Just as the Talmud builds a full beit midrash so too does the T’NaCH, as specifically proven in this one short Shir HaMa’alot example. Tehillim 120 not restricted to alienation, but inclusive of moral exile – speech uttered within and throughout a diseased and corrupted Government “Court” social reality. The Holy Writings of the T’NaCh literature of mussar common law function as external “case/din” mussar which – so to speak – interprets based upon different “witness” perspectives the “Prophetic” Case heard before the Sanhedrin Court.
When speech becomes weaponized, society enters moral exile even if geographically sovereign. The geographic references in verse 5 (“Woe is me, that I sojourn with Meshech, that I dwell beside the tents of Kedar”) evoke foreign, hostile environments (Meshech linked to northern peoples, Kedar to Arabian nomads), yet the deeper pain is existential: prolonged dwelling “with him that hateth peace” (v. 6), where the speaker’s commitment to shalom meets only warlike response (v. 7: “I am all peace; but when I speak, they are for war”). This is not merely hysteria but the grammar of moral dislocation—a “dislocated moral refugee.” Study Tehillim 120 not as ascent from exile but as a cry voiced inside a corrupted social reality, including “diseased and corrupted Government ‘Court’” dynamics. An example: Tamar raped by Amnon in part II of Shmuel. Post-Bar Kokhba historical trauma—the mass slaughter, expulsion, and Hadrian’s renaming of Judea to Syria Palaestina (135 CE) and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina—embodied the shift from physical republic to existential/moral refugee status, paralleling the k’ptlch “אוי לי כי גרתי משך” not as mere geography but as enduring alienation.
By framing the Ketuvim-Holy Writings as “Gemara” to the cited ‘Naviim’ as “Mishna”, this ‘line of learning’ – validates the פרדס kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva. The organization of the Talmud into a loom-like warp/weft:halacha\aggada wherein דרוש\פשט affix to the aggadic portions of the Talmud, while the רמז\סוד halachic portions of the Talmud “conceal/hide” the Constitutional\\judicial vision kept as a guarded secret from צר עין Goyim enemy awareness. Based upon the hiding of the Ark prior to the Babylonian g’lut by the leaders of Yechuda. Much like, the later Rashi commentary to the Chumash – common law precedent based sh’itta, radically differs from the Rashi commentary to the Talmud dictionary-p’shat – conceals the common law judicial nature of the Talmud. Hence the Baali-Tosafot felt the need to write a tiqqun supplement which addresses the common law “nature” of the Talmud. But even those some 60 Baali-Tosafot did not extend their off the dof precedent case/din study back to make a משנה תורה re-evaluation of the language of the Home Mishna which the Gemara learns through case/rule similar precedents to emphasize the רמז\סוד axis of halachic precedents by which the Gemara interprets the language of the Misha from set/fixed view of different yet similar judicial rulings. Something like the two sights of a rifle permits a marksman to target down range.
The רשע Rambam Yad statute law halachic codification directly duplicates the sh’itta of the Shomronim/Canaanites, Tzeddukim, Karaites, NT, Koran – all of who deny the Oral Torah revelation of tohor middot as the יסודי revelation of the Torah at Sinai; T’NaCH/Talmudic scholarship refines tohor middot within the Yatzir Ha-Tov; where the שם השם לשמה oath alliance cut at Sinai eternally thereafter “Shekinah” within the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the Cohen brit people. Rather than the Heavens above – like as do the Divine Names אל שדי, אלהים, אל, האל imply. The post Sinai most essential concept of faith: תורה, לא בשמים היא, the First Commandment (greatest of all Torah commandments) defines through the revelation of Shekinah tohor middot. The Kabbalah of tohor middot stands upon the יסוד of the Horev 13 tohor middot revelations which NaCH prophets teach the סוד משל known as ‘wheels within wheels’/Divine Chariot.
The Rambam code simply does not qualify as Oral Torah common law but rather expresses the foreign Roman statute law sh’itta of learning. Roman armies slaughter no less than half of the entire population of Judea, and this רשע embraces the style of Roman statute law and Greek philosophy which the P’rushim rejected by placing a נידוי ban upon the Tzeddukim “priests” from the House of Aaron. The main consequent impact of the disastrous Rambam Civil War, Jewish scholars ceased or forgot that משנה תורה refers to Common Law which ברכת המזון references with the blessing of Hanukkah which refers to ערב רב רשעים attempting to cause Israel to forget the [Oral] Torah. Anglo-American common law perhaps based upon T’NaCH-Talmudic common law, just as בראשית instructs the סוד kabbalah precedent, that the chicken preceded the egg in the order of Creation – according to the p’shat sh’itta wisdom recorded through the Rashi Chumash common law commentary.
Rambam, to his credit, “saved the Hebrew language” from going the way of the dead Latin tongue. His code – written in clear precise Hebrew, served as a god-send to g’lut scattered Jewish communities across North Africa, the Middle East and Europe; the Baali Tosafot scholar known as the Smag. Rabbi Moshe ben Jacob of Coucy authored Mitzvot Gadol, a famous halachic code prior to the publication of the Shulkan Aruch. The Rambam’s rationalist Greek-based theology “converted” the sealed masoret into a far more palatable format far less threatening to both the church and mosque. Early in the 20th Century the Czar attempted to restrict Yeshiva learning which prioritized the Yad rather than the Talmud. None the less, statute law static deductive reasoning akin to plain geometry.
Whereas T’NaCH-Talmud literature communicates פרדס inductive fluid logic; a flowing dynamic logic that differs from static Greek deductive reasoning, like Calculus variables differ from Arabic Algebra — as developed by 9th Century Al-Khwarizmi. Many Arabic mathematicians employed geometric methods to visualize algebraic problems; 19th Century hyperbolic geometry repudiates the 5th axiom of Euclid’s plain geometry, which equally refutes the current ‘Scientific Method’ which limits evidence to physical empirical evidence much like the Church creed dogma requires a virgin birth-historical & physical JeZeus. Contrast the instruction of Rava who taught that Job – only an imaginary man! The נמשל of Rava’s mussar – false to restrict the God of Sinai to 3 physical dimensions just as an idol carved from wood the prophet Isaiah 44:13-17 – mocked.
Off the דרך mainstream Judaism failed to correct the assimilated error of the Rambam’s statute law; impossible to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. The Catholic church during this same period likewise embraced & incorporated ancient Greek philosophy as the basis of their Order of statute law codifications of Catholic dogma. Rambam’s halachic codification despite affixed to Talmudic halachic opinions, closely resembles the codification of Rome’s bull – dogma. Gemara halachot serve as precedents to interpret the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna – viewed from different witness perspectives. Statute halachic rulings – divorced from this basis of Framers’ intent changed, perverted, and corrupted Oral Torah judicial common law into religious statute law.
The Rambam code prioritizes the false parameter of an Ego based “I believe” religious belief system substitute replacement of Sanhedrin judicial courtroom common law. A direct violation of the negative commandment not to duplicate how Goyim worship their Gods. Specifically, the Rambam ruling on bnai noach as all Goyim rather than ger toshav living within Jewish national borders. Rambam accepted the theology of tawhid of an Allah Universal God in both his Yad and Guide. He argued for the absolute unity and uniqueness of God, aligning with the foundational Islamic principle of tawhid. Allah on par with the deification of JeZeus as God – both examples of the Golden Calf substitution theology which replaces word translations for tohor spirit revelations.
The Rambam code stands apart from the B’HaG and Rif common law codes. His corruption failure to bring sources for his halachic rulings, all later super-commentaries on both his code, and similar Tur and Shulkan Aruch statute law perversions failed to correct this av tuma avoda zarah. (Goyim not under the Law. The 30 Year War fought over differing Catholic/Protestant dogmas of idolatry. Neither av tuma avoda zarah, share any portion with the Torah 2nd commandment – which both the Church and Mosque never accepted in the first place.) For example the כסף משנה speculative attempts to unilaterally bring a Gemara source for some Rambam posok halacha – complete tits on a boar hog useless. No post Rambam super commentary ever affixed a Rambam posok to either a B’HaG, Rif, Rosh similar halacha, wherein the latter affix that halachic ruling – back to its proper Mishnaic source.
This fundamental distinction separates common law codes from false statute law codes – despite the similarity of langue employed by both sets of halachic codes. Gemara always exists as a commentary to specific Mishnaic sources – always. Yosef Karo did not know this most basic of fundamental facts; if the יסוד cracked, then the entire structure must come down. This off the דרך error of statute law halachic codes set the stage for the Orthodox failure to make massive aliya to the League established Palestine mandate territories prior to the 2nd White Paper in 1939. Consequently, off the דרך Orthodox Judaism as guilty as the Wilderness generation in the days of Moshe and Aaron. Just as Jewish assimilation and intermarriage cause the plague of Amalek to curse the Jewish people, so too ערב רב Jews who possess no shame, incapable to accept prophetic mussar which links the guilt of the Wilderness Generation – affixed equally to the Shoah Generation. The buck stops with the Jewish people; we embrace the Torah brit of Life/Death — Blessing\Curse — responsibility unto all generations — the chosen Cohen people live as the brit created seed of the Avot. Only Israel accepts the local tribal god revealed at Sinai. Therefore, Jews alone responsible for the horrid Torah curses of g’lut – because we remember as our eternal t’shuva, the plagues which HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt & Canaan.
Courtroom common law ie Oral Torah – simply not at all to Moloch or Baal; any religious belief system statute law. The Rambam, no different than a false prophet. The earlier halachic codifications maintained fidelity to Oral Torah common law’s relationship between Mishna & Gemara as courtroom law. The framers of the Talmud vision, to write a legal model for the day when Jews reconquered our homeland from the Romans. But who could envision that the g’lut would endure for 2000+ years?! Prior to the Oct 7th 2023 Abomination War, court reform exploded as a government crisis! The vision of Zionism today: To restore the Torah as the Written Constitution of the Torah Republic, organized into 12 tribal states; together with this Torah Constitutional mandate which establishes the Talmudic model Sanhedrin common law lateral courtroom legal system – as envisioned by the framers of the Talmud.
Critics of ”assimilated theocratic foreign models” argue that a pluralistic democracy, with its secular Basic Laws and independent judiciary, better serves a diverse population facing existential security threats. While proponents like myself counter that the Rambam perversion which “baptized” Oral Torah into Roman statute law avoda zara, fail to grasp that this Rambam avoda zara induced Civil War no different than the curse the prophet Natan cursed David – based upon the prophet Shmuel’s rejection of Shaul as king. Rambam statute law simply changed the vision of the Framers of both T’NaCH and Talmudic common law, no different from king Shlomo’s prioritization of duplicating how Goyim worshipped their Gods through construction of Grand Temples perverted the last mitzva sanctified by Moshe Rabbeinu – the faith priority to establish Sanhedrin courts of common law. G’lut Jewry of the Middle Ages required a modification of Talmud into a Jewish religion, to address the distress endured during the anarchy of the Dark Ages. Modern Israeli society absolutely requires the sense of trust; Sanhedrin lateral courts raise the banner of justice as defined by fair restitution of damages.
Orthodox proponents of the Rambam code ignore the fundamental difference between T’NaCH-Talmudic inductive logic from Ancient Greek-most European societal based deductive reasoning. The pre-Oct7th Judicial debates across Israel – primarily focused upon cult of personality issues akin to Trump Derangement Syndrome, and totally ignored the day/night differences between Oral Torah inductive logic from Greek/European deductive logic; the latter logic format defines the Rambam statute religious law codification made during the Dark Ages. Statute law halachic codes totally fail to serve as a Talmudic commentary.
Claims made by Rambam which declared it as a complete statement of Oral Torah totally untrue; proof stands: whenever a person studies Talmud today, the statute law codes of the Rambam error do not comment on any dof of Gemara – as does the Baali Tosafot commentary to the Talmud. How to correctly understand the intent of the language of the Talmud no later super-commentary upon the Rambam functions as a valid Talmudic commentary. Hence the statute law codes not included on the page of the Talmud as the Vilna Sha’s includes both Rashi and Baali Tosafot. Bottom line: Oral Torah does not teach Greek-like philosophy of syllogism deductive reasoning. Therefore the Rambam code collapses on its foreign logic which the T’zeddukim originally embraced & promoted.
The Yad explicitly frames the work as a comprehensive restatement of the entire Oral Law. Both the court of Rabbeinu Yonah and the majority of the Baali Tosafot placed the Rambam into נידוי no different than the later רשע Spinoza. The disaster Paris burnings of 1242 coupled with the 1306 French mass Jewish expulsion permanently destroyed the French common law school of Talmudic scholarship. All super-commentaries written after the Rosh, starting with the Tur – base themselves upon premise which makes kosher deductive statute law reasoning. Akin to how Congress limits individual debates to 15 minutes, in matters of statute law. Courtroom law by the gulf of stark difference, requires that both the Prosecutor and Defense close their arguments – at their own determined pace.
The interplay between the physical destruction of Jewish textual heritage in 13th- and 14th-century France and the enduring symbolic battles over Maimonides’ legacy—including a documented alteration of his tomb inscription—illustrates the complex, often polarized communal sentiments that persisted long after his death in 1204. The 1242 burning of Talmud manuscripts and the 1290 &1306 expulsion from both England & France, indeed eradicated enormous quantities of evidence, compounding the challenges of reconstructing the full picture of medieval Jewish intellectual life. Prophetic mussar stands upon shame. Not attempts by later generations to unilaterally declare dogmatic history – based upon the false premise that the victors right the history books.
David Kimhi (known as Radak – 1160–1235) a prominent medieval Jewish scholar. Primarily known for his biblical commentaries and his contributions to grammar and linguistics. While he lived during the time of Maimonides, no historical evidence exists that Kimhi directly witnessed chaos and anarchy due to the Rambam’s legal writings. His commentaries to the T’NaCH never condemned “the statute law perversion”. The Radak clearly did not support the נידוי imposed by French rabbis in 1232. He passed before the 1290 and 1306 mass expulsion of Jews from England and France – a disaster every bit the equal to the 1242 public book burnings in Paris which caused the Rabbeinu Yonah to publicly renounce his opposition to the Rambam and his scholarship.
The respect and influence of David Kimhi and the Smag counter balanced with the lingering effects of the 1232–1233 bans on his philosophical writings—The Rosh, Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel, author of a common law halachic code on par with the common law code written by the Rif, strongly supported the ban (niddah) imposed by French rabbis in 1232 against Maimonides and his followers. The Rosh polar opposite opinion of Maimonides’ legal innovations, that they posed a threat to traditional Talmudic jurisprudence. The son of the Rosh supported the halachic innovations of the Rambam posok halacha. The split between the Rosh vs Tur (Rabbi Jacob ben Asher) compares to the Book of Shoftim where one generation honored the brit, followed by the next generation who despised the brit. The fabric of Jewish society ripped apart in Civil War.
Opponents altered the Rambam head-stone to read “the excommunicated heretic” (מוחרם ומין). Heinrich Graetz’s monumental Geschichte der Juden (History of the Jews, 1853–1875; English editions 1891–1895) devotes extensive chapters to the Maimonidean controversy, the Paris Disputation of 1240, the Talmud burnings of 1242, and the philosophical divides between rationalists and traditionalists. Similarly, Simon Dubnow’s multi-volume histories (Weltgeschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 1925–1929, and earlier Russian works) analyze medieval Jewish intellectual currents, the French expulsions, and Rambam’s legacy in detail, framing the controversy as part of broader Ashkenazi-Sephardi tensions, a revisionist history which conceals the basis of this Jewish Civil War: judicial common law vs legislative (cult of personality similar to Chassidic rebbes) statute law.
The Maimonidean Controversy ended in France consequence to – the 1290 & 1306 expulsions which effectively destroyed the French Rashi/Tosafot common law Talmudic scholarship schools. The chaos and anarchy likewise spread like a cancer to all the German kingdoms who followed the British monarch’s taxation without representation upon Jews followed up with forced mass population transfers. The Pope imposed a Bull which condemned Western European Jewry into ghetto gulags. The ‘domino effect’ of this Jewish Civil War produced internal Jewish chaos and anarchy directly contributed to Jews bearing responsibility for 1492 expulsion from Spain, followed by the Inquisition and the 1648 Ukrainian Cossack pogroms.
Foreign invasions traditionally follow internal domestic chaos and anarchy. Rome made Herod king over Judea due to Jewish Civil War. Troskii based his theory of ‘Permanent Revolution’ based upon the model of how the French revolution spread to all surrounding countries who likewise confronted internal chaos and anarchy. Post the Rambam Civil War Jewish scholars have failed do not address the subject of Roman law, understood through lense of legal classifications similar to the organization of a dozen eggs sold in a supermarket.
A political-legal application to modern Israeli constitutional debates? The revelation of 13 tohor middot at Horev to Moshe Rabbeinu, serve as the basis for the Tannaim middot logic formats 7 Hillel, 10 Akiva, and 13 Yishmael affixed to Halacha and the 32 of rabbi Yossi assigned to Aggadic portions of the Talmud. The משנה תורה בנין אב for all these distinct and different middot formats – the revelation expressed through the first Sinai commandment, understood by the Book of D’varim – Torah לא בשמים היא. This critically decisive comprehension of the revelation of the שם השם לשמה stands as book-ends to the בראשית – אל שדי, אל, אלהים word-Names which envision the Divine in Heaven.
Sinai “remembers”//t’shuva\\ the Egyptian oppression of depriving Israel of the required straw to make bricks. Employment of middot as the “building-blocks” of inductive פרדס reasoning differentiates T’NaCH/Talmudic common-law from Greek\Roman statute law which organizes decrees made by authorities such as Caesar or Napoleon into defined legal categories. The Six Orders of the Mishna represents an entirely different structured Order than Greek\Roman Statute law codes. Torah faith a matter of the heart to refine tohor middot through the wisdom of פרדס inductive reasoning based upon the elemental building blocks of “middot”. The Rambam statute law halacha completely and totally abandoned this crux of Sinai brit faith as established in the literature of both the T’NaCH Talmud and Siddur kabbalah. Inductive reasoning defines פרדס common law inductive logic. Aristotle’s syllogism Rambam statute law models. משנה תורה as first referenced in the Book of D’varim, means Common law; based upon rabbi Yechuda’s exceptionally strong proof: his common law Mishna. The Rambam Yad-code of statute law consequently falsely misnamed: “Mishna Torah”; based upon false prophets seek to seduce Israel to worship other Gods.
גופא: Tehillem 120 expresses a deep sense of alienation, highlighting the emotional turmoil of living amidst deceitful and hostile individuals. The language underscores a societal environment where trust no longer exists. The concluding verse, “אני שלום וכי אדבר המה למלחמה,” illustrates how words can become weapons, further emphasizing the conflict inherent in social interactions where “peace” employed as a deception-mask which hides and conceals Jealousy and צר עיין.
Yarmia 9:2–8: explores the pervasive dishonesty and the metaphorical use of the “sword” לשון הרע. Isaiah 59:3–8 – reinforces the ideas of systemic deceit and societal breakdown as communicated in Tehillem 120. Particularly the notion of absolutely no trust/shalom due to the false faces of falsehood.
Micah 7:1–6 – the untrustworthiness of those closest, this reflects the emotional landscape of navigating relationships marked by betrayal and conflict. Therefore, Tehillem 120 serves as a poignant reflection on the realities of trust and alienation within social spaces, functioning as a precedential text that situates itself within a broader prophetic discourse on integrity and relational dynamics. It highlights the limitations of ordinary communication in the face of systemic dishonesty, aligning closely with the emotional truths expressed in the prophetic literature surrounding it.
What makes Tehillim 120 so distinctive within the Shir HaMa’alot corpus: it is not a psalm of ascent from exile but a psalm spoken inside a moral exile. Alienation, relational distortion, the collapse of trust, and the weaponization of speech—captures the emotional grammar of this specific Tehillem. To learn the Holy Writings within the T’NaCH requires the Oral Torah discipline: Prophetic/Mishnaic NaCH → Holy Writings\Gemara format encapsulated in both the T’NaCH primary source and Talmudic secondary source literature. Failure to grasp just how the Tannaim and Amoraim influenced by the T’NaCH as the Primary source which dominated their interpretation of Torah common law as expressed through the Mishna and contemporary Tannaic sources of that period during the days prior to the Bar Kokhba revolt against Rome which resulted in the mass population slaughter and transfer of the survivor Jewish populations from Judea and the renaming of the destroyed Jewish second republic unto the alien European name of Palestine; followed later still by Amoraim scholars in Bavil who compiled and organized the Gemara as a common law compilation of Case/Din precedents by which to weight the Case\Rule Mishnaic common law legal compilation made by rabbi Yechuda Ha-Nassi in about 210 CE.
אוי לי כי גרתי משך not geographic but rather existential. 120 communicates not merely distressed hysteria; but more accurately a dislocated—moral refugee. שפת שקר… לשון רמיה … not one specific liar—but rather a culture of duplicity. חצי גיבור שנונים—not simply a metaphorical flourish, but rather a legal description of speech-as-violence. אני שלום… המה למלחמה peace-talk is interpreted as aggression in a society built on suspicion. No different than the UN British-French-Russia “dictate” for land for peace” post the 1967 War. This hostile foreign propaganda so conveniently ignores the Nasser command to his generals to complete the Nazi Shoah of European Jewry across the obliterated lands of Israel based upon the Roman Palestine model!
“Mishnaic” Yarmia 9:2-8, the Primary source Tehillem 120 “Gemara” analogue secondary source. The mussar cummunicated in such a “Talmudic learning” views both mussar sources address 1. weaponized speech; 2. systemic deceit; 3. relational breakdown; 4. no trust. Yarmia 9, not merely parallel—but more accurately the Tehillem 120 commentary grasps the blue-print multidimensional facet viewpoint legal categories viewed from this precedent Tehillem “witness”. This “Talmudic” learning serves to define the phenomenon: a society where speech has become a weapon and trust is impossible.
The structural diagnosis of Tehillem 120 precedent to Isaiah 59:38, specifically to 1. lying lips 2. absence of justice 3. no path to trust/shalom 4. crooked social structures. This Primary source prophetic Mishna functions as the macro version while the Gemara Tehillim 120 precedent operates as the micro (כלל-פרט) example of how the kabbalah of פרדס studies both T’NaCH and Talmudic literature as codified in the Talmud Yerushalmi in Judea and Bavli post renamed as Roman Palestine in Iraqi exile, by and through the halachic “bricks” middot of 7, 10, 13 and the aggadic middot of 32. Middot development – a matter of the Yatzir Ha-Tov heart. This crucial distinction separates like shabbat from chol the mitzva דאורייתא of tefillah, most specifically ק”ש, from the דרבנן of Tehillem – prayer! Swearing a Torah oath brit alliance operates on a totally different dimensional plane than שבח prayers offered from the lips of Cain. Tefillah a wisdom commandment which requires the dedication לשמה of tohor middot::the k’vanna of the korban dedicated by He’vel. Tehillem prayers qualifies as positive Torah commandments which do not require k’vanna dedication of tohor middot לשמה.
Micah 7:16, the Tehillem 120 precedent views this Primary Navi source, viewed from the witness perspective testimony before a “Sanhedrin” courtroom as: intimate betrayal. This Micah Mishnaic Prophetic Primary source interpreted by Tehillem 120 from the dimension of – NO TRUST even in ones’ own household; meaning betrayal by intimates which forces the right hand to conceal its intentions from its left hand because relational proximity only increases personal danger. Tehillem 120 “gemara” explains the “Mishnaic” Micah 7 through the lenses of emotional tones where the pain experienced and felt, not limited to public humiliation but rather intimate disgrace.
The Holy Writings of the T’NaCH, expressed through Tehillem 120 duplicates how the Gemara learns “its” Mishna by bringing similar Case/Rule precedents wherein the style of “Difficulty\Answer” expresses the courtroom Prosecutor vs Defense Attorney legal briefs which bring different legal precedents and therefore debate between these two opposing justices of the court expressed through the terse Gemara style of Difficulty\Answer. These opposing justices each brings their own legal brief “set of precedent cases”; presented before the Court. Which precedent brief, qualifies as the closes set of valid precedents which best determines the righteous just din for the current case heard before the Court? Hence a Torts court has 3 Court justices; one appointed as the prosecutor the other appointed as the defense attorney, and the third rules whenever neither Judge prosecution vs defense justice willing to validate the precedents brought by his opposing judicial colleague’s legal brief as closer representation of the case currently heard before the court. The Talmud refers to this legal impasse – teyku. The 3rd court justice then rules either one way or the other to resolve the tie. Hence all lateral common law Torah courts have an odd number of judges.
T’NaCH\Talmudic “sovereignty” Civic not theological. This scholarship argues, much like as did Herzl’s “Jewish State” for Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination through establishment of the Cohen Republic of the Avot. The Herzl assimilated versions of a Jewish state primarily in political-national terms, & most definitely not does it support or approve of any religious Rambam-halachic formats. Herzl’s model, based heavily from European parliamentary systems, akin to a woman’s menstrual pad, no different than the Rambam’s. However, Herzl’s Jewish equal rights to achieve Jewish self determination, as later defined and clarified by the Balfour and League 1922 mandate to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine, based upon the 1897 rejection of Herzl’s floated idea of a Jewish national home outside of Palestine. Jews equal rights to achieve self determination in “Palestine” defines the meaning of Zionism. The Torah Sinai vision: to forge the Written Torah as the Constitution of the Republic of States/tribes, which mandates Sanhedrin Capital Crimes and Torts courts – to function akin to spokes on a wheel – where small Sanhedrin Cities of Refuge define the borders of the Jewish state … like a married couple to the Zionist vision of Jewish equal rights to achieve self determination.
The Mishnah’s Six Orders exist as thematic categories of law – based upon the Torah theme of g’lut as defined through the exile of Adam from the garden and other examples that follow in the Book of בראשית. Mishnaic themes clearly not territorial allocations of sovereignty. Constitutional mandated common law courts primarily based upon Moshe standing before the court of Par’o and the rebuke made by Yitro as the basis for צדק צדק תרדוף. The Yerushalmi Talmud debates whether king David Nationalized Damascus. This would require the establishment of a small Sanhedrin court of 23 City of Refuge in Damascus; territorial authority requires judicial institutionalization. Sovereignty without courts therefore – incomplete.
Sanhedrin common law courts review legislation passed by Tribal & Federal governments to determines conformity with Torah constitutional mandates. Defines Federal divisions of power, something akin to the US Commerce Clause. Anointed “Moshiach” leaders, based upon Moshe’s dedication of the House of Aaron – the dedication of the Torah mitzva of Moshiach: based upon David’s vain-oath פרט, (touching the כלל dedication to rule the land with judicial justice) expressed through his ‘bloody hands’ in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
Legislative powers such as monetary policy, bureaucratic regulatory agencies primarily restricted to Tribal economic autonomy rather than to some Big Brother Federal overview. For example: telecommunications or international trade etc. The Sanhedrin would inevitably develop interpretive doctrines both ‘conservative or liberal’ constitutional textual readings of Torah intent to shape and determine modern governance ‘domains’. That form of constitutional evolution — modern jurisprudence, envisioned through rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive dynamic logic.
The Torah model of Moshiach, absolutely rejects Goyim cult of personality Gods or prophets! Prophets’ functions as the police enforcers of Judicial court-room rulings chiefly through means of public prophetic mussar. Just as Sanhedrin jurisdiction limited to and only within the borders of the Jewish state, so too prophet/police. Torah prophets – in no way shape or form – compare to Soothsayers/witches who predict the future; anymore than a Torah prophet sent to Goyim in foreign lands – the precedents of both Moshe and Yonah. The king of Assyria not the target of Yonah’s mussar. Rather, the g’lut Israelites captured following the collapse of the kingdom of Israel! Torah rejects both “sister religions” as Molach or Baal av tumah avoda zarah. Muhammad’s declaration that prophets sent to all people and speaks in the native tongue of peoples who fundamentally rejected the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, on par with Muhammad’s permission that Muslims permitted to eat camel products but not pork flesh. Or that Yishmael dedicated at the Akadah. Covenant a false translation for brit/alliance. To swear a Torah oath requires שם ומלכות. The Allah Golden Calf word translation no different than the אלהים word translation; the Koran never addresses the dedication of מלך as tohor middot any more than does the Koran respects the key theme of “chosen Cohen people”, halal camel stands as witness.
A Torah Republic not the same as an ancient Athens democracy. The Book of שפטים serves as precedent. The US model, for example, no where in both its Constitutions, nor its Declaration of Independence – the word democracy ever written. The mussar of the Book of Shmuel openly rebukes Israel for demanding a king. A Torah Constitutional Republic the “Moshiach” משל has the נמשל interpretation which assigns this mitzva as no different than the mitzva of keeping shabbat; all bnai brit Israel have equal obligations to sanctify wisdom commandments/time-oriented commandments throughout the generations. The sealed masoret serves as the ‘Basic Law’ for Sanhedrin courts procedural statutes, enforcement authority, mechanisms for constitutional amendment, and mechanisms for removal of judges.
Shabbat observance organized into wisdom the Torah calls: מלאכה. Time-oriented mitzvot requires k’vanna by aligning measure for measure toldot positive & negative commandments – inclusive of Talmudic halachot which do not require k’vanna but serve as בניני אבות precedents – which elevate toldot commandments/halachot to av time-oriented commandments. Just as shabbat prioritizes “domains” so too does the 6 Orders of the Mishna “themes” exist as “domains”.
Just as Yosef’s mockery of his brothers through divination an abomination, so too false prophets who seek to entice Israel to embrace foreign cultures and intermarry and most emphatically seek to entice Israel to worship new or foreign Gods, like as did the NT and Koran. Israel compares to a drop which falls into an ocean; the burden to define and maintain the culture, customs, manners, and habits which separate the chosen Cohen children of the Avot as “t’rumah” from the chol seed of the Avot who fathered a multitude of Goyim; herein defines the substance of the Torah as Constitution which mandates Sanhedrin common law courts-who determine the culture, customs, and manners practiced by the chosen Cohen brit seed.
Modern constitutions survive because they include amendment procedures. פרדס logic fluid, dynamic, and flexible. Righteous judicial justice dedicated similar to the Torah mitzva Moshiach; to fair restitution of damages inflicted by Jews upon other bnai brit allies/citizens – inclusive of gere toshav Goyim. Moshiach as a Torah mitzva functions as a constitutional ethic, not an executive throne. NaCH prophets often served as the Torah removal mechanism of institutionalized power abuse/corruption.
Moshiach = constitutional ethic of just rule; Prophets = institutional correction mechanism; public moral rebuke as key removal trigger. Torah = constitutional charter; Sanhedrin = constitutional Federal court system. Prophets, based upon the precedent of Shmuel, did not themselves depose rulers. The blessing/curse brit causes Life or Death just as in the days of Par’o and the 10 plagues. Prophets serve the judicial משנה תורה rulings of the Great Sanhedrin court. Prophesy simply the exorcise of civic conscience. The removal of Rabban Gamliel as Nassi serves as a precedent of “Who removes a corrupt Sanhedrin justice”. Peers dedicated to the pursuit of righteous justice removed Rabban Gamliel not a prophet.
Authority in Torah jurisprudence – not absolute. Institutional abuse can trigger removal. Correction – internal, not prophetic overthrow. Sanhedrin justice requires as its fundamental basis a combined tribal-federal judicial convention. Herein functions a model for the Constitutional Republic of Israel as the definition of Zionism: Jewish right to achieve self-determination within the borders of the Jewish state. This Constitutional order despises judicial absolutism as equal to the Dark Ages ‘divine right of kings’ narishkeit. The tribal/federal model permits tribal courts participation in both appointments and removal similar to how US State legislatures originally appoint Federal Senators as ambassadors of each and every State represented in the Senate.
The modern Jewish state not a primitive agrarian-based economy which requires slavery. But an industrial based economy where the State protects citizen rights. Post ’48 & ’67 Israel respects the political accomplishments of the American, and to a far smaller degree – the French revolution(s). But rejects the Marx 1848 Das Capital socialism which compares the State to a mechanical machine, as utterly corrupt and flawed. On par with the European Central Banking model which the traitor Wilson copied and forced America to make entangling alliances with Europe! Adam Smith’s free banking model the economic ideal for a healthy Torah constitutional republic. Who stabilizes the economy during external crises (war, global capital shocks, or trade embargo)? The tribal and Federal legislatures and/or Knesset “bear the yoke of the kingdom of heaven”. A gold\diamond-based commodity currency serves as the Constitutional ideal. A ‘Federal Knesset’ compares to the power of Congress to mint currency.
Conflict Resolution 