen people walk therein: Walk before Me and be holy. Av tohor time oriented commandments define the Chosen Cohen Walk before HaShem.

Since ק”ש, ברכת כהנים, ותפילה – אין להם שם ומלכות, as clear as the Sun in the heavens on a cloudless Summer day Name and Kingship translations do not amount to squat in defining the כוונה של שם ומלכות. Only Torah בניני אבות-precedents can possibly grasps the intent of the meaning of שם ומלכות. The Torah instructs that the Cohen HaGadol pronounces the שם השם לשמנ on Yom Kippur. Mesechta ר”ה introduces blowing the shofar. Blowing a horn requires air pressure from the lungs. But tefillah a matter of the heart.

Therefore a person when blowing the Shofar on ר”ה must discern the כוונה between blowing air from his lung from blowing the Neshama soul dedicated on ר”ה to remember the Torah rebuke אל, the opening branch Spirit revealed at Horev following the repetition of the שם השם לשמה\שמע. The concept of שם, its not a word translation like as made at the Sin of the Golden Calf by the ערב רב שאין להם יראת אלהים. The word translation of אלהים, JeZeus, or Allah not “ONE” with the Spirit Divine Presence first Sinai commandment revelation – the greatest Torah commandment: תעשה מצוות לשמה.

Hence מלכות similar to מלאך. את הרוחות של י”ג מידות מן התורה – these Divine Spirits, like the שם השם. The breath Creation into other spirits called מלאכים by means of swearing a Torah oath through שם ומלכות. Herein explains the סוד kabbalah of the mitzva of tefillah, as opposing to saying the praises contained in Tehillem. The latter serves as a Gemara which explains the k’vanna of the prophetic mussar expounded by the NaCH prophets.

Reshonim commentaries on the Talmud Midrashim T’NaCH and – but of course – Av Siddur – failed to teach this kabbalah יסודי. Learning Talmud actively entails that the down stream generations make their פרדס דרוש pursuit of בניני אבות precedents expressed through the Holy Writings to the NaCH prophets etc. The 13 rules of rabbi Yishmael best serve the Holy Writings “Gemara” commentary made upon the NaCH Prophets “Mishna”. These diverse texts, on the surface so completely different and unalike — all stand upon the kabbala יסוד של משנה תורה. Talmudic common law not learned by reading Dof Yomi. Nor the Hebrew T’NaCH its mussar even remotely understood by reading the T’NaCH on par with a Harry Potter fiction story of a replacement Messiah for the witching world – for he whose name forbidden to pronounce. As if that name compared to the שם השם לשמה. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
גופא: אי הכי קשו קראי אהדדי, וקשיא נמי מתני’ אהדדי קראי אהדדי. לא קשין. הכא דבתורה קאי, ותורה איקרי לשון נקבה; דכתיב (תהילים יט) תורת ה’ תמימה משיבת נפש; עדות ה’ נאמנה מחכימת פתיה. כתב לה בלשון נקבה. התם דבמלחמה קאי דדרכו של איש לעשות מלחמה, ואין דרכה של אשה לעשות מלחמה כתב לה בלשון זכר.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

Kiddushin 2b, כי יקח איש אשה, and the gendered verb “יקח” — “take.” The Gemara explores why Torah uses masculine forms in some contexts and feminine in others. This verse, used as the proof-text that Torah often grammatically feminine, since תורת ה׳ תמימה uses the feminine form. The masculine usage is justified through verses like: דברים כ”ד:ה – כי יקח איש אשה חדשה… לא יצא בצבא ולא יעבור עליו לכל דבר; נקי יהיה לביתו שנה אחת ושמח את אשתו אשר לקח. Another example: דברים כ:א – כי תצא למלחמה על אויביך. Precedents: שמות רבה ל”ג:א, ויקרא רבה ל״ה:א Torah common law employs Midrash as a Reverence Book, as opposed to just another novel.

בדרך אחד יצאו אליך” — masculine. ובשבעה דרכים ינוסו לפניך” — also masculine. But “תורת ה׳ תמימה משיבת נפש” is feminine. When the verse speaks of Torah, “דרך” takes feminine form (“תורה” = נקבה). When it speaks of warfare, “דרך” takes masculine, since “דרכו של איש לעשות מלחמה.

רבנו בחיי בן אשר, the other son of the Rosh. His brother, Rabbi Jacob ben Asher, commonly known as author of the Tur. The Tur, the first to make a colage of Reshonim opinions upon statute law deductive reasoning which attempts to make a shallow reactionary flat reading of halachot which originate from the Talmud, but whose most essential connection to their Mishnaic language, completely and totally ignored by these statute law heretics.

His infamous work on Jewish law, the Arba’ah Turim, dishonored the Rosh, who rejected the Rambam’s statute halachic law perversion. Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel (the Rosh), a prominent harsh critic of the Rambam, known for his works on Jewish common law, opposed the Rambam’s statute law code. Rabbeinu Bachya, the son of the Rosh and brother of Asher, the heretic, supported the Rambam premise that its permitted to distort Talmudic common law unto Roman statute law; just as Aristotle’s deductive syllogism – the Rambam revisionist history – replaced rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning of kabbalah, which defines the k’vanna of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev – with Aristotle’s Tzeddukim supported deductive syllogism. So too and how much more so the false messiah of JeZeus does not replace the Torah obligation upon the Moshiach to rule the land with righteous Judicial justice. Unlike how king David court treated the Baal of Bat Sheva.

The contrast between Talmudic precedent-based reasoning and codificatory statute models influenced by philosophical and bureaucratic systems like those of Rome or Aristotle. The Rosh argued that reducing halakhah to a statute book severs it from Gemara reasoning and precedent. In his introduction to Piskei ha-Rosh, (The Rosh lived during the 14th century in Spain and later in Germany. The work summarizes and clarifies Jewish law (Halakha) based on earlier sources, particularly the Talmud. It serves as a guide for practical law, helping to resolve legal disputes and questions. Piskei ha-Rosh, organized by topics and often mirrors the structure of the Talmud, making it easier for scholars and students to navigate the material.), he writes explicitly that halakhic clarity comes only through reasoning from Talmudic sugya, not through memorizing codified rules…לא מפני שסומך אני על דברי, אלא מפני שראיתי עיקר הדין מן הגמרא. Dof Yomi by stark contrast totally uproots sugya integrity like as did the Rambam’s code uprooted Gemara precedents to understand the k’vanna of their Mishna – viewed from different precedent perspectives, multiple and diverse viewpoints.

The כסף משנה, Karo’s commentary attempted to correct the central flaw in the Rambam perversion of halacha unto assimilated Roman statute law-cult of personality decrees. Yet his כסף משנה failed to link the sources for the Rambam halachot to similar halachot poskined by the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh common law halachic commentaries. The purpose of halachot located within Gemara sugyot – similar Case/Rule precedents which permits down-stream generations to view the language of both the sugya itself and משנה תורה – the language of the Mishna itself viewed from a completely different perspective. Clearly the Rambam failed to grasp that משנה תורה means “Common Law”, ruled through Torah mandated Court-rooms; rather than, as he held, religious ritual observances kept by religious “Orthodox” Jews. Prophets enforced judicial rulings, they served as the policemen of the Sanhedrin Federal Court system.

Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (the Tur), his Arba’ah Turim systematized halacha into egg crate like categories (Orach Chayim, Yoreh De‘ah, Even ha-Ezer, Choshen Mishpat). Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher, his hermeneutic system integrates Rambam’s Ta’amei ha-Mitzvot (reasons for the commandments) rationalism with kabbalistic and midrashic allegory. He frequently uses Aristotelian categories (e.g., form/matter) alongside Zoharic metaphors — bridging rationalist and mystical traditions. But unlike his brother the Tur, his work employs Midrash as a resource of symbolic precedent which aligns more with פרדס-type reasoning than statute law. So while Rabbeinu Bachya absorbed elements of Rambam’s philosophy, his method remains aggadic–hermeneutic, not a legislative distortion. He didn’t codify halakhah; rather, he made his priority placed upon exegetical synthesis.

The shift away from T’NaCH/Talmudic common law unto Aristotelian deduction, which post the Rambam civil war, supplanted the judicial court-room law, replaced with substituted simplified religious ritual observances! The Tur and Rambam codified halakhah into a system resembling Roman statutory jurisprudence. Rabbeinu Bachya, though a spiritual exegete (focused on their spiritual significance and deeper meanings rather than merely their literal or historical context). alas, philosophically he too legitimized this ירידות הדורות shift, by reconciling Torah hermeneutics with Aristotelian logic — thus laying a metaphysical foundation for halacha’s rationalization.

Midrash serves as A) the primary commentary to Talmudic aggada. B) an important tool for resolving language dikduk/grammar and meaning for how the Talmudic aggadic passages interpret NaCH prophetic mussar.

The Midrash Rabbah and its sister collections (Tanchuma, Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifrei) form the foundational commentary corpus for understanding aggadic material in the Bavli and Yerushalmi. R. Sherira Gaon (Iggeret, 10th c., also known as an epistle or letter), describes Midrash as the source pool (me’kor) from which the aggadot of the Talmud drew prophetic T’NaCH mussar interpretations. The academies, he writes, transmitted both halakhah and aggadah, with the latter preserved in Midrashic anthologies.

Rashi and Tosafot frequently cite Midrash Rabbah or Tanchuma to explain difficult aggadot in the Gemara — treating Midrash as its commentarial background. For example: Rashi on 61b בכל לבבך of mesechta ברכות. quotes Devarim Rabbah to clarify aggadic context. The Maharal of Prague explicitly argues that to understand Aggadah of the Talmud, one must read Midrash Rabbah, for the language of Aggadah – symbolic, and “דרש אחד מאיר פני דרש אחר.” Hence Midrash compares to the different layers of a cake by which succeeding generations learn and interpret aggadic prophetic mussar, which defines the k’vanna of halachot throughout the Shas Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi.

The RambaN in his introduction to his commentary on the Chumash states that Midrashic Aggadot are “מאמרי חז״ל הנאמנים” transmitted with the same authority as halakhic traditions, though intended to elucidate revelation and prophecy through metaphor and סוד. Impossible to learn Midrash divorced from פרדס logic. Hence the Rambam wrote no commentary upon Midrash because he abandoned פרדס inductive logic for the simpler syllogism deductive reasoning developed by Plato and Aristotle, which the Tzeddukim supported in the Hanukkah Civil War.

Midrash operates as a linguistic–juridical tool, dissecting the nuances of Hebrew syntax and morphology to extract halakhic or moral implications. This – precisely how derash differs from peshat — דרוש a method of interpretive jurisprudence, not “homily.” (a religious discourse or sermon that provides interpretation and application of scriptural texts, typically delivered during a religious service.) Sifra (Torat Kohanim) and Sifrei built entirely on dikkdukic precision. “ריבה הכתוב” (inclusion/exclusion logic); “יתור לשון” (extra word usage); ההידיע, את, גם, etc. These function as the grammar of revelation — how law and prophecy encoded through linguistic form.

Even the Rambam in his introduction to his commentary on the Mishna acknowledges Midrash’s grammatical function — distinguishing midrash halakhah (based on linguistic structure) from midrash aggadah (based on allegorical language), yet both bound by grammatical fidelity to Scripture. Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher in his introduction to the Chumash commentary explicitly says: “הלשון הקדוש… נדרשת בשבעים פנים, וכל דרש תלוי בדקדוק הלשון.” Midrash is thus the interpretive mechanism through which the prophetic mussar of Tanakh — decoded — a philological discipline, not mere storytelling.

Sherira Gaon, Rashi, Maharal — Midrash serves as the background commentary to Talmudic Aggadah, revealing its conceptual precedent and metaphoric coherence. Sifra, Sifrei, Rambam, Rabbeinu Bachya: Midrash refines language precision — using dikduk and syntax to interpret prophetic mussar and the Talmud’s use of NaCH texts.

עיין שמות רבה כ״ט:ד. משיבת נפש, עדות ה’ נאמנה מחכימת פתי. Learning requires an investment of both time and patience. A central flaw of religious books of Torah halacha, readers of these religious comic books, grow to fervently believe that they understand the depth of halachic intent based upon their reactionary shallow reading of halachic rulings ripped away from their Talmudic contexts which originally employed these halachic precedents as a chief tool to make a משנה תורה re-interpretation of both the language of the sugya of Gemara as well as the language of the Mother Mishna as well. Assimilated Roman statute law halacha directly compares to apple vinegar which lacks the essential “mother”.

Apple vinegar is produced through the fermentation of apple juice. The “mother” is a substance composed of acetic acid bacteria that forms during fermentation, which is often considered vital for quality vinegar. In this metaphor, the “mother” symbolizes the authentic, organic essence or foundational principles that give a legal system its depth, integrity, and longevity. The adoption of ritual halacha without understanding its underlying purpose and connection to a specific Mishna, leads to a dilution\perversion of their original meaning and intent.
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
מדרש רבה יתרו פרשת כט:ד — (תהלים יט) תורת ה’ תמימה משיבת נפש. א”ר לוי וכי לא היה גלוי לפני המקום שאם הוא מראה כבודו לישראל ומשמיען קולו שאינן יכולין לעמוד. אלא צפה הקב”ה שהן עתידין לעשות עבודה זרה שלא יהו אומרין אלו הראנו את כבודו ואת גדלו והשמיענו את קולו לא היינו עושים ע”ז. לכך נאמר שמעה עמי ואדברה
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Rabbi Levi expounds the p’suk תהלים י”ט תורת ה׳ תמימה, his drosh interprets Torah as the restorative path — derekh teshuvah — against the derekh ha-avodah zarah. Does restricting קידושין limited to a קום ועשה מצוה away from a tohor time oriented Av commandment qualify as avoda zarah?

Chazal repeatedly warn that reducing Torah to technical compliance while detaching it from oath brit basis borders on avodah zarah because it divorces the act from the One who commands. Sanhedrin 63b – “כל העושה מצוה שלא לשמה, כאילו עובד עבודת כוכבים.” When a mitzvah is isolated from its covenantal derekh and turned into a detached ritual or statute, the form may remain but the orientation can drift toward derekh avodah zarah. Reducing the covenant of marriage to an act of legal acquisition risks mischaracterizing its derek. If one performs קידושין purely as a formal “transaction” without its covenantal frame—the mutual oath binding within brit Torah—then functionally, yes, it parallels derekh avodah zarah: a ritual form emptied of covenantal consciousness.

Rabbi Levi’s “תורת ה׳ תמימה משיבת נפש” teaches that Torah restores the nefesh precisely because it is whole—תמימה. Fragmenting Torah into isolated קום ועשה acts without the tohor Av-command time-axis destroys that wholeness; what remains Av tumah avoda zarah. A mitzvah detached from its derek Torah orientation, simply not a neutral error—but structurally akin to avodah zarah, because it replaces divine command with human formalism. In Midrash Tanchuma Yitro ח, where the giving of Torah is described as קידושין between God and Israel—thereby showing that true קידושין must mirror תורת ה׳ תמימה rather than a transactional statute?

Midrash Tanchuma, Yitro 8:
בשעה שנתן הקדוש ברוך הוא את התורה לישראל, אמר להם:
הרי אני נותן לכם ספר הקידושין; מכאן והלאה אתם לי ואני לכם.
אמרו כל אשר דבר ה׳ נעשה ונשמע — ככלה המקבלת ספר קידושיה.
ונתן להם תורה — כספר כתובה.

Thus restricting kiddushin to a bare קום ועשה betrays its the oath brit that time oriented commandments create, in the image of HaShem the first born Chosen Cohen people in all times and generations. Midrash Tanchuma shows that kiddushin serves as a reenactment of Sinai; therefore, divorcing קידושין from its tohor Av time-oriented commandments renders the mitzva of קידושין unto but an empty form. In lateral Sanhedrin jurisprudence perverted into ritual religious orthodox observances, an empty void; structurally identical to avodah zarah: worshiping the shell rather than the living brit.

דתנן בז’ “דרכים” בודקין את הזב. ניתני ז’ משום דקא בעי למיתני “דרך” ואשכחן דרך דאיקרי לשון זכר דכתיב (דברים כה) בדרך אחד יצאו אליך ובז’ דרכים ינוסו לפניך. אי הכי קשו קראי אהדדי. (שמות יח) והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה

As the Gemara common law brought the precedent of the Mishna of זבין, so too the Torah – the basis of Sinai common law compares one verse against another. The study of both requires a כלל\פרט discipline. Both p’sukim learned within the larger context of their “containment force” sugya and then to compare that sugia through פרדס דרוש to some other similar sugia which instructs the same prophetic mussar. Its this disciplined wisdom of learning wherein the down stream generations can themselves make an aliyah from a תולדות קום ועשה מצוה לאב תהור זימן גרמא מצווה.

Common law requires down stream generations to do their own research. Torah wisdom does not compare to the Harry Potter New Testament fiction wherein Xtian read their pathetic bible translations for entertainment. The דרוש wisdom of searching the T’NaCH for precedents, specifically mussar precedents, serves that the basis יסוד of the kabbalah of פרדס. This “בראשית” of how to correctly learn the Talmud, a wisdom which requires down stream generations to learn the T’NaCH לשמה. Meaning, it requires that later generations count the שם השם in a cyclic revolving 13 middot repetition, as found throughout the literature of the T’NaCH. This pre-amble of דרוש wisdom serves as the “beginning” of Torah wisdom.

This wisdom permits the generations to compare one sugya of T’NaCH with other similar sugyot of T’NaCH based on the foundation that both sugyot share the exact same שם השם number count common denominator between one sugya compared to other precedent sugyot; having counted the שם השם systematically employing the model of the 13 middot revelation at Horev which affixes the middot of אל רחום וחנון וכו to the שם השם throughout the literature of the T’NaCH Torah and NaCH. The Holy Writings, they serve by comparison as the Gemara to the Mishna. Hence the Holy Writings rely upon the middot of rabbi Yishmael to serve as precedents which, in their turn, they interpret facet interpretations of the intent of the language of the Prophets – like the Gemara makes a משנה תורה reinterpretation by reviewing the original language of the Mishna viewed from an entirely different perspective.

Herein defines how to correctly learn and study the language of both the T’NaCH, Talmud, and Midrashim literature. Just that simple, no fancy dance’n. This sh’itta separates the Baali Tosafot commentary on the Talmud from the Rambam assimilated Xtian bible thumping Jimmy Swaggart sex whore trash. The post Rambam Civil War rabbis cannot scream “I have Sinned”. Off the path Orthodox Judaism – prior to the Shoah, slandered Zionism’s efforts to achieve Jewish self determination in Mandate Palestine. That Wilderness Generation rejected making Aliyah to the land, after the off the path Orthodox רשע spies melted the heart of their generation! A good name reputation/fear of heaven\ compares to a balloon floating over a field of cactus.

The study of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law, not like the off the path Orthodox Yeshivot who demand study this or that Reshon and slit pilpul hairs between opinions made by folks a 1000 or more years after the sealing of the Gemara by rabbis Ashi and Ravina! T’NaCH and Talmud – Common Law NOT statute law, with its cults of personalities!

פרדס inductive reasoning denounces the lie, that later generations cannot dispute opinions held by earlier generations! No one generation holds a lock & key over פרדס logic. Our Sages sealed the T’NaCH, Mishna, Gemara, and Siddur – that all generations share the same exact masoret. The Talmud codification permits the generations to study פרדס logic as expressed through every Mishna, wherein its Gemara commentary learns the k’vanna of the faceted language of each and every Mishna by way of comparative precedent cases. The genius of פרדס logic, it permits downstream generations to compare one sugya to other similar sugyot! Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. Precedents do not come from Reshonim sources as the Tur and Beit Yosef confuse. Precedents come from other Primary Sources – only. Herein defines Torah common law.

Moshe said to Yitro: יבא אלי העם לדרש אלהים. As a loom has its warp & weft threads … Talmud has its Aggadah and Halacha. דרוש ופשט affix to the Aggadic learning of the T’NaCH prophetic mussar. רמז וסוד explore the depth of halachic ritualism. These warp\weft threads weave the culture and customs, the minchagim and traditions of the chosen Cohen sons and daughters of the Avot for all generations unto eternity. The av tumah death of assimilation and intermarriage makes a כרת like as did the Wilderness generation which has no portion in the world to come. Israel only accepted the first two commandments at the Sinai revelation prior to the translation sin of the Golden Calf.

Tacharat HaBeit – Purity of the Home, commonly associated with the specific case of קידושין touching the relationship between Husband and Wife. The baal both requires and depends upon his wife to check her vaginal discharge expanded from 7 to 11 days without any spots. But this specific model equally applies to how the Courts weigh and judge Torts and Capital Crimes as well. Our Gemarah shall now bring a בנין אב from ספר דברים\משנה תורה, which can elevate a קום ועשה מצוה – שלא צריך כוונה להזמן גרמא אב מצוה שנזקוק כוונה. The House of Aaron anointed “Moshiach” by Moshe Rabbeinu on the condition that both he and his sons agree to only approach their “avodat HaShem”\public service/ in a tohor state wherein the spirits within their hearts; (Yatzir Ha’Tov dominate tohor over the spirits of their Yatzir Ha’Raw tumah).

The so called 10 Commandments, repeated twice in the Torah serves as precedents to “remember” the crushing cruel oppression of Egyptian slavery. Torah teaches common law, does not compare to the Protocols of the Elders of Zionism-New Testament substitute theology counterfeit fiction story of messiah Harry Potter.

The p’suk שמות: יח:כ contained within the larger פרק: יח:א – כז. Herein stands a פרט\כלל. Recall that Moshe Rabbeinu’s first born son Gershom worshipped avoda zarah; assimilation and intermarriage the 2nd Commandment Torah curse, applicable to all down stream generations. The rabbis of the “Golden Age” of Spain abandoned and forgot the sacred dedication of the lights of Hanukkah – to interpret the Written Torah through פרדס inductive logic בלבד. In this sense the lights of Hanukkah compares to Islam’s strict Tawhid monotheism; no other logic system permitted to interpret the כוונה of the Written Torah other than פרדס inductive reasoning. Rambam’s reliance upon Greek syllogism deductive logic directly compares to the confession made by preacher Swaggart after caught with a whore in a hotel room — the buckets of tears of Tammy Faye Bakker. A fraud false דרך, once exposed – Baal believed no more.

An exact דברים בנין אב for (שמות יח) והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה … and that’s – משנה תורה כא:י כג: ג. Israel came out of Egypt with the explicit purpose to conquer the lands of Canaan. Zionism stands on the foundation: Jews have equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. In 1948 and again in 1967 all Arab countries, no different from the kingdoms of Canaan, who stood united in their opposition for the 12 Tribes of Israel war aims to achieve national self-determination and Independence. The UN fraud of “Land for Peace” or the European divide and conquer imperialism “Two State Solution”, no different than the counterfeit Protocols of the Elders of Zionism New Testament false messiah Roman forgery.

Baptizing the Rambam’s assimilated/perverted statute law code – this directly compares to the din of בן סורר ומורה איננו שמע בקול אביו ובקול אמו. The Book of D’varim conclusively states that Torah common law not Greek/Roman statute law. Converting Torah common law to Roman statute law utterly dishonors our fore-fathers. Despite the need of scattered Jewish g’lut communities for a simplified version of halachic observances, the Rambam breach the faith of the B’HaG and Rif common law codifications. He failed to provide his Gemara sources for his טיפש פשט simplification of halacha. The Rambam translation of halachic language does not in any way, shape, fashion, or form, assist down stream generations to learn Talmudic common law. In point of fact, he declared that his code had effectively replaced the Talmud altogether.

Rambam’s arguments concerning the Talmud being archaic after publication of his work serves as a ‘predicate-anidate’ to similar arguments made much later by Reform rabbis. The Reform movement hopped onto the Rambam band-wagon, they sought to align Jewish practice with contemporary society e.g. assimilation and inter-marriage, no different than the curse of Spanish Jewry. Both perspectives advocate for a thoughtful approach to tradition, emphasizing the need for relevance in changing contexts. The rediscovery of the concealed ancient Greek philosophies discovered consequent to the Arab invasion of Spain, the Spanish rabbinic leadership blew out the Hanukkah lights. Herein explains why a majority of the rabbis in France, specifically in Paris, n 1232 declared a נידוי ban upon the Rambam, in agreement with the Spanish Court of Rabbeinu Yonah.

Rambam supporters prevailed, and thereafter imposed revisionist history which sought to limit the dispute between the Rambam and the Rabbeinu Yona. Yeshivot do not instruct concerning the conflict over common law vs statute law. Instead post the Rambam Civil War rabbinic authorities whitewash the “dispute” by not encouraging students to study philosophy. Rabbinic studies of T’NaCH limit research strictly and only to פשט. The study of the Talmud branches either into pilpul studies which examine minute distinctions between different commentaries. Yeshiva students taught basically to read the Talmud, dof Yomi for example, and study the halachic codes to learn a more in-depth analysis of halacha. This modern style of education, it resembles to a Man who sleeps with multiple mistresses, which he conceals from his wife! That’s the Torah mitzva of קידושין?

Safer D’varim directly addresses unethical conduct in marital relations. It’s mussar defines the path walk wherein the Torah understands the mitzva דאורייתא of קידושין. Yet the commentary addicted Yeshivot, beyond worshipping words, fail to grasp the prophetic mussar of the Torah mitzva of קידושין. It takes work to “love” a woman whose stories you have already heard a thousand times before. When a rancher brings a bull to a cow in heat, he does not repeat the breeding over and again with the same cow. קידושין all about raising bnai brit children and educating those children in the tenets of the oath brit faith. קידושין does not in any way compare to breeding cows or goats. A man should he lose the trust of his wife, a balloon once popped very hard to blow up again.

The sugiah which contains דברים כה:יח, contains the prophetic mussar touching Amalek. Why does antisemitism explode upon very generation of Jews who have ever lived? The answer to this riddle rests not upon Goyim who hate Jews. Rather Jews who hate Jews. יראת אלהים not a spirit nor a wisdom that a man can acquire through rote learning. How many men pursue their goals and dreams utterly oblivious to their good name reputations? The curse of Amalek antisemitism afflicts all generations of Israel because we worship other Gods. When the chosen Cohen people have no more knowledge of the culture and customs which define the unique Cohen identity of self; when Jews pursue the customs and practices of Goyim societies – none of which ever accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai touching the Chosen Cohen People; clearly such av tumah Jews cause the Torah curse of Amalek to plague our people like as did the hard heart of Par’o responsible for the 10 plagues. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.

Have argued that the Book of בראשית introduces not only the Avot but rather the Av tohor time-oriented commandments a משל\נמשל logical distinction. That the Books שמות ויקרא ובמדבר – they introduce תולדות קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות שלא צריך כוונה. While the closing 5th Book of the Torah introduces the Common law name משנה תורה. That in point of fact Rabbi Yechuda HaNasi named his Mishna based upon the Mishna Torah second name of the Book of D’varim.

The “Av” Mishna of ברכות introduces ק”ש as tefillah דאורייתא as a time-oriented commandment known as acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven. Hence a person who does not recognize time-oriented commandments does not accept the yoke of the kingdom of heaven through the Torah mitzva of tefillah. Rabbi Yechuda’s common law Mishna stands upon precedents. The very name Mishna stands upon the D’varim precedent of Mishna Torah. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna a record of the judicial rulings of Sanhedrin courtrooms.
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

The Torah curse of g’lut, Jews lose the wisdom how to observe and obey the Torah commandments – specifically Av tohor time-oriented commandments-לשמה. This most essential commandment, the Rambam’s Sefer Ha’Mitzvot totally ignored. The Rambam organized the Torah commandments – limited strictly to the language of the Torah itself alone. The B’HaG, a last generation Gaon scholar, rejected this fatal erroneous premise which the Rambam’s assimilated Greek deductive logic arrogantly assumed as an obvious precondition of what separates דאורייתא כנגד דרבנן מצוות.

The RambaN, in his work מלחמת השם, harshly, No, bitterly criticized the Baal HaMaor who opposed the fossilization of the Talmud into a codified code of ritual halacha. The Baal HaMaor understood that both Talmud and T’NaCH, both משנה תורה\Common law legal systems. That rigid codes of ritual religious law changed judicial common law unto religious ritual observance.

Converting Talmudic halacha into a legal code, as did both the Rif and post Rambam – Rosh, directly threatened the study of T’NaCH/Talmud משנה תורה\Common Law legal jurisprudence which judged upon legal scales how to make fair restitution of damages inflicted by one upon another Jew. The Baal HaMaor correctly perceived this inherited threat. The RambaN fundamentally failed to grasp the gulf of avoda zara which separates tohor spirits from tumah spirits within the two conflicting Yatzirot within the heart. No different than the משל of Yaacov vs. Esua wrestling within the womb of Rivka.

Rabbi Yechuda HaNasi interpreted the k’vanna of tefillah דאורייתא – the mitzva of tefillah – as expressed through the Written Torah language of קריא שמע. The Rambam in his 5th positive commandment declared the mitzva of tefillah as a mitzva דאורייתא just as had the Code of Commandments of the B’HaG’s introduction to his הלכות גדולות. The Rambam mocked the B’HaG opinion wherein he ruled Talmudic mitzvot דרבנן as mitzvot דאורייתא. And yet the Rambam, like the B’HaG, ruled in his Sefer Ha’Mitzvot introduction to his own halachic codification Yad HaZakah, that tefillah constituted and qualified as a mitzva from the Torah. The RambaN criticized the RambaM, he clearly proved that the language of “tefillah”, refers to the Shemone Esrei. And the latter tefillah, as clear as the Sun in the sky on a cloudless day, a mitzva דרבנן.

Both the RambaM and the RambaN utterly failed to discern the opening Av Mishna of ברכות which opens with קריא שמע ערבית as opposed to ק”ש שחרית. What defines the k’vanna of acceptance of the Yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven?

Kre’a Shma – tefillah from the Torah itself. The Gemara of ברכות debates whether the blessings which surround the ק”ש, if they expressed a mitzva from the Torah, specifically remembering the freedom from Egyptian slavery, or the ק”ש עצם language itself – constituted the actual mitzva from the Torah of tefillah: acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven as a tohor time-oriented commandment.

The language of the Gemara assumes that the down stream generations understand – that this debate addresses the mitzva דאורייתא vs. דרבנן as addressing the mitzva of tefillah itself … framed through kre’a shma vs Shemone Esrei compared to kre’a shma vs. the blessings which surround the kre’a shma. The Gemara did not explicitly declare that their debate concerning the valuation of the merits of the blessings which surround the ק”ש or the mitzva of ק”ש alone itself … the mitzva of accepting the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven … defined the substance of an Av tohor time oriented commandment do cause the Cohen inheritance to pass down from generation to generation only by way of tohor time-oriented commandments. Only this Av Torah commandment continuously creates יש מאין תמיד מעשה בראשית the chosen Cohen people from NOTHING.

This subtle מאי נפקא מינא\רב חסד required distinction, the language of the Gemara required that all down stream generations learn through making the required logical דיוק/inference of reasoning! In the Gemara debate over the blessings vs the actual ק”ש, never did it explicitly mention — NOT time-oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as its כוונה, NOR tefillah as either דאורייתא או דרבנן which framed the substance of the Gemara debate in ברכות in the first place. This fundamental מאי נפקא מינא רב חסד middah distinction separates Av tohor time-oriented commandments from תולדות positive and negative commandments (as located in the Books שמות ויקרא ובמדבר).

The Rambam halachic statute law assimilated codification translated Aramaic into Hebrew. The Rambam simply a glorified translator. But his service does it resemble תרגום אונקלוס translation of the Torah into Aramaic, based upon the need that Jews now spoke the Aramaic of the Assyrian empire as their mother tongue? Or does the Rambam pervert פרדס קבלה inductive reasoning unto a Greek/Roman logic of syllogism deductive reasoning which stands upon the order of statute law? This latter possibility, its the מאי נפקא מינא רב חסד which separates the service of תרגום אונקלוס from the Av tumah avoda zarah of the Rambam’s treif halachot. This tohor midda separates the tohor Yatzir HaTov from the tumah Yatzir HaRaw within the heart. ב’ ראשית stands as the Torah precedent by which this opinion exudes its confidence.

Not simple. Both the RambaM and the RambaN disgracefully permitted their Yatzir HaRaw to dominate. They failed to make the required logical דיוק and discern that the Gemara מחלקת concerning the “value” of the blessings around the ק”ש as opposed to the עצם language of the ק”ש, that this dispute debated both time-oriented Av commandments vs. תולדות positive commandments which do not require k’vanna; what defines the mitzva of תפילה דאורייתא כנגד דרבנן, applies equally to the blessing which surround the ק”ש.

The Gemara openly rules that the blessings that surround ק”ש as rabbinic blessings. But critically it does not rule out that these blessings equally qualify as tohor time-oriented Av commandments from the Torah itself! A fundamental מאי נפקא מינא דיוק, which – post the RambaM Civil War rabbis – failed to learn the Talmud as a Common law legal system of courtroom justice but perverted their Talmudic study instead to search for Reshon halachic rulings within the Gemara language itself! A fundamental error of Av tumah avoda zarah! Reshonim Talmudic scholarship NEVER qualifies as Primary source material. Rav Ashi and Ravina sealed the Talmud, making it along with the Mishna T’NaCH and Siddur as the sealed Primary Sources of all generations of the chosen Cohen people.

In the millennium years, or there about since the Rambam vs. RambaN debate over the former’s 5th positive commandment of tefillah, all down stream generations, not a single commentary or super-commentary written upon the works of these Reshonim Talmudic scholarship, caught much less so corrected, the fundamental assimilated errors made by the Reshonim scholars “addicted” to the heroin of Greek syllogism logic!

Reshonim Jews themselves blew out the lights of Hanukkah and forgot the Oral Torah! Never once even a single Jewish commentary on any Reshon halachic codification, which corrected the Av tumah drift away from פרדס inductive logic unto syllogism deductive logic; T’NaCH/Talmudic משנה תורה-Common law perversion unto Greek\Roman Statute law. This failure exposes the boot-licker flattering later generations who virtually worship the Reshonim as Gods. An avoda zarah on par with the earliest generations naming the stars as Baal Gods or Jesus or Allah as Gods! Assimilation – copying the culture and customs practiced by Goyim civilizations which never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, as much an Av tumah avoda zarah as the translation of the שם השם לשמה switched to the substitute of the word התרגום את המילה – אלהים.

אלהים a term that refers to Sanhedrin justices of the court! Translating the רוח הקודש שם השם to the “word” אלהים – defines the sin of the Golden Calf for all generations. Torah commands prophetic mussar. It does not tell a silly Pie in the Sky story of history that declares: a long long time ago Aaron cast gold into a fire and pulled out a Golden Calf – children’s story.

T’NaCH and Talmudic common law learns by means of authoritative Primary Source comparative precedents. Herein defines how the four part פרדס inductive reasoning logic discerns itself from the Greek syllogism deductive reasoning logic espoused by both Plato and Aristotle!

All down stream generations of Yeshiva students fail to learn the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh as a common law courtroom legalism! All commentaries written on the above tohor halachic codifications as well as the tumah avoda zarah codes written by the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulkan Aruch codes, they read rather than compare through comparing logical inductive reasoning cases of halacha. Rather they follow and obey the logic discipline established by Greek philosophy rather than Pardes logic as taught through the kabbalah of Rabbis Akiva, Yishmael and HaGalieli. The latter Tannaim authorities established rules wherein students can learn inductive reasoning logic skills as a wisdom.

Post the Rambam Civil War, the lights of Hanukkah blown out by the Reshonim generations themselves. G’lut Jewry cursed – they forgot the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Every Hanukkah when down stream Jews bench ברכת המזון, these “orthodox Jews” ritually read & repeat empty words, words which breath no Yatzir HaTov prophetic mussar as their k’vanna. Printed words which simply tells the history of the time when the Tzeddukim and ערב רב Amalek Jews forgot the Oral Torah! Oblivious that ברכת המזון like ק”ש an Av tohor time oriented commandment which requires k’vanna! Reading words regardless as found in a bencher or a Siddur – amounts to Pie in the Sky – bull shit. Why? Because reading words changes an Av tohor time-oriented commandment to a תולדות קום ועשה מצוה.

K’vanna requires the Grey Matter of remembering Torah rebukes; the Divine Name אל עליון pleads: remember the rebuke of the Golden Calf; permit the Torah brit inheritance to pass down unto my future but as yet unborn generations as the brit definition of Avram’s chosen Cohen seed! Recall that a son of Moshe Rabbeinu worshipped avoda zarah! Whereas both myself and my future born seed, we remember that Av tohor time-oriented mitzvot require k’vanna, and not a simple word translation; reading or worshipping of words. The Muslim Koran mocks our g’lut disgrace as “the People of the Book”, because Jews often wear the Catholic Nun “habit” of worshipping words; like Hassidic Jews who wear furry hats and dress in long black gowns during the hot summer seasons. Easily confused for being no different than from Amish XtianSS who ride in ass pulled wooden hubbed wagons.

Yeshiva students today read the pages of the Talmud, no different from Xtians who read their bible mistranslations. Common law learns through comparative Case/Rule precedents and not by translating the Talmud into simple Hebrew as did the Rambam’s pathetic and utterly disgusting Yad! The purpose of the study of Gemara, to make a משנה תורה upon both the language of the Gemara sugya itself; and then to follow this precedent comparison which permits the down stream generations to view the Talmud from a completely different “precedent” perspective … BUT to then likewise re-interpret the עצם language of the Mishna itself, as viewed from a completely different Primary Source other Gemara perspective. This causes the T’NaCH and Talmud to shine like the facets of a diamond!

As stated above, the RambaN harshly criticized the Baal HaMaor’s criticism wherein he rebuked the Rif code. The RambaN sided with the Rif over the need to provide scattered g’lut Jewry, during the darkest days of the Xtian Dark Ages of feudalism, where virtually all travel ceased due to road robber terrorism and the collapse of the Roman road system. Scattered Jewish communities desperately required a simplified book of Halachic observances to maintain some minimum of continued observance of Jewish ritual established customs, and culture. On this point, the RambaN and even the RambaM — absolutely correct. Propaganda – believable because it tells half-truths.

The Rambam code an absolute perverted abomination. He arrogantly declared that through his code of halacha, Jews in g’lut no longer required to learn the discipline and rigors of Talmudic reasoning. The Rambam confused religious ritual observance as central to the purpose of the Talmud. WRONG. The Framers of the Talmud wrote this text to serve as a model for the time when Jews reconquered our Homeland and sought to restore common law Sanhedrin Federal Courts legal jurisprudence. This day vs. night distinction, which the Rambam code openly raped and perverted; comparable to the sin of Ham who sexually molested his naked drunken father Noach!

Cursed Be Canaan a servant of servants may his seed forever be. This Torah curse equally applies to the Rambam. The latter guilty of the Jewish Civil Wars that cursed the Jewish people after publication of his Yad Chazakah abomination of avoda zarah in about 1185. The Rabbeinu Tam died before publication of this av tuma avoda zarah. Compare the case of the Son of Moshe Rabbeinu; he did not worship avoda zarah because he thought himself as a rebel who rejected the honor of Moshe! Rambam considered by many as another Moshe Rabbeinu! This disgraceful error warns all Jews of the absolute need to develop their מאי נפקא מינא רב חסד tohor middot breathed within their Yatzir HaTov spirits within their own hearts!