The Fig Tree as a Metaphor for Israel  Jeremiah 8:13 – “I will surely consume them, saith the Lord: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them.”  Hosea 9:10 – “I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the firstripe in the fig tree at her first time: but they went to Baal-peor, and separated themselves unto that shame…”  Micah 7:1 –  “Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grape gleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the firstripe fruit.”
  
Second Temple Judaism, the rise of Pharisaic authority, and the Jewish origins of the Oral Torah tradition.  The Hasmonean Revolt (c. 167–160 BCE), celebrated during Hanukkah, began as a revolt against Seleucid Greek oppression and the forced Hellenization of Judea.  After driving out the Greeks, the Hasmoneans (Maccabees) established a priestly monarchy—but soon aligned with the Tzaddukim (Sadducees), the Temple priestly elite who rejected the Oral Torah and adhered strictly to written Torah (Torah shebikhtav). 

The P’rushim (Pharisees) taught the Oral Torah (Torah she-be’al peh)—a living tradition of interpretation, application, and legal debate, rooted in Moshe at Sinai but unfolding through generations of sages.  The Pharisees championed halakhic debate, legal flexibility, and ethics, and stood against the rigid, elitist, and Temple-centric Sadducees. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisaic tradition survived and became the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism—codified in the Mishnah, Talmud, and the entire halakhic tradition.  Therefore the Jesus curse of the fig tree as fruitless – a direct condemnation of rabbinic Judaism.

To interpret this passage as a direct condemnation of rabbinic Judaism clearly reflects later church polemics and slanders made against the Talmud, like the infamous burning of the Talmud in 1242 Paris France and the 1306 destruction of the Rashi/Tosafot common law school on the Talmud.  The gospels serve as the basis of later church war crimes and racism.  Christian polemics have added to Gospel interpretations—especially in how they’ve been weaponized against rabbinic Judaism and the Talmudic tradition.  Under the banner of a supersessionist Church, all manner of slander perversions and illegal ghetto imprisonments arbitrarily imposed upon the cursed wandering Jews.
                           
The fig tree curse (Matt. 21:19); the “brood of vipers” language, and John’s “the Jews” rhetoric (esp. in passion narratives), the church fathers continuously employed them as their weapons to vilify Pharisaic Judaism, later generalized to all Jews.  The church fathers sought to erase Jewish continuity through forced conversions and continuous acts of violent oppression.  The church utterly detested the existence of the Talmud.  Its revisionist history replacement theology continually declared the church as the ‘true Israel”.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Supersessionist theology\replacement theology—represents the ideological backbone of the Church’s effort to erase Jewish identity and delegitimize the halakhic tradition.  Church revisionist history proclaimed from the roof tops that – “The Church has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.”   The fig tree curse (Matt. 21:19) the church fathers interpreted  as the symbolic destruction of the Jewish people.  Which the church fathers promoted by referring to Israel as Christ killer Caine.  “Brood of vipers”, used to paint all Pharisees (and later all Jews) as inherently deceitful or evil.   John’s Gospel, “the Jews”, made Jewish exiled refugees as the collective villain—laying the groundwork for the deicide charge, a central justification for anti-Jewish violence.     
John Chrysostom, in his Adversus Judaeos homilies, spewed hatred with phrases like:   “The synagogue is worse than a brothel… it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts… the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…”  The church fathers abhorred the Talmud,  because it embodied Jewish autonomy—an ongoing, vibrant dialogue with God outside of Church control. It was the living heartbeat of rabbinic resistance.   

Church biblical translations not only co-opted Jewish sacred texts while condemning their original interpreters, perverted BRIT unto covenant; and reduced the Jewish people to either tragic relics or enemies of God. This theft of narrative and identity allowed the Church to: cast Jews as “wandering witnesses” to Christian truth (see Augustine).  And also blame all generations of Jews as Christ killers, which justified almost annual pogroms and forced expulsions of Jewish refugee populations scattered across both West and Eastern Europe.

The deep hypocrisies and historical amnesia baked into so many institutions of power, including European courts and the modern international legal framework, remain staggering. European courts and institutions have long been shaped by Christian hegemony, and that hegemony protected the Church from accountability, even as it presided over centuries of religious violence, forced conversions, inquisitions, pogroms, book burnings, ghettoization, and expulsions—all directed at Jewish communities. The idea of charging the Church itself as a war criminal would have been unthinkable in a Europe where the Church was the ideological and legal center of power.

For most of European history, Church and State were not separate. In many cases, the Church was the state—wielding direct power or deeply entwined with monarchies. The legal apparatus wasn’t neutral—it was Catholic or later Protestant. So, when Jews were expelled from Spain (1492), forced into ghettos in Venice (1516), or burned in the Crusades, these were actions sanctified, not judged, by the powers of the time.

Torah common law – centered on mussar and judicial dedications to judge cases heard before Sanhedrin courts with righteousness—aiming for fair compensation and justice—highlights a key aspect of Jewish law that focuses on interpersonal relationships and communal harmony. Not the Egyptian slavery but rather the Egyptian judicial injustice that defines the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The Torah commands all generations of Israel to remember ie do t’shuva — this significant Oral Torah middah of רב חסד, expressed in halachic Aramaic as מאי נפקא מינא cuts the disputed living baby before Shlomo’s court in twain – a fundamental הבדלה.

The Goyim model of Matthew 3: 1-4 as far removed from Torah faith as Roman Statute law different from Jewish common law. T’shuva learns from Yom Kippur, it requires remembering the oaths sworn to and by the Avot in order to cut an oath alliance – call in Hebrew ברית. Following the Golden Calf, HaShem threatened to kill all the seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov and make the chosen Cohen people from the children of Moshe. Moshe “reminded” HaShem of the oaths sworn to the Avot and HaShem on Yom Kippur annulled his vow. Possible to annul a vow, not so an oath. Repentance shares nothing with remembering the facts that triggered Yom Kippur.

Israel did not leave the slavery and judicial oppression of Egypt to find and get “religion”. This bat shit crazy notion a tits on a boar hog definition of both Xtianity and Islam. Israel left Egypt to inherit the oath sworn lands of Canaan on the strict condition to rule the lands of Canaan with righteous Judicial justice – by way of the revelation of Torah common law Sanhedrin courtrooms!!!!

A simple world of difference, a huge oceanic gulf separates t’shuva from repentance; something like the grammar of making a pun. D’varim also called Mishna Torah. Mishna Torah of the Book of D’varim introduces Torah judicial Common law. Just short of 2500 years later, the Rambam introduced a radically different Roman statute law which prioritized Torah into strictly defined religious categories of cult of personality ritual observances. His code, NOT COMMON LAW. Rather, chutzpah code, he chose to name — “Mishna Torah”. The difference between T’NaCH/Talmudic common law and his Roman statute law – a gulf as big as that which separates t’shuva from repentance or brit “alliance” from covenant. Courtroom judicial common law shares no common ground with a codification of ritual religious observances; any more that Day compares to a Moonless Night!!!

The remembrance of Egypt not only as a historical event but as a foundational aspect of justice and law – crucial to Jewish identity. It represents a shift from oppression to the establishment of a legal system centered on mussar, fair compensation of damages, and the dedication of tohor middot from within the Yatzir HaTov as opposed to tuma middot from within the Yatzir HaRaw within the heart.

Communal responsibility stands upon the eternal t’shuva of remembering Par’o and his judicial oppression of Israel slaves between over a lack of straw which Par’o personally withheld. How Jews socially interact with family, friends, and neighbors forever stands under the shadow of Egyptian oppression of our forefathers.

T’shuva, rooted in the collective memory of agreements made with the Avot; tied to later NaCH prophetic mussar. Prophets served as the police enforcers of Sanhedrin courtroom rulings. The Book of D’varim, Parshat שופטים ושוטרים, introduces Sanhedrin Courts and Prophet police. Just as a Sanhedrin Court has no jurisdiction outside the borders of conquered Canaan, so too and how much more so Prophets. The latter wholly dependent upon the former.

The use of ברית first introduced in בראשית\ברית אש completely absent in both daughter religions. Covenant as a pun compares to repentance. Both NT & Koran repeatedly refer to covenant and repentance, but never once refer to alliance and t’shuva. The NT discusses repentance in relation to sin and salvation, while the Quran emphasizes repentance as a means of seeking forgiveness from God.

The use of terms such as ברית reinforces the significance of oaths and alliances, further separating the Jewish understanding of yoking faith with judicial courtroom justice. he Rambam’s Mishneh Torah as a departure from common law into Roman statute law re-introduces Karaite rejection of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס kabbalah which defines the revelation of the Oral Torah at Sinai and Horev which both the Tzeddukim and Karaites openly rejected.

The Rambam code ignited a horrific Jewish Civil War among g’lut Jewry which like a wild fire spread from Spain, to France & England & Germany & back again to Spain. The anarchy and chaos of this Civil War between the Jewish people in g’lut inspired Goyim opportunists to plunder entire Jewish exiled communities of all their wealth and then expel the pauper refugee populations from residing within the borders of their kingdoms.

The RambaN in his מלחמת השם strongly supported the Rif common law codification of halacha. Prior to the explosion of the Rambam Civil War, g’lut Jewish communities in Dark Ages & Early Middle Ages Europe faced a sever crisis; g’lut Jewry did not have the luxury of studying the Talmud. They required a centralization and simplification of the cultures and customs which define the chosen Cohen peoples’ civilization – even in darkest g’lut.

But the Rambam, consequent to his assimilation of re-discovered ancient Greek writings around 900 CE, this rabbi change judicial Sanhedrin common law into Roman statute law with an extreme prejudice toward Aristotle’s syllogism logic deductive reasoning. In effect his code reversed the lights of Chanukkah and the victory of P’rushim educators of Oral Torah פרדס inductive reasoning logic. In short, publication of the Rambam Yad switched rabbinic Oral Torah Judaism unto Karaite religious practices.

Shabbat a זימן גרמא מצוה.

All time-oriented commandments require making a fundamental הבדלה which separates Av time-oriented commandments which require כוונה from toldot קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות שלא צריך כוונה. להבדיל בין מלאכה מן עבודה

Am a yid attempting t’shuva after coming to Israel in 1991. Rejected the Rambam’s Sefer Ha’Mitzvot in favor of the B’HaG vision of Torah commandments. For a time-oriented commandment example: tefillah; Rambam’s introduction rejects the B’HaG’s order of mitzvot. Let’s focus upon his 5th positive commandment – tefillah. The B’HaG learns the opening Mishna of ברכות – that קריא שמע תפילה דאורייתא. The Rambam, based upon the criticism made by the RambaN, ruled that tefillah Shemone Esrei דאורייתא.

A fundamental error on par with his error concerning forced קידושין על ידי ביאה with a young minor child who lacks the mental maturity to understand the “k’vanna” of the time oriented mitzva of קידושין. This fundamental flaw in the Sefer Ha’Mitzvot which divides the תרי”ג מצוות into positive & negative commandments and ignores Av tohor time-oriented commandments an error that makes his scholarship totally treif. On par with his perversion of 4 part inductive logic פרדס – the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva, Yishmael, and Yossi Yossi Galili. Assimilated Rambam relied upon the 3 part deductive syllogism logic of Plato and Aristotle; Rambam blew out the lights of Hanukkah and caused the Jewish people a tragic ירידות הדורות, Israel forgot the Oral Torah as the Hanukkah blessing in the bencher testifies.

His statute law code utterly worthless when learning the Gemara. The example of the opening sugya of קידושין brings the common law precedents of etrog and כוי. To understand the limitations of the 3 ways a baal acquires a woman as a wife which do not apply to a young girl due to her lack of maturity – similar to etrog. Rambam’s statute law (assimilated to Roman statute law which organized law into categories), none of the super commentaries starting with the כסף משנה/Karo caught his fundamental error.

Talmudic common law (court-room judicial law) brings precedents (בניני אבות) which re-interpret (משנה תורה-common law) the intent of the language of the Mishna based upon a completely different perspective. Like the Front/Top\Side views of a blue-print permits the קבלן to construct a 3 dimensional building from a 2 dimensional blue-print. The Rambam erred when he ruled that ביאה achieves קידושין even in a young child who lacks the mental maturity to understand how a man who rapes her acquires her as his wife.

In short the halachic rulings made by this assimilated Jew utterly treif. In 1232 the Rabbis of Paris/Baali Tosafot agreed with the court of Rabbeinu Yonah in Spain and placed the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam. 10 years later the king of France together with the Pope decreed the burning of the Talmud in France. Rabbeinu Yona duplicated the error wherein the two warring brothers, Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, invited Roman general Pompey into the walls of Jerusalem to resolve their dynastic dispute. The Hasmonean kingdom fell without even a whimper. What a disgrace.

Unlike the Tzeddukim who lost the Hannukah Civil War, Karaite Rambam won the identical Civil War wherein Jews forgot the Oral Torah פרדס logic system; the Talmud compares to the warp\weft of a loom – halacha/aggada. דרוש ופשט affixed to the Aggada which makes a drosh onto T’NaCH prophetic mussar (T’NaCH like the Talmud a common law legalism); רמז וסוד weave prophetic mussar “p’shat” determining the k’vanna of halachic mitzvot. The B’HaG rules that raising mitzvot to Av tohor time-oriented commandments makes these rabbinic mitzvot into דאורייתא commandments.

This sh’itta of learning “acquired” from Rav Aaron Nemuraskii a talmid of rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv. Rabbi Nemuraskii did not teach this sh’itta of learning to his sons because he feared they would suffer isolation and disgrace. Rabbi Elyashiv did not teach this sh’itta to his sons Moshe and Binyamin, both of whom danced at my wedding, I suspect for the same exact reason. As a person attempting to remember the ways of my forefathers ie t’shuva, the risk of isolation and disgrace much more far removed.

Hanukkah clearly a post Torah rabbinic commandment. That’s if a person “shoe boxes” Torah commandments into Moshe commandments and post Moshe commandments as the Rambam did. This latter רשע totally assimilated like the Karaim and before them the Tzeddukim; all these religious sects or leaders believed and embraced as the Primary basis of their faith absolute trust and acceptance of ancient Greek Philosophy over the secondary Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev. The Rambam no different from those earlier/contemporary Jewish cults and/or sects who deny the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Obviously this includes the writers of the New Testament.

Rabbi Akiva taught a kabbalah touching the Oral Torah revelation at Horev which defines it as a rational inductive reasoning logic system. Its known as the פרדס four part inductive comparison logic which measures Case/Rule cases to other previous judicial Case\Rule cases – precedents — בניני אבות. Judicial common law establishes law through courtroom rulings rather than cult of personality authority figures or legislative law. One of the central meanings of משנה תורה – Legislative Review.

The scholar known as the B’HaG, the last generation of the Talmudic scholars which preceded the Reshonim talmudic scholars. Gaonim 600 to 950CE. Reshonim 951- 1450 CE. The Rambam published his Yad Chazakah statute law halachic code in about 1185. In context, the Rabbeinu Tam – the leader of the common law Baali Tosafot French school of Talmudic scholarship – he died prior to the Rambam publishing his assimilated abomination code of halachic statute law.

The Book known as Sefer Ha’Mitzvot the Rambam wrote as an introduction to his puke Yad narishkeit. In that book he classified the 613 Torah commandments limited strictly to the language of the Written Torah; akin to how Orthodox Xtians interpret the Creation story of sefer בראשית. The Rambam rejected the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s 4 part פרדס inductive logic format in favor of Plato and Aristotles 3 part syllogism deductive logic philosophy.

The B’HaG preceded the Rambam by about 3 generations. As one of the last of the Gaonic school of Talmudic scholarship in Iraq, he too introduced his common law halachic codification הלכות גדולות, by first addressing Torah commandments. The B’HaG greatly influenced, even dominated the early Reshon – the Rif – and how he organized his common law halachic code. The Baali Tosafot approved of the court of Rabbeinu Yonah’s ban of נידוי upon this early Spinoza Rambam; in 1232 the rabbis in Paris place the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam. The Rif, two generations before the Rambam published his Greek/Roman statute law halachic perversion.

The B’HaG’s “sefer Ha’Mitzvot” unlike the assimilated puke Rambam’s travesty codification of the so called 613 Torah commandments, which froze these commandments into, so to speak, an ice tray having two rows: positive and negative commandments. The Rambam failed to grasp the Av priority of tohor time-oriented Torah commandments!

The B’HaG understood that if a T’NaCH\Talmudic scholar possessed the wisdom to elevate secondary commandments which do not require k’vanna to Av tohor time-oriented commandments which absolutely without exception require prophetic mussar as the k’vanna; then this special type of Av commandments possessed the power to make an aliya, to raise rabbinic commandments out of the din of g’lut, unto Torah commandments observed in ארץ ישראל in all future generation redeemed from the Torah curse of g’lut. This the “substance” rather than the “form” of Torah commandment observance has the power to raise rabbinic mitzvot unto Torah commandments.

The Rambam puke – being a totally assimilated Jew clung to Greek philosophy rather than a scholars of the kabbalah of rabbis Akiva, Yishmael, Yossi Ha’Gallilee – the great Tannaim (scholars who preceded Rabbi Yechuda’s codification of Great Sanhedrin judicial rulings known as the Mishna). This “rabbi” who betrayed the substance of Rabbinic Judaism – teachers of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev, who accepted the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven from the P’rushim – the Rambam’s complete and totally treif learning compares to the New Testament abomination.

In conclusion: All time-oriented mitzvot are Av tohor commandments. Av mitzvot require כוונה, and the כוונה defined by prophetic mussar, not by the mechanistic performance of the act. Toldot mitzvot (קום ועשה / שב ואל תעשה without kavanah) rely on the Av-mitzvah to give them meaning by functioning as precedents within the language of the Written Torah.

An example of elevating rabbinic to Torah commandments: Torah allows Sanhedrin to determine months — a human action becomes the Torah’s time. If a rabbinic commandment is aligned with an Av time-oriented mitzvah and framed through prophetic mussar, it ascends from din derabbanan to din d’oraita.

The Rambam’s code, which freezes Sinai into a dead text divorced from the living Sanhedrin. Chanukkah as a Torah commandment categorically rejects Hellenistic assimilation. The establishment of both Chag Purim and Chanukkah – an act of Sanhedrin court authority. Once Ḥanukkah attaches itself to the Av-mitzvah of Hoda’ah on national geulah, its status automatically becomes דאורייתא — not because its lights – ancient, but because its kavanah dedicates a Jew to only interpret the Written Torah through פרדס Av-tohor time-oriented commandments.

The Oral Torah functions as a common-law constitutional system (פרדס), NOT some Greek statute. A Torah obligation national oath brit commitment to pursue judicial justice within the borders of our Homeland, to make fair restitution of damages inflicted upon other. The substance and reason of the first Sinai commandment.

Eisengesis vs. Exegesis

Exegesis, a disciplined approach focused on extracting meaning from a text through careful analysis through Oral Torah פרדס inductive reasoning. Eisengesis, on the other hand, replaces the kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic, as taught by rabbis Akiva, Yishmael, and Yosse HaGal with Plato\Aristotle 3-part syllogism deductive logic. Exegesis scholarship includes looking at cultural, historical, and linguistic contexts to uncover what the author intended to convey. Meaning, learning the T’NaCH texts viewed from the perspectives of Jewish culture, customs, and accepted practices – called minhagim. Exegesis schlarship simply crucial in Torah Constitutional studies. It promotes deeper, more accurate understandings of exactly how the Jewish people understand and interpret sacred texts.

Examples of Eisengesis: The Nicene Council which introduced with the power of established church dogma the creed of Trinity belief as “the mystery of Monotheism”, Illustrates the process of interpreting a text, specifically how the New Testament interprets the Hebrew T’NaCH, based on the interpreter’s own biases and preconceptions. Perspective: Subjective; the writings of Paul his subjective beliefs and clear ideologies. A sample of Paul’s skewed eisengesis, his declaration that circumcision ceased being a mitzva from the Torah. His declaration of JeZeus as the son of God; his substitute theology which prioritized “original sin of Adam” and replaced the Universal theme of the Torah of blessing/curse – life/death = g’lut\exile. Paul’s eisengesis requires the resurrection of JeZeus to atone for Adam’s original sin.

Approach: Reads into the text and imposes meanings that may not be supported by the text itself. Torah a Case/Law common law system. Paul’s unilateral declaration that “Goyim are not under the Law”. Paul’s unilateral declaration that “Goyim are not under the Law”; an absurd declaration because Goyim universally rejected the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore of course ‘Goyim not under the Law’? So why make this obvious declaration when Goyim never accepted Torah common law. Answer: Paul substituted the dominant Roman statute law for Jewish common law. Goyim only knew Statute law. Therefore they simply and falsely assumed that “not under the law” referred to the statute law with which they were intimately familiar.

This distinction highlights how cultural and legal backgrounds shape understanding of T’NaCH Constitutional texts understood as biblical religious texts. The conversion from Jewish common law to Roman statute law reflects the complexities in early Christian thought regarding “the Law”; it implies that belief in JeZeus grafted them into the Chosen Cohen People. An utterly false idea. Paul rejected keeping the commandments; circumcision, kashrut, tohor & tuma etc. These key central concepts of T’NaCH Constitutional common law became totally alien to Xtian beliefs and their Av tuma avoda zarah religion.

In particular, the propaganda of Paul completely subsumed and ignored the key Torah theme that HaShem brought Israel out of Egyptian slavery to bring them in to conquer the lands of Canaan as sworn unto the Avot as the eternal Cohen people inheritance lands. This substitute theology post the JeZeus false messiah theology impacted Goyim to prioritize being saved by the blood of the lamb rather than conquer and rule the oath sworn lands with righteous judicial common law justice which dedicates to make fair restitution of damages. The First commandment of Sinai the New Testament totally negates. Goyim by definition live in lands outside of Israel. Whereas Moshe brought Israel out of Egypt to rule Canaan.

Outcome. The introduction of the “New Testament” imposed an immediate void upon the Hebrew T’NaCH, now labeled as “Old Testament”. That Xtian religion share more in common with Muslim strict Monotheism than the T’NaCH local God linked directly to the oath sworn lands; the God of the chosen Cohen People. The NT totally obliviates the concept of the chosen Cohen People, replaced by believers in JeZeus being saved from burning for eternity in Hell. The T’NaCH concept of “the devil” metaphor (משל\נמשל) inference דיוק logic of reading T’NaCH texts refers to the Yatzir Ha’Raw within the heart. Not to some imaginary king of Demons who got expelled from Heaven following a failed rebellion against God.

Applications: Blood libels, ghetto gulag imprisonment for 3 Centuries duration till the French revolutionaries & Napoleon expelled the Catholic church from its co-rulership of the French monarchy; the American revolution separated Church from State. Church dogmatism declared Jews as cursed and the spawn of the devil; condemned to walk the face of the earth as despised refugees. This theological narishkeit culminated in the Shoah where Nietzsche declared prior to WWII that God was dead.