Catholic Crusaders for the Jewish Imperium

Jewish History as viewed through the lenses of prophetic mussar

Did the French expel Jewish people from France and if so why? Orthodox Revisionist History – An Utter Abomination of Avoda Zarah

In 1242, under King Louis IX (Saint Louis), thousands of Jewish Talmudic manuscripts were burned in a public bonfire. This was part of a broader campaign to suppress the Talmud, which had been condemned by Church authorities as heretical. The burning of the Talmud in France was a symbolic act meant to eradicate the perceived “blasphemous” teachings that diverged from Catholic orthodoxy. The king and Church saw the Talmud as promoting ideas contrary to Christianity, leading to this mass destruction. This incident deeply impacted Jewish scholarship in France, particularly the Talmudic traditions.

In 1306, King Philip IV of France, under pressure from both economic and religious factors, expelled the Jewish population from his kingdom. This was not the first expulsion—there had been earlier instances of persecution and forced conversions—but 1306 marked a significant blow to the Jewish community. The expulsion was driven by economic envy and a desire to seize Jewish assets, as well as the growing influence of religious anti-Semitism. The Jews were forced to leave, and their expulsion contributed to a broader pattern of Jewish displacement across Europe during the medieval period.

This destroyed the French Talmudic school of Common Law and as a direct consequence caused the Rambam (assimilated Spanish rabbis embracement of Roman statute law and ancient Greek logic philosophy to cause the Jewish people to forget the lights of Hanukkah! Jews today across the world, but especially in Israel, do not study either the T’NaCH as prophetic mussar common law – the scholarship of Aggada and Midrashim – nor halachic common law which defines how the Gemarah learns the Mishna!)

The loss of Jewish life and scholarship during these periods had profound implications. The destruction of Talmudic manuscripts in 1242, followed by the expulsion in 1306, devastated the Jewish intellectual center in France, which had been a key part of the Talmudic tradition for Ashkenazi Jewry. But the impact of its destruction also directly undermined both the common law sh’itta of learning of both Sephardi Rif and Ashkenazi Rosh. The son of the Rosh embraced the assimilated Spanish schools of Roman statute law and Greek logic.

The loss of French Talmudic texts, alongside the destruction of the Rashi/Tosafot common-law masoret, in conjunction with the upheaval expulsion of all French Jewry, played a significant part in shifting Jewish intellectual life and pushing Jewish communities into other parts of Europe. For example, its not known, due to this “shoah”, if the French rabbis supported Rabbeinu Yonah’s נידוי which condemned the Rambam as a heretic. However the rapid spread of the Rambam Civil War from Spain to France, followed by Britain in 1290, strongly suggests that a majority of the Baali Tosafot favored the נידוי ban placed upon the Rambam.

Judicial common law day and night different from Roman Senate statute law. The warp/weft loom of Talmudic scholarship weaves aggadic prophetic mussar into halachic ritual mitzvot. A day/night difference than Greek/Roman legal traditions which organizes law into specific categories – something like eggs sold today by the dozen divided into two rows – where each and every egg in the crate qualifies as a different legal subject.

The contrast of Order between the common law B’hag, Rif, Rosh, and Baali Tosafot from the statute law Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch codes – as obvious as the nose on the face of a man. Another example: the difference between the Rashi common law sh’itta of p’shat on the Chumash contrasted by his Ibn Ezra like sh’itta of p’shat on the Talmud. Herein explains the common law Baali Tosafot criticism of Rashi’s commentary to the Talmud.

The distinction between common law and statute law is fundamental to understanding the structure and methodology of Jewish legal scholarship compared to that of Greek and Roman traditions. In the Jewish tradition, particularly in the Talmudic system, law is not static or codified into rigid categories. Instead, it is a living system that compares Case/Din law to similar precedent Case/Din law – applicable across the board to both T’NaCH prophetic mussar/Aggada and Talmudic משנה תורה re-interpretations of the language of the Mishna based upon halachic legal precedents.

Greek/Roman statute law, as exemplified in the assimilated halachic codifications made by the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkah Aruch. This latter separate school of Talmudic scholarship focuses and prioritizes Religious ritual halachic practices. It totally divorces both the Gemara from its purpose of serving as the commentary to the Common law Mishna; and likewise divorces Aggadic prophetic mussar from halachic ritual halacha.

All three of these famous assimilated statute law halachic codes universally fail to connect Gemarah halachic rulings to its primary Mishna which that Gemarah comments upon. Furthermore, the assimilated statute law halachic codes fail to distinguish the fundamental difference between the legal authority of Tannaim vs. Amoraim scholarship.

The statutory approach tends to be more focused on codification, simplification, and organizing law into neat and defined categories. While it has its advantages in terms of consistency and clarity, it can miss the nuance and moral depth that the Jewish common law system brings to the table.

The Rambam approach within Jewish tradition. His Mishneh Torah is a codification of Jewish law that organizes it into distinct sections, with the aim of creating a comprehensive and easily accessible legal code. The Rambam’s legal work is systematic, removing much of the dialectical discourse that characterizes the Talmudic tradition. While his Mishneh Torah remains one of the most influential legal works in Jewish history, its approach contrasts sharply with that of the earlier common law scholars, who preferred a more integrated and flexible approach to Jewish law.

Rashi p’shat on the Chumash radically different from Rashi p’shat on the Talmud. The former makes an aggadic/midrash דרוש comparison to other T’NaCH and Talmudic Primary sources. While the Rashi p’shat on the Talmud sometimes duplicates the common law sh’itta employed by Rabbeinu Tam’s common law — going off the dof of Gemara to bring a precedent from some other Gemara source — most of the Rashi p’shat on the Talmud limits its comments to literal explanation, something like a dictionary of Gemarah terms.

When Rashi offers p’shat on the Chumash, his interpretations often go beyond the literal meaning of the text. Rashi frequently employs aggadic and midrashic comparisons, drawing from other parts of the T’NaCH (Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim) as well as earlier Talmudic sources. This is not a purely literal explanation of words but a moral, theological, and contextual exploration of the verses.

For example, when interpreting seemingly simple narrative passages in the Torah, Rashi will often connect them to aggadic teachings found in other parts of the Torah or in midrashim. In this way, Rashi’s approach on the Chumash reveals a holistic understanding of the text, integrating legal, ethical, and mystical dimensions.

This aggadic/midrashic framework invites readers to see the text as a living document that resonates with deeper moral and spiritual meanings, not merely as a legal code or a collection of events. Rashi engagement with the prophetic mussar which underpins the Torah’s teachings, helping to highlight ethical lessons, divine intentions, and human failings within the narrative.

In contrast to a purely legal or technical reading, Rashi’s midrashic commentaries emphasize the idea that every verse carries a message beyond its apparent meaning. For instance, he might interpret a verse not just as a description of an event but as a moral lesson that relates to broader Jewish thought and values.

The Aggadic Connection to Halacha, which the statutory halachic codes totally remove and divorce halacha therefrom. Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash often establishes connections to halachic principles and practices derived from the text. These interpretations align the ethical and legal aspects of Torah together, blending aggadic storytelling with halachic precision. Rashi’s p’shat, not merely a dictionary explanation; rather, it situates the verse within the larger Jewish tradition, inviting the reader to reflect on both its legal and moral implications.

Rashi’s P’shat on the Talmud: A More Legalistic, Literal Approach
Limited to a Dictionary of Gemara Terms: When it comes to Rashi’s p’shat on the Talmud, his approach, markedly different from the one he employs with the Chumash. Here, Rashi tends to focus primarily on literal explanations of terms, difficult words, and concepts in the Talmud. His commentary often functions more as a dictionary of sorts, offering definitions of technical terms or clarifying the meaning of words in the context of the Gemara.

For instance, in the Talmud, where the meaning of a word or phrase might be ambiguous, Rashi provides a direct, straightforward definition. This crucial understanding flow of the Talmudic dialogue, where technical language can sometimes obscure the underlying arguments or halachic principles.

The Limited Aggadic or Midrashic Input: Unlike his approach to the Chumash, Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud does not engage deeply with aggadic or midrashic material. While his work on the Torah includes extensive use of midrashim common law precedents to explain the deeper ethical or theological implications of the verses, his approach to the Talmud remains more focused on legal clarity. Rashi does bring in occasional aggadic material, but it is typically more subdued and terse in comparison to his Chumash commentary.

The primary aim of Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud, to facilitate understanding of the legal arguments and case law found in the Gemara. He often clarifies how specific cases or concepts apply within the Talmudic context, providing explanations of terminology or legal principles without delving into the broader spiritual or ethical teachings that characterize his work on the Chumash.

Rabbeinu Tam’s Common Law Sh’itta vs. Rashi’s simplified p’shat focus: The common law methodology in Talmudic scholarship, especially as practiced by the Rabbeinu Tam, chief among the Baali Tosafot, much more dialectical and intertextual. It involves bringing precedents and cases from other parts of the Talmud to bear on the current discussion. Similar to the case law approach in Jewish law, where legal precedents inform new rulings.

Rabbeinu Tam, in particular, known for his common law approach, often bringing a case from another Gemara to help elucidate or resolve a Talmudic dilemma. This type of intertextual comparison a more dynamic and context-driven style, than Rashi’s typically literal commentary.

Rashi, on the other hand, rarely engages in this type of legal precedent comparison in his Talmudic commentary. He’s more concerned with the clear understanding of terms and concepts within the specific Talmudic passage at hand. This reflects Rashi’s simpler approach in dealing with the legal issues of the Talmud—focusing on explanation and clarification rather than comparison and synthesis of legal principles from other places in the Talmud.

Jews today have forgotten about Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס logic as the key explanation of the Oral Torah, as codified in the warp/weft – aggada\halacha of the Talmud!! Think about this when you light the lights of Hanukkah!

Do not feel at ease to talk about the Torah, but rather through the Torah. A fundamental מאי נפקא מינא tohor middah of רב חסד. To have a solid grasp upon Torah primary sources requires separating them from secondary commentaries written after the Talmud Bavli sealed, by post Reshonim scholars. I particularly am not at ease with the Rambam, who head the ‘golden age’ of assimilated Spanish Reshonim rabbis.

Rambam’s Yad Chazakah perverted Talmudic common law unto Greek/Roman Statute law which organizes laws into egg-crate categories based upon the customs of law practiced by Greek and Roman – otherwise known as statute law. His halachot utterly divorce the Gemara common law commentary made on upon Mishnayot Primary Sources. Vis-a-vis the Mishna, the Gemara a secondary source of scholarship, like and similar to the Primary/Secondary relationship between the T’NaCH & Mishna.

The latter manifested during the first Temple, while the latter – during & post the second Temple. All the Savorai scholars, they further edited the Shas Bavli – qualify as tertiary scholarship. The period of the Gaonim, perhaps most famous for their organization of Midrash as a commentary to the Aggada within the Gemara – qualify as quaternary scholarship. The scholarship made by Reshonim, quinary. The scholarship made by Aucharonim senary. טיפש פשט confuses the authority of quinary Reshonim with T’NaCH and Talmudic Primary/Secondary sources!

Because the Gemarah defines through Common law halachic precedents as the most essential commentary to the Mishna ever written. It, so to speak, qualifies as a Secondary source of Torah scholarship together with the Mishna’s interpretation of the Primary sources of the T’NaCH.

The יסוד upon which stand all Torah primary sources – the Chumash. This foundation defines the k’vanna of tohor middot; its primary purpose of dedicated prophetic mussar, commanded to the generations of the chosen Cohen nation. The dedication of defined tohor middot – herein the purpose of tefillah – forever. Tefillah dedicates, בנין אב similar as do korbanot – tohor middot holy to HaShem לשמה. The mitzva of tefillah, a Man dedicates his future behavior towards his family and people and our common pursuit of righteous justice – also referred to by the metaphor: עולם הבא

Rambam’s statute law halachic code equalized the Amoraim scholars and made their opinions on par with Mishnaic Tannaim; something which even Rav would not do. Rav a talmid of Rabbi Yechuda HaNasi! He assimilated Torah judicial common law, and distorted it unto Greek/Roman statute religious ritual law. His notion of faith switched the top Torah faith priority – as the pursuit of judicial justice within the oath sworn lands; to belief in some avoda zarah Universal God which defines both Xtian and Islamic theological Creed belief systems.

A judge who hears a case before his court having preconceived ideas of guilt & innocence – no different from a Judge who takes or accepts a bribe! Justice never came out of Goyim courtrooms, not in the days of Par’o and Moshe, nor throughout the 2000+ years of Jewish g’lut in Goyim lands!

The Rambam code of halacha divorces the style of both Mishna and Gemara from a Case/Din – Prosecutdor/Defence judicial model – to re-establish lateral Sanhedrin common law courts in the oath sworn lands once our people return and reconquer Zion – to a religious belief systems based upon the model of fossilized Greek & Roman statute-ritual laws; established as static concrete codes of halacha that virtually never changes for the common man who follows Yiddishkeit.

Common law – based upon comparing similar judicial cases/din rulings. Herein understands how the Gemara serves as the Commentary to the Mishna! Statute law, a completely foreign and align legal system, by stark contrast stands upon the authority of ‘Cults of Personality’: the Rambam, the Tur, the Shulkan Aruch.

Furthermore, assimilated Reshonim scholars of Spain, Avraham ibn Ezra, for example, his son converted to Islam. But the king of the assimilated Spanish “golden Age” Rabbis, hands down the Rambam. He did not know the kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס Oral Torah logic system. He replaced this Oral Torah kabbalah of logic, in favor of the post Arab invasion of Spain – which rediscovered Aristotle’s church 5th Century concealed logic philosophy! The Era of the assimilated Spanish rabbis directly compares to the assimilated Tzeddukim during the Hanukkah Civil War wherein the Syrian Greeks attempted to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah! That Civil War precedes the Rambam Civil War by about 1000 years.

Rambam’s approach to Jewish law reshapes the Oral Torah—with its pardes (multifaceted) logic—into a rigid system based on Aristotelian philosophy. The Oral Torah, rooted in the rabbinic tradition, is not just a collection of abstract rules but is deeply focused on practical, judicial justice. This system resolves disputes between individuals and ensures fair compensation for damages, with a primary focus on righteous judgment of the Sanhedrin courts. The goal: to protect victims and enforce fairness, with an emphasis on practical justice as an attainable human ideal. In this framework, human beings have a Torah brit faith obligation to act justly, without relying on grand, metaphysical concepts of God or divine creeds that lay beyond the human capacity to fully grasp.

The Oral Torah’s logic, structured around פרדס, functions as a practical guide to justice rather than a some theological framework. It operates on a human level, recognizing the limits of human understanding regarding theological truths or divine mysteries. The belief in an all-powerful, universal God—as found in the monotheistic faiths like Christianity or Islam—simple outside of the Torah revelation central focus. In fact, the Oral Torah does not prioritize a belief in a universal, anthropomorphic deity, limited to 3 dimensional time & history. Instead prophetic mussar stresses moral responsibility and personal accountability. The pursuit of justice, an ideal entirely within the realm of human ability: man must act justly through ethical behavior, striving for fairness, not through theological speculation or religious dogma.

In contrast, Rambam’s system, rooted in Aristotelian logic, and static egg-crate legal categories – imposes a framework where codified ritual laws derived from his assimilated New Testament/Koran theologically grounded belief in a singular, omnipotent God. His Mishneh Torah reflects this shift of Av tumah avoda zarah. Transforming Jewish law from a living, evolving common law masoret (which addresses real-world disputes and ethical dilemmas) into a more abstract system, based on an ancient Greek philosophical understanding of morality. Rambam treats the Torah as a law code meant to be followed according to universal principles, whereas the Oral Torah, primarily concerned with comparing Case/Din rulings to other similar precedents. An earthly justice that serves the needs of the Jewish community living in Judea.

For example, faith (emunah) in the Oral Torah: not a creed or theological assent, but a commitment to righteous action & pursuit of justice. Faith here means a Torah mandate which establishes judicial justice of the courts; the need to uphold fairness through human efforts—faith understood as fair judicial compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B, as the adherence to ethical behavior. The Torah rejects the Greek/Roman belief in mythology theological dogma or a metaphysical being. Assimilated Rambam, presents faith as a theological construct, a matter of belief in a divine essence and divine laws that are determined by a singular God, which reflects the dominant influence of Greek philosophy and monotheistic theology.

The mitzvot (commandments) in the Oral Torah quite simply pragmatic, focused on human actions and their direct consequences, including the moral and judicial order they establish. The commandments fundamentally not abstract rituals. The vision of Torah mitzvot, meant to shape human conduct in a just society. Rambam’s codification, however, reduces the mitzvot to a system of statutory laws aimed at fulfilling some foreign, utterly alien theological or metaphysical purpose. His halachic code of statute law diminishes the role of mitzvot as Torah precedents to establish direct human justice and accountability.

The Talmudic distinction between gezerat melech (the king’s decree) and reshut (volitional human actions) emphasizes the cooperative relationship between divine will and human agency. But Rambam’s Aristotelian system reduces this dynamic relationship, making it more about abstract philosophical principles rather than the lived, human-centered pursuit and practice of justice among and between the Jewish people of Judea.

In conclusion, Rambam’s approach distorts the pragmatic, earthly justice at the heart of the Oral Torah. By focusing on a fixed, theological view of God and metaphysical dogmas, he shifts the Jewish tradition away from practical justice and into a more abstract, philosophical system. The Oral Torah, rooted in the pardes logic of human interpretation and ethical responsibility, concerned with how we live justly as human beings, not with understanding abstract theological truths about God, which are ultimately beyond human comprehension. Rambam’s Aristotelian methodology reduces the focus on human justice to a rigid set of rules and theological principles, which obscures the dynamic, human-centered nature of Jewish law and prophetic mussar-ethics.
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

The k’vanna of the entire first Book of the Written Torah.

Making a shallow reactionary reading – fails to discern the forest through the trees! A tits on a boar hog טיפש פשט – utterly pathetic. Christians read their Bibles; People of the Book “Koran” rail & curse the Jews – shallow paper thin reactionary rhetoric propaganda Blood Libel narishkeit.

What’s the Prime theme of the Book of בראשית? Turn to the common denominator expressed in all Yom Tov tefillot!

Learn: ‘אתה בחרתנו מכל העמים, אהבת אותנו ורצית בנו, ורוממתנו וכו.

The Book of בראשית – תמיד מעשה בראשית, tohor time oriented Av מלך commandments which create from nothing continuously in all generations “the chosen Cohen nation” from the midsts of the Goyim. Which continuously separates Av מלך tohor time oriented commandments from toldot positive & negative commandments and Talmudic halachot, both this and that do not require k’vanna; רשות תולדות מצוות שלא צריך כוונה
like תפילה ערבית, an aliyah unto Av מלך tohor time oriented mitzvot, which absolutely נזקוק\require prophetic mussar T’NaCH k’vaana. The Baali Tosafot commentary to the Talmud across the board, when it refers to tohor Av מלך time oriented mitzvot, it refers to these Av מלך mitzvot class as מצוה מבוחר – like as described in lighting the lights of Chanukkah or saying Kre’a Shma at p’lag ha’minah with Rabbeinu Tam tefillen.

The Judgment Day of the Brit–faith ie pursuit of judicial justice inside the oath sworn lands: Blessing or Curse/Life or Death, herein defines the k’vanna of tohor Av מלך time oriented commandments! Precedents which support this Oral Torah interpretation, they learn from NaCH cases: D’vorah and HaDassah. Both these בנין אב NaCH precedents amplify Yaacov’s life/death crisis encounter with his brother Esau when he returned from g’lut.

Does the Chosen Cohen תמיד מעשה בראשית nation, continually created יש מאין, pursue faith לשמה or לא לשמה. (This concept of Torah faith rejects the racist Nazi attempts to classify Jews through racial physical parameters. On par with avoda zarah not limited to the worship of physical idols or copy-cat Temple/Cathedrals.) Clearly if we pursue the oath brit faith ie righteous pursuit of justice whereby judicial Sanhedrin courts impose fair compensation of damages inflicted by party A upon party B; unlike and contrasted by the brothers casting Yosef into a well and selling him as a slave to Egypt. Or the Goyim courts throughout Jewish g’lut who never forced the Church leaders to stand before the Bar for their crimes against Humanity.

No justice, meaning – observance of the Torah לא לשמה — applicable to both Yosef and his brothers. Yosef failed to give מחילה to his brothers and bless them with the Chosen first born Cohen people “blessing”; like as did both Yaacov and Moshe\ברכת כהנים/ Rabbeinu… the Torah curse of g’lut… Arose a new Par’o who did not know Yosef!

The k’vanna of ברכת כהנים, it creates the chosen Cohen people תמיד יש מאין by means of the קידושה של טהור זמן גרמא מצוות.

When Rabban Gamliel enquired from rabbi Yehoshua whether תפילת ערבית,
a רשות או חיוב? And rabbi Yehoshua responded with חיוב, did he lie to Rabban Gamliel? A famous Talmudic confrontation. Rabban Gamliel’s lack of דרך ארץ caused him to cease ruling as the Nasi of the Great Sanhedrin!

The k’vanna רשות of תפילת ערבית, a person says this tefillah at
פלג המנחה. מארמית: תרגום חופשי לעברית: מחצית המנחה.
Its a רשות to dav’en תפילת ערבית while its yet daylight. A person has רשות to place Rabbeinu Tam tefillen in order to swear the oath קריא שמע with tefillen; like as commanded in Mesechta שבועות! The k’vanna of רשות, that qualifies as both חיוב ורשות at the exact same moment, as taught by Rabbi Yehoshua, a person has רשות to choose to attach this
קריא שמע ערבית שהוא אמר בפלג המנחה
to his tefillah of Minchah, which has no קריא שמע as revealed in the Siddur. (Tefillah קריא שמע דאורייתא, while tefillah Shemone Esrei tefillah דרבנן, a huge מאי נפקא מינא tohor spirit middah which defines the Oral Torah k’vanna of רב חסד middah spirit, as does likewise the mussar of תמיד מעשה בראשית.)

The k’vanna רשות of תפילת ערבית, the Torah scholar has k’vanna to attach his tefillah דרבנן ערבית to his קריא שמע המטה. The Shemone Esrei, so to speak, functions as a pronoun to the Noun קריא שמע; like as do the “pronouns” אל רחום וחנון וכו attached to the Nouns השם השם – the revelation of the 13 middot tohor spirits at Horev – 40 days after the sin of translating the Divine Name Spirt to the “word” אלהים\JeZeus or Allah or even YHVH; simply stated Man cannot translate Divine Presence Spirits into words which Human lips can frame and pronounce. This classic error of avoda zarah the sin of the golden calf epitomizes.

(Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס, the defining Oral Torah logic system which defines how the Talmud studies the T’NaCH as Common Law משנה תורה of Oral Torah scholarship – serves as proof that the Divine Presence Spirit Name lives in the hearts of all generations of the chosen Cohen People alone. The “word” אדוני does not enunciate the Divine Presence spirit Name; אדוני makes a clear הבדלה, like as similarly does the mitzva of Shabbat which separates מלאכה from עבודה.)

Clearly by the time a person says קריא שמע המטה three stars, easily visible in the heavens. Herein Rashi’s explanation of the opening Av Mishna of Mesechta ברכות.

The Yerushalmi Talmud teaches that over 247 prophets occupied themselves writing the Shemone Esrei tefillah דרבנן. Attaching a “pronoun” דרבנן to a “noun” דאורייתא, this משל defines the wisdom and power of tohor Av מלך time oriented commandments. The classic example of דאורייתא Av מלך tohor time oriented commandments, and their power to elevate, make aliya, to commandments דרבנן — unto מצוות דאורייתא — the blessing after the meal ברכת המזון, serves as a primary בנין אב proof of this k’vanna.

The first three blessings duplicate the ה’ אלהינו ה’ אחד
of the קריא שמע… or אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב
the first blessing of the Shemone Esrei. The forth דרבנן blessing of ברכת המזון joins the blessing דרבנן, by means of סמוכים, to the 3 blessings דאורייתא — and this the 4th blessing דרבנן, it too becomes a Av מלך time oriented commandment/blessing דאורייתא! Herein defines the power of Av מלך tohor time oriented commandments; the מלך of all Torah Av commandments. Hence a blessing requires שם ומלכות.

Another בנין אב precedent compares the B’HaG ספר המצוות. Which opens: אלו מצות קום עשה: קרית שמע, ותפילין וכו’ – חלה, עורות קדשים — (יש גם רבנים שחולקים וטוענים שהחיוב לתת עורות הקרבנות הוא מדרבנן), מאה ברכות בכל יום, קידוש השם!
This mitzva defines the k’vanna of the 1st commandment of Sinai, the greatest of all Torah

commandments – דרבנן (תקנת חכמים): יש גם רבנים שחולקים וטוענים שהחיוב לקדש ולגדל את שם ה’ הוא מדרבנן. הרמב”ן, לדוגמה, חולק וטוען שהקידוש הוא תקנת חכמים, ומסביר שהתכנית היא למנוע מהבעל להוציא את אשתו ללא כבובה. ויראת השם – פירוש בעל שם טוב!
A man strives his entire life to build the reputation of his good name.

Other examples of how the B’HaG learns Av מלך time oriented commandments: לעבד לשם — פירוש: לעשות טהור זמן גרמא מצוות עם כוונה. להשבע בשם — פירוש: לומר ברכות עם מוסר כוונה מן התנא”ך מוסר. נר שבת, נר חנוכה וכו’ ומקרא מגילה. The shared common denominator of all these mitzvot – they all qualify as Av מלך tohor time oriented Torah commandments!

Av מלך tohor time oriented commandments have the holiness to raise positive and negative commandments to Av מלך tohor time oriented commandments which require k’vanna of T’NaCH mussar middot; the mitzva of Shabbat clearly proves this idea; most of the Av מלך mitzvot of shabbat – negative commandments. But the holiness of Av מלך tohor time oriented commandments תמיד מעשה בראשית,,, like, for example the בנין אב of the Ger Tzeddik,,, lives as a new Creation,,, so too rabbinic mitzvot and Talmudic halachot, they too can become commandments from the Written Torah through the holiness of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev; understood through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס understanding which defines the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. From which we learn Av מלך tohor time oriented commandments as the מלך which all ברכות oaths require. A far different idea than simply ritually saying: ברוך אתה ה’ אלהינו מלך העולם וכו

Still another example: The mitzva of Moshiach learns directly from Av מלך Oral Torah time oriented commandments! Herein separates the Oral Torah idea of Moshiach from the gospel counterfeit false messiah. tefillot as a tohor time oriented Av מלך sworn oath commandment a far cry different from the gospel idea of prayer taught by the son of god to his disciples!

Ritual commandments: תולדות קום ועושה ושב ולא תעשה
Repeating over and again tehillim prayers, which do not require prophetic mussar aggadah as its essential k’vanna. Defined tohor middot as k’vanna of making ritual blessings, the terms and meaning of the 13 tohor middot spirits revealed to Moshe at Horev – they breath the Spirit life of מלך into blessings.

Saying Tehillem does not qualify as a sworn Torah oath as do ברכות. Nor do Tehillem qualify as an Av מלך time oriented Commandment spirit dedicated middah. The תמיד מעשה בראשית continuously – in all generations – creates the chosen Cohen people יש מאין. Herein defines the primary k’vanna of the Book of בראשית.