Tag: bible

Understanding the Gemara of קידושין viewed through the lenses of מדרש רבה.

Torah common law-משנה תורה rejects the Xtian “Paradigm” expressed through the clip Jihad in Bangladesh. Mercy, the 4th Oral Torah middah of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev, (Oral Torah the church denies even exists). Torah common law stands upon the יסוד (mystic Kabbalah) of bringing Case Din precedents in order to compare Case/Rule cases with similar Case\Din cases.

The prophets continuously compared Mercy with Grace (the 5th Oral Torah middah) when they invert their natural Order of רחום וחנון, as originally heard by Moshe Rabbeinu at Horev. These two opposing middot best understood through the כלל\פרט middot expressed through the kabbala of how rabbi Yishmael understood rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning thought process.

חנון כללי – it flows into ערך הפנים ורב חסד. ערך הפנים the 6th and רב חסד seventh middot of Torah judicial justice measurements. All the middot learn in pairs except for אמת which sits on the path of justice as the Nasi of the Sanhedrin court of 13 tohor middot of justice. These 13 middot Midrash refers to them by the סוד משל-נמשל metaphor הכסא-הכבוד נבראו. Rabbi Yochanan taught in mesechta ברכות, that ברכות צריך שם ומלכות … an identical but different perspective of the exact same משל\נמשל taught through Midrash הכסא-הכבוד נבראו. The Talmud views the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev viewed through the lenses of רמזים. Whereas Midrash views the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev viewed through the lenses of סודות. Just as the 13 middot learn in pairs, except the Nasi אמת of the Oral Torah court, so too do רמז\סוד define the k’vanna of all halachot within the Talmud. Whereas דרוש\פשט interprets the כוונה of all Aggadah & Midrashim on the T’NaCH Primary Sources of Common Law mussar literature.

The 4th middah of רחום stands upon the 9th Sefirah of יסוד – נצב התורה על רעיות. The Aramaic term רעיות compares to ריעות\friendships. רעיות the Aramaic targum of בנין אב in Hebrew. The רעיות for the middah of רחום: the mitzvot of genocide of all peoples of Canaan, the eternal War waged against Amalek\antisemitism ie Jewish assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, the דיני נפשות Sanhedrin Court ruling made against the stubborn and rebellious minor aged son, all Torah blessings vs. curses to live in the oath sworn lands in prosperity and shalom or endure judicial oppression of Par’o/Goyim bribed judges and/or prosecuting attorneys vertical courtrooms. The Torah absolutely rejects that the State pays the salaries of Court justices and attorneys. Commonly referred to in the Talmud as בית הלל ובית שמאי, also called “pairs”.

Tehillem 127:1 this פרט verse serves to define the כלל of Tehillem 127. The Holy Writing in the T’NaCH serve as the Gemara to the Mishna; the Mishna in reference to the T’NaCH – the Books of the Prophets. Specifically in this case the פרט p’suk of Yirmeyahu 1:10 contained within its כלל sugya of ירמיה א:ד-י.

בראשית רבה א:ד.

בראשית ברא אלהים. ששה דברים קדמו לבריאת העולם. ויש מהן שעלו במחשבה להבראות. התורה, והכסא, הכבוד נבראו. תורה – מנין? שנאמר (משלי ח) ה’ קנני ראשית דרכו. (This verse references the priority of acquiring wisdom in life. The language of קנני, thus relates to the opening Mishna of קידושין wherein a Man acquires the soul\title to the children born through the union of marriage with a specific woman so “acquired”. כסא – הכבוד מנין? דכתיב (תהלים לג) נכון כסאך מאז וגו’. This p’suk refers to the ‘throne of the king’ – a reference to the revelation of the 13 tohor middot revealed Orally to Moshe at Horev following the sin of the golden calf wherein HaShem made t’shuva and annulled his vow to make from the seed of Moshe Rabbeinu the chosen Cohen people rather than Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov. האבות וישראל ובית המקדש ושמו של משיח עלו במחשבה להבראות. The Moshiach compares to korbanot, both exist through formal swearing of oaths which dedicate tohor middot ie מלכות. Its not the form of some grand cathedral building, but rather the pursuit of judicial courtroom justice which defines the substance of intent of the Temple in Jerusalem. Therefore Moshiach and the building of the Federal Sanhedrin court system, referred to by the רמז of בית המקדש. Both swear a Torah oath brit to pursue righteous judicial courtroom justice which makes fair compensation of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews … the original intent or thought of Creation/להבראות.

האבות מנין? שנאמר (הושע ט) כענבים במדבר וכו’. The mussar of Hosea makes a focused theme which rebukes the unfaithfulness of Israeli kings. Their corrupt and perverted judgments when dispute heard before their courts. Hence the contrast between grapes which require a lot of water and the desert which lacks water. Hosea often calls Israel to remember the oaths sworn. Specifically: to rule the lands of Canaan with judicial justice. A rejection of the courtroom oppression of Par’o in the days of Moshe, Aaron, and Mariam. The eternal remembrance of redemption from Egypt as expressed through the mitzva of kre’a shma. ישראל מנין שנאמר (תהלים עד) זכור עדתך קנית קדם. This Tehillem bemoans the destruction of the Sanhedrin Federal Court system which translates to mean the g’lut of Jews returning to Goyim kingdoms who despise justice just as did Par’o. Confronted with the oppression of g’lut judicial injustice, only then does Israel remember the Torah oath brit of justice as sworn in the days of old.

בהמ”ק מנין שנאמר (ירמיה יז) כסא כבוד מרום מראשון וגו’. The reference to a throne of glory, a רמז to the 13 tohor middot Oral Torah revelation at Horev. That through the dedication of tohor middot our Yatzir HaTov rules over our Yatzir HaRaw within our hearts. The language מרום exalts the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. מראשון refers to the oath sworn at the Sinai acceptance-revelation, wherein Israel accepted the Torah as our Constitution to rule the land of Canaan with justice. שמו של משיח מנין? שנאמר (תהלים עב) יהי שמו לעולם וכו’. The Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach does not exist as some cult of personality. The latter defines each and every false messiah throughout Jewish history. Moshiach not a passive noun but rather a concept obligatory verb. No single Man or Woman defines the name of Moshiach because the dedication of this Torah mitzva rejects the judicial oppression of the House of Par’o. The false NT messiah Jesus prioritizes “Sin” rather than “Justice”. The Pauline doctrine of “Original Sin” amplifies the fundamental error made by the corrupt NT Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery. The name of the Moshiach compares to that of the Temple. Just as the latter prioritizes Sanhedrin lateral courtroom common law courts so too the name of the Moshiach theoretically applies to all generations of the Chosen Cohen People. As the House of Aaron dedicated holy korbanot so too Israel dedicates as holy the pursuit of righteous common law justice through Sanhedrin courtrooms.

רבי אהבה ברבי זעירא אמר אף התשובה שנאמר (שם ל) בטרם הרים יולדו. ואותה השעה תשב אנוש עד דכא וגו’. אבל איני יודע איזה מהם קודם. אם התורה קדמה לכסא הכבוד, ואם כסא הכבוד קודם לתורה From birth to grave this dichotomy metaphor refers to the relationship between the Torah and the Oral Torah as which serves as the First Cause inspiration wherein Israel remembers the oaths sworn by the Avot for the chosen Cohen people to inherit the oath sworn lands as an eternal inheritance. The fraud NT Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery, its theology totally ignores the oath sworn land inheritance together with the Sinai brit to pursue righteous judicial courtroom justice with has the Torah Constitutional mandate of “Legislative [statute law] Review”. Therefore, it seems to me that the Order of progression follows that the Written Constitution mandates the Sanhedrin Federal common law courts. The Book of דברים having the 2nd name of משנה תורה which means “Common Law”.

א”ר אבא בר כהנא התורה קדמה לכסא הכבוד שנאמר (משלי ח) ה’ קנני ראשית דרכו וגו’. קודם לאותו שכתוב בו (תהלים לג) נכון כסאך מאז. ר’ הוגא ור’ ירמיה בשם רבי שמואל בר ר’ יצחק אמרו מחשבתן של ישראל קדמה לכל דבר. This closing statement addresses a key issue. Once Yosef Karo published his statute law halachic code, this effectively sealed the perversion of the Rambam Civil War. Wherein the מחשבתן של ישראל switched from remembering the oath sworn to the Avot concerning the land and its judicial justice obligations to defining עבודת ה’ לאמונה בשלחן ארוך – religious ritual observances replace the pursuit of judicial justice as faith.

A possible בנין אב for ירמיה א:ד-י, specifically the 10 p’suk, ירמיה ב:כט-ג:י. The first exile came as a direct result of avoda zara. Yet Jews today declare, as if they were Xtians or Muslims, there is only one God! Avoda zara theology all about personal belief in this that or some other God. Following the 10 plagues, the splitting of the Sea of Reeds and the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev, these events witnessed rather than believed because some authority said so. Avoda zara creates cults of personality placed upon pedestals.

The brit faith spins around the central axis of inheriting the lands of Canaan as an eternal inheritance of the Chosen Cohen people. Shall Israel conquer Canaan and rule it like Par’o ruled Egypt or the kings of Canaan ruled through theft, sexual pollution, physical violence & oppressive brutality; specifically expressed through judicial bribery when the victims turned to the courts for restitution of damages inflicted. Shall Israel conquer Canaan and rule this land in the manner of Xtian and Muslim crush and despise minority populations, which compare to low hanging fruits easily plucked. The 2nd paragraph of the kre’a shma outright rejects Xtian and Muslim avoda zara – judicial oppression.

Straight judicial justice shares nothing in common with buying a beautiful dress for ones’ wife and taking her out to dinner. Justice requires t’shuva of remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot wherein HaShem swore a brit alliance that their seed would for ever live as the chosen Cohen people. Justice does not compare to forgetting your wife’s wedding anniversary. Justice requires compensation for actual acts of hatred! Justice requires compensation for actual acts of hatred! Comparable to the blood libel and ghetto gulag or ‘inferior race’ slanders which lead to the gates of the Nazi death camps – acts of absolute hatred and contempt – acts of absolute hatred and contempt.

דברים יד:כב-כז This sugya addresses מעשר שני and acquiring what your heart desires to eat and wear within the City of the Great Sanhedrin Court. This tohor time-oriented commandment creates מלאכים שנברא בקידושה of the Av tohor mitzvot. Israel dwells within the land with security and contentment.

The creation of Adam compares to the precedent of כוי in the closing opening sugya of קידושין. The Torah refers to Adam as האדם לנפש חיה. As the כוי has qualities of both domestic and wild animals so too Man has a Yatzir driven by tohor vs tuma middot spirits. This Human Nature does not qualify as “Sin”. The NT Protocols of the Elders of Zion fraud, imposed a guilt trip which caused Russian peasants to hate and despise Jews. The false notion that Man Kind needs redemption form “Sin”, millennia has cursed Humanity. Slander does not determine the guilt of a man. Only the courts of common law – they rule and distinguish between the righteous and wicked among the Jewish people; emotionally defined as the flow of divine Oral Torah middot; understanding the emotional extremes seen through the lenses of the Yatzir HaTov vs. the Yatzir HaRaw spirits which rule the Human heart/mind relationship.

When a person behaves “Coy” – they seek to deceive others through deceptions like false modesty etc. Bipolar Disorder also known as Manic Depression – opposite pairs of Keter/Malchut of the Sefirot within the framework of the Zohar kabbalah. This Dr. Jekel Mr. Hyde dichotomy defines the eternal struggle between the opposing tohor/tuma spirits which drive the Yatzirot within the bnai brit heart. Its this eternal struggle between conflicting middot which religions of avoda zara confuse with God vs. Satan primitive and barbaric superstitions. Torah wisdom requires that students of Torah learn and discern the distinctions which separate one tohor middah from another. The middah of רב חסד for example – best defined through the Aramaic mystic term מאי נפקא מינא ובעברית תמיד מעשה בראשית.

Hence the middah of רחום stands upon the precedents of genocide commandment: war against the peoples of Canaan, the eternal war against Amalek, the judicial death sentence imposed upon the stubborn rebellious minor son, and blessings vs. curses ie ruling the land with judicial justice vs. enduring g’lut Goyim judicial oppression. The spirit of mercy breathes within the Yatzir Ha’Tov when Sanhedrin justices prioritize the blessing of Israel ruling the land with justice by not assimilating or copying the customs and cultures of Goyim populations and/or civilizations which reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The 2nd Sinai commandment quite clear – Jewish avoda zara results in g’lut from our oath brit homelands. Just that simple, no fancy dance’n.

Monotheism not only violates the 2nd Sinai commandment, but it ignores the 10 plagues of Egypt concluded by the splitting of the Sea of Reeds — all of which judged the Gods of Egypt. The brit cut at Gilgal by the prophet Yehoshua prior to conquering 33 Canaanite kingdoms, that HaShem would judge the Gods of Canaan like as did HaShem judge the Gods of Egypt.

“”You Don’t beat a strong enemy by being stronger. You beat him by making him think incorrectly.”” Staff Sergeant Thomas Callahan

The decision made by the Rambam, and virtually all the Reshonim rabbis made famous through the false reference “the Golden Age of Spain”, almost all of these Reshonim rabbis thoroughly assimilated to Ancient Greek philosophy & deductive syllogism logic.

Abraham Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1167), remains a towering figure in Spanish Reshonim scholarship of the Chumash and Talmud. A prominent Reshonim scholar, poet, and philosopher born in Spain. His son, Joseph Ibn Ezra, converted to Islam. This conversion quite common during that period of mass Jewish assimilation and intermarriage. Various factors, including economic, social, and political pressures, often influenced such decisions.

But by far the most damning influence upon Spanish Reshonim Jewry: the Muslim re-discovery of the concealed ancient Greek texts which produced a Jewish Civil War during the Syrian Greek Seleucid dynasty. During Ibn Ezra’s time, many Jews lived under Islamic rule, Islam reached the pinnacle of their empires’ cultural and social development. Islam dominated all fields of intellectual research. Their societal dynamics produced a culturally vibrant civilization which cast Europe as barbarian cave dwelling Neanderthals by comparison. The conversion of Ezra’s son exposed a complex emotional issue not only for Ibn Ezra, (challenging his beliefs, values, and the cultural identity he championed in his writings), but the Reshonim of Spain cast a light which casts the great Gaonim schools in Iraq into their shadows.

Following the death of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BCE, founded by Seleucus I Nicator, one of Alexander’s generals. The Greek Syrian empire encompassed a vast region stretching from modern-day Turkey and Greece in the northwest to parts of Persia and Pakistan in the east. This Greek dynasty, known for its blend of Greek and Eastern cultures; it promoted Hellenization in the regions it governed, encouraging the spread of Greek language, art, philosophy, and politics. The sycophant assimilated Tzeddukim sought to convert Jerusalem into a Greek City State. These Jewish traitors sought to replace the kabbalah explanation of the 13 tohor middot Oral Torah revelation at Horev made through rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning logic format with the deductive syllogism logic of Plato and Aristotle.

The Syrian Greeks relied upon sycophant assimilated Tzeddukim – who rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, and how much more so the kabbalah taught by rabbis Akiva, Yishmael, and Yossi Ha’Gallee; the Tzeddukim, and later Karaim assimilated Jews, the latter who at their height, fully half of all g’lut Jewry accepted and embraced their literal reading of the T’NaCH Primary sources; which view the T’NaCH as religious texts, rather than the P’rushim – who prioritized the Oral Torah as judicial common law courtroom justice.

Hanukkah marks the Jewish Civil War which pitted the assimilated Tzeddukim house of Aaron Cohonim against the P’rushim, who cut a political alliance with the Maccabees. The latter house of Aaron family, lead by Yechuda Maccabee, who died in the war – which defeated the Syrian Greek empire. And resulted in the birth to the Hasmonean Kingdom – 140 to 63 BCE. The 3rd Jewish kingdom prior to the birth of Muhammad and the Islamic movement.

The Muslim conquest of Spain in around 900CE, with mass publication of the lost Ancient Greek thoughts which do dominated the cultural life of the Maccabbees and the Hasmonean kingdom, once again ripped off the bandages of that Tzeddukim/P’rushim Civil War and exposed the Karaite/Rabbinic Civil War of the early Middle Ages. Publication of the Rambam’s Yad, for many Jews torn between the opposing doctrines taught by the Karaim vs. the Rabbis, this halachic code served as a Middle Ground compromise which effectively terminated the influence on a mass scale of the Karaim anti Talmudic theologies. The Rambam actually wrote that with his code, Jews no longer needed to consult with the Talmud!!!

Understanding how Chag Hanukkah a mitzva דאורייתא

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.

סוף סוגיה א קידושין: משנה תורה

The opening sugya of each and every mesechta of the Talmud compares to the first ברכה in the Shemone Esrei; only this ברכה employs the שם ומלכות requirement k’vanna אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב. Impossible to translate שם ומלכות with a טיפש פשט literal translation. ברכת כהנים, קריא שמע, תפילה, וקדיש all av ברכות lack the literal שם ומלכות expressed through rabbinic ברכות which start with the classic opening of swearing a Torah oath: ברוך אתה ה’ אלהינו מלך עולם.

The wisdom of שם ומלכות the fundamental difference between מלאכה from עבודה, based upon the first commandment of Sinai – the greatest commandment in the entire Torah: אנכי ה’ אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים. Israel in g’lut of Egypt (לאו דוקא) all lands outside of the brit oath sworn lands amount to g’lut. Hence the first commandment only applicable to Jews who live and rule our oath brit homelands. Jews in g’lut remain in “Egypt” and therefore the first Sinai commandment does not apply to them.

The revelation of the Torah at Sinai makes a clear הבדלה through the משל\נמשל metaphor of the Mishkan, as expressed through the Book of שמות. G’lut slaves forced to live their lives drudging through the cursed Earth of working/עבודה making a living off the sweat of their brow. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai introduces, specifically through the mitzva of Shabbat, & the construction of the vessels of the Mishkan a “wisdom” form of work known as מלאכה. Therefore all mesechtot of the Sha’s Talmud prioritize the need to differentiate cursed g’lut עבודה from blessed wisdom מלאכה. Both Goyim and Joys struggle to marry and raise children. But only the latter elevate this basic fundamental task unto a blessed מלאכה which causes the first born chosen Cohen people to live from generation to generation dedicated to the מלאכה of elevating קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות שלא צריך כוונה לטהר זימן גרמא מצוות שנזקוק כוונה.

What separates or רב חסד\מאי נפקא מינא the verb נזקוק from the verb צריך? Specifically in the matter of קידושין, a Man marries a woman in order to give birth to the next generations of the Chosen Cohen People. נזקוק “We will need”; צריך “Need” or “necessary”. נזקוק Future tense, first-person plural; צריך Infinitive form. נזקוק Used when referring to a specific future need or requirement – known as O’lam Ha’bah. צריך Generally indicates necessity, often used in various contexts. נזקוק Implies a planned or anticipated need; צריך More immediate or general need.

Why do טהר זימן גרמא מצוות נזקוק כוונה? Whereas קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות לא צריך כוונה? The former a wisdom מלאכה, whereas the latter, like doing mitzvot because the Shulkan Aruch says so neither a wisdom nor a מלאכה. Hence this type of Torah observance known as עבודת השם. People can do mitzvot by rote, or by the numbers, simply out of habit and mindless tradition. The difference between these two critically different verbs … the difference between ruling the oath sworn lands with righteous judicial justice imposing courts together with prophet police enforcers from religiously observing mitzvot in what ever land a Jew happens to reside therein.

זימן גרמא מצוות נברא מלאכים תולדות מצוות לא נברא מלאכים. Its this fundamental distinction which permits the Jews living in ארץ ישראל to either defeat our enemies in any and all wars or fall before the swords of our hated enemies and go into g’lut. The מלאכה of the study of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law spins continuously around this Central axis…everything else simply commentary. Elevating stam mitzvot unto tohor time oriented Av Torah commandments … herein defines the essence of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai in a single sentence.

The Bullwinkle characters, otherwise known as the Reshonim, they lacked this essential clarity of what defines all T’NaCH and Talmud scholarship. Why? Because cursed g’lut Jews cannot do mitzvot לשמה.
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
הא קמשמע לן דאתרוג כירק מה ירק דרכו ליגדל על כל מים ובשעת לקיטתו עישורו, אף אתרוג דרכו ליגדל על כל מים ובשעת לקיטתו עישורו. והא דתנן כוי יש בו דרכים שוה לחיה וש דרכים שוה לבהמה
In terms of kashrut a כוי, qualifies as a tumah animal. The כוי can symbolize certain qualities or behaviors that need to be understood when applying moral or ethical teachings in Jewish law. The Talmud often presents specific cases where the status of the כוי comes into play, including questions of ownership, tithing, and other relational dynamics with humans. The subject of קידושין addresses the subject of “ownership” through the acquisition of the Nefesh O’lam Ha’Bah of the woman’s soul, specifically title to the children born into the future through this marital union.
ויש בו דרכים שאינו שוה לא לחיה ולא לבהמה. ניתני דברים ותו הא דתנן זו אחת מן הדרכים ששוו גיטי נשים לשחרורי עבדים ניתני דברים אלא כל היכא דאיכא פלוגתא תני דרכים וכל היכא דליכא פלוגתא תני דברים דיקא נמי דקתני סיפא ר”א אומר אתרוד שוה לאילן כל דבר ש”מ.
The 8th middah אמת understood under the heading of דרכים as opposed to דברים! Goyim by stark contrast employ truth as if no dispute exists. That truth stands as irrefutable. The culture and customs of the Jewish people reject this definition of “truth” as utter arrogance and hypocrisy and if power determines truth. The schism with splits and divides all the many and diverse divisions of both Xtianity and Islam centers upon who controls the monopoly of religious belief and practice.

As an Israeli living in the Jewish state clearly my opinion takes a rather dim view of the Bullwinkle Reshonim scholarship upon both the T’NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim, and Siddur. The עשרת הדברות serves as a clear example. The Talmud understands that Israel only accepted the First TWO Sinai Commandments before we demanded that Moshe receive the rest of the Torah; the repetition of the “Xtian” ten commandments, in the Book of דברים, serve as “Mishna” precedents to understand the Torah commandment, to remember the deliverance from Egyptian exile – contained within the first Sinai commandment and the קריא שמע acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven; meaning the obligation to do tohor time-oriented commandments to תמיד מעשה בראשית created the chosen Cohen people יש מאין through the wisdom of מלאכה.

The so called 10 commandments serve as a בנין אב to remember how HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt through the 10 plagues – to forever discern g’lut from ruling the oath sworn lands of Canaan with righteous judicial lateral court common ‘legislative review’ law. The first two Torah commandments contain the whole of the Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev! All the rest of the Torah commandments and Talmudic Halachot function merely as commentaries.

Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina, they sealed the Sha’s Bavli; Rabbis Yohanan, Abbahu, and Hiyya sealed the Yerushalmi Talmud. G’lut Jewry has since placed the Bullwinkle Reshonim upon a pedestal and made them into cults of personality. But the wisdom of our sages accomplished a מלאכה, by sealing the T’NaCH, Talmud, and Siddur they “sealed” an identical masoret to all generations of the Jewish people. Rashi thereafter learned in his commentary to the Talmud that post sealing of the Sha’s Jews need only employ the קל וחומר the last middah of rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot. Meaning that this one rule permits employment of all the middot of rabbi Yishmael, to learn precedents from one Gemara compared to other mesechtot of the Sha’s. Sealing the Sha’s gave all down stream generations of Israel an identical masoret. The secondary Reshonim commentaries do not in any way resemble the sealed masoret established by the Framers of the Talmud.

תוס. דף ב: אתרוג שוה לאילן בג’ דרכים. פי’ בקונטרס לערלה ולרבעי ולשביעית דלענין שביעית הולכין בפירותיו אחר חנטה כאילן ולא בתר לקיטה כירק. וא”ת השתא משמע דרבעי נוהג באתרוג א”כ קשה מהכא למ”ד תני כרס רבעי בריש כיצד מברכין (ברכות דף לה.) דמשמע דאין רבעי נוהג בשאר אילנות. וי”ל דה”ק כרם רבעי כל היכא דמצי למתני דהיכא דל”מ למתני לא פליגי עליה דלא פליגי התם לומר שלא יסבור שום תנא נטע רבעי דשמא בר מההיא דאתרוג איכא פלוגתא דתנאי בהדיא בשום מקום ולא נחלקו אלא לסתום המשניות דסוף מס’ מעשר שני ובשאר דוכתין אי כמאן דסבר (ברכות דף לה.) נטע רבעי אי כמאן דסבר (שם) כרס רבעי לידע כמאן הלכתא וי”מ דאפי’ מאן דתני כרס רבעי מודה בשאר אילנות דמדרבנן נוהג והכא מדרבנן קאמר ויש לנו נפקיתא בדבר דאי פלידי דמאן דתני דכרס רבעי דוקא אבל בנטע אין רבעי כלל אפילו מדרבנן ואמרו (שבת דף קלט.) כל המיקל בארץ הלכה כמותו בחוצה לארץ וא”כ עכשיו בחו”ל אין דין רבעי נוהג באילנות ואי מדרבנן כ”ע מודו דנוהג בשאר אילנות ה”ה בחו”ל דרבעי נוהג מדרבנן ומה שפי’ בקונטרס לשביעית אזלינן בתר חנטה כאילן ולא בתר לקיטה כירק משמע מתוך פירושו דבירק אזלינן בתר לקיטה לענין שביעית ולא דק דבמס’ שביעית (פ”ט מ”א) תנן כל הספיחים מותרין חוץ מספיחי כרוב והקשה רבינו נסים דבפרק מקום שנהגו (פסחים דף נא:) תני איפכא ותרץ דבההיא דמס’ שביעית דקתני כל הספיחים מותרין מיירי בספיחים של ערב שביעית שנכנסו בשביעית דכיון שגדלו רובן בששית הם כשל ששית ומותרין אף לסחורה חוץ מזפיחי כרוב שהם אסורין לדחורה כדין שביעית או אחר הביעור לאכילה כדמפרשינן בירודלמי דכל ירק אתה יכול לעמוד עליו בין חדש בין ישן אבל ספיחי כרוב שדרכו לגדל אמהות אמהות ויש עלין שהם גדלים בשביעית ושמא יקח מן העלין שהן אסורין ויאמר מן האמהות לקחתי וההוא דמקום שנהגו (שם) דקתני כל הספיחים אסורים מיירי בספיחים שגדלו בשביעית ואליבא דרבי עקיבא דדריש וכי מאחר שלא נזרע מהיכן אוספין אלא לימד על הספיחים שהן אסורים אפילו לאכילה וכ”ש לסחורה וסבר דספיחים אסורין בשביעית מדאורייתא ואפילו קודם זמן הביעור וכשיצאו למוצאי שביעית אסור מדרבנן בכדי שיעשו כיוצא בהן וקסבר כל שאר ספיחים אסורים במוצאי שביעית אבל ספיחי כרוב שאין כיוצא בהן בירקות השדה לא גזריני בהם משום שאר ספיחים דהא מינכרא מילתא ומה שגידל אמהות הרי היא של שביעכית ואסור ומה שלא הגיע הרי הוא של מוצאי שביעית ושרי ומאן דחוי לגבר אינש דאכל ספיחי כרוב למוצאי שביעת לא אתי למיכל שאר ספיחים דהא שאני משאר ספיחים ולא גזרינן היתירא משום איסורא מ”מ ש”מ דלא אזלינן כלל בירק בתר לקיטה אלא בתר וב גידולים מדשרי ספיחי ששית שנכנסו לשביעית וי”ל דנהי דההיא דלא אזלינן בתר לקיטה מ”מ בתר חנטה נמי לא אזלינן אלא הגדל באיסור אסור בהיתר מותר מה שאין כן באתרוג ושאר אילן דאזלינן לגמרי בתר חנטה דאם חנט באיסור אפי’ מה שגדל בהיתר אח”כ אסור והשתא לשביעית שוה לאילן דאי הוה כירק הוה אזלינן תבר רוב גידול

A minor girl lacks the maturity to give her consent to קידושין acquisition, be it through כסף שטר או ביאה. Because she lacks the required mental maturity to give her consent, therefore none of these three ways – accomplishes the mitzva of קידושין. The Tosafot commentary emphasizes the importance of understanding the dynamics of learning common law precedents, to ensure that interpretations of how this etrog precedent בנין אב applies to the Case of קידושין. Specifically to the Case of a minor girl. The distinct acquisition methods (money, document, cohabitation) reflect appropriate legal qualifications, based upon certain implied basic limitations based upon age and maturity. A contract must follow and obey its pre-conditions wherein the signing parties to the contract stipulate their agreement.

Let’s now contrast Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale and their tits on a boar hog narishkeit puke commentaries which perverted Talmudic common law unto assimilated Roman statute law noise.

הלכות נזירות פ”ב:י.
היו מהלכין בדרך וראו את הכוי מרחוק ואמר אחד מהם הריני נזיר שזה חיה. ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שזה בהמה. ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שאין זה חיה. וטמא טחא הריני נזיר שאין זה בהמה. ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שאין זה לא חיה ולא בהמה. ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שזה בהמה וחיה הרי כולם נזירים. מפני שהכוי יש בו דרכים שוה בהן לחיה ויש בו דרכים שוה בהן לבהמה. ויש בו דרכים שוה לחיה ולבהמה ויש בו דרכים שאינו שוה לא לבהמה ולא לחיה. והוא הדין אם ראו אנדרוגינוס ונחלקו בו אם הוא איש או אשה ונדרו על דרך שנדרו אלו בכוי הרי כוךם נזירים. שהאנדרוגינוס יש בו דרכים שוה בהן לאיש. ודרכים שוה בהן לאשה. ודרכים שאינו שוה בהן לא לאיש ולא לאשה. ודרכים שהן שוין לאיש ולאשה.

כסף משנה — היו מהלכים בדרך וראו את הכוי מרחוק וכו’. משנה שם. מ”ש וה”ה אם ראו אנדרוגינוס וכו’. בתוספתא פ”ג

Neither this nor that provides any understanding of how the precedent of כוי serves to amplify how to correctly understand how a young girl compares or differs from a mature adult young woman! None of the assimilated statute legalist book lickers contribute squat to how the Case of כוי directly applies to the opening words of the Av Mishna of קידושין. The issue at hand has nothing what so ever to do with נזיר. Worthy trees cut down for this utter total noise narishkeit! Centuries of scholars and not one of them asked what נזיר has to do with a minor girl vs a mature young woman on the issue of קידושין.

Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale and all the Snidely Whiplash brown nose bootlickers who worship their Reshon placed upon a pie in the sky ירידות הדורות pedestal – their scholarship all Av tuma tits on a boar hog treif tuma garbage.

Discerning Classic Av tuma avoda zara


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.

משנה תורה – קידושין סוגיה א

To date we have weighed how the precedents of the maturity of the etrog, coupled with the dispute which differentiates the time that the fruit sprouts vs the time of the fruit harvested as precedents, to understand why its forbidden for a man to force a child who lacks the mental maturity to understand how the sex act accomplishes the Torah mitzva of קידושין. In point of fact this abstract idea even accomplished and famous rabbis lack clarity over what actually a man acquires through the mitzva of קידושין. Never met a single student in Yeshiva, when asked this basic question – that answered: קידושין acquires Title to the Nefesh O’lam Ha’Bah souls born into the future of this marital relationship. Our focus has centered upon perhaps the two most famous rabbinic buffoons Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale.

Gemara Halacha does not stand upon its own two legs as the statute halachic codifications infamously proclaim while preaching from their pedestals. Halacha ripped from the context of its Gemara sugiya directly compares to the פשט Chumash commentaries written by some of the most famous Reshonim, starting with Rashi’s commentary read in the manner, (according to the Chabad Moshiach Rebbe’s Rashi commentary), by a 5 year old child. Rashi p’shat does not stand divorced from its Primary Source precedents and how much more so from the Chumash to which it comments upon. This כלל applies to all Reshonim commentaries made upon the Chumash, the Talmud, and the Midrashim. My first year studying in a Yeshiva in Israel, it shocked me that my rabbinic instructors did not have the least bit of a clue how the Siddur serves as the model for the organization of the Sha’s Talmud!

The Yerushalmi, which I started to learn within my first month in Yeshiva, teaches that over 247 prophets – occupied in writing the Shemone Esrei. How many words does the 18 blessings of the Yerushalmi Shemone Esrei contain? The Shemone Esrei stands as the quintessential model wherein the Framers and editors of the Sha’s Talmud(s) edited and organized those most essential common law texts. Sha’s Sugiyot directly compare to the ברכות contained within the Shemone Esrei.

The Magen Avraham (מגן אברהם) opening blessing, directly aligns with the closing “Sim Shalom” closing blessing. This latter blessing, part of the Jewish liturgy which focuses tefillah, ie an oath created Angel – for peace, goodness, and blessings. The sugyot of the Talmud opens and closes with a “thesis statement” and a restated משנה תורה thesis statement. Likewise all points and issues raised in the body of each and every sugiya of Gemara falls within the sh’itta/line of the opening & closing thesis statement expressed in each and every sugiya of Gemara texts.

Siddur contains the שרש, meaning its a verb rather than a noun, like מלאכה – a verb rather than a noun, or like shalom כנגד peace a verb rather than a noun. This word מלאכה compares to – run or walk – verbs which describe actions. In like manner מלאכה describes the actions of skilled labor. Thus making it a verb and not a noun. It represents a different unique verb that does not communicate a specific clear action. Run & Walk as Olympic sports has an entirely different meaning than Run & Walk in normal usage.

Skilled labor or the need for trust for shalom to exist, separates the foundation of verbs from nouns. By focusing on actions, such as the action required to learn an off the dof precedent from a different mesechta of the Sha’s Bavli, this action rather than a passive noun of reading Reshonim commentary secondary sources, embodies dynamic relationships rather than merely conveying static Tur repeated Reshonim opinions. Its this unique quality which separates פרדס inductive reasoning from syllogism deductive reasoning. The one a dynamic logic format whereas the other a static logic format.

Learning an off the dof sugya of Gemara requires weaving that sugya perspective back to re-interpret both the language of that off the dof Mishna, as well as viewing the current studied sugya of Gemara viewed from a different perspective, and also making a משנה תורה re-interpretation of the language of the Home Mishna. By contrast reading a secondary source commentary focuses only upon the specific language contained within the sugya of the Home Gemara. Even the Baali Tosafot did not employ their off the dof precedents to re-interpret the original language of their Home Mishna!

The sin of the Golden Calf clearly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that words have their limitations. Word translations of Divine Names or middot not equal nor the same as the Spirits which breath life within Divine Names and tohor middot. The latter revelation of the 13 middot introduced the tohor Spirits which define the Oral Torah at Horev! A Venn diagram might best describe how verbs, nouns, words & Spirits overlap and interweave with one another. This subtle distinction the Creed based belief system theologies do not grasp. John 1:1 – In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Perhaps this one gospel verse best encapsulates the exact nature of Av tuma avoda zarah – expressed through the NT and the Koran creed belief system theologies which creates Gods from nothing.

Boris’s Arabic translation of Moreh Nevukim – Greek philosophy interpretation of Torah, baptized as Greek philosophy compares to the Hebrew T’NaCH translated unto the Xtian Old Testament bible perversions! Boris translated middot spirits as “physical attributes” – simply false, and totally wrong. The latter gross mistranslation of middot as physical attributes, implies that these spirits exist as physical qualities when in point of fact they do not. Middot serve as the basic elements which produce prophetic mussar, something like as do atoms in forming elements and molecules, proteins and fats as expressed through biology.

Concepts get lost through translations. An undergraduate scholar gets by with reading translated texts – as an introduction to the subject. A PhD scholar studies texts in their original languages. Because the NT, originally written in Greek, Xtian “scholars” (what a joke) they confuse Primary Sources with secondary translation, the priority of learning Hebrew and Aramaic of secondary importance to learning Greek & Latin. All Xtian translations of their bible abominations of av tuma avoda zarah stink with the foul smell of death corruption – like unto decaying bodies in Nazi mass graves of murdered Jews within the Death Camps. By their fruits you shall know them.

Modern 20th Century attempts to translate the Talmud, almost as corrupt as Xtian bible translations or the Muslim Koran throughout the Ages. Time-oriented tohor commandments create מלאכים יש מאין. Yet the Angel Gavriel dictated the Koran to Muhammad when that illiterate never learned the T’NaCH time-oriented wisdom. Who refers repeatedly about himself as “the prophet”. כלל: A person who testifies about himself – never believed. Why? Because he’s touching the matter, he has an ax to grind.

Boris’s Arabic Moreh Nevukim directly resembles Arabic writing styles, post publication of the Koran. He too writes extensively concerning prophets. Yet both Boris and Muhammad fail to grasp that T’NaCH prophets, like Sanhedrin courts, their jurisdiction limited strictly and only within the borders of the brit lands. Hence some mockers within the 10 Tribal kingdom of Israel would deride prophets, telling them to go back to the kingdom of Yechuda! The false prophets exposed within the Books of the NaCH, compare to both Boris and Muhammad. No Sanhedrin courts of common law No prophets – just that simple.

Prophets serve as police enforcers of Sanhedrin Judicial rulings. The prophet Yonah compares to the precedent set by Moshe Rabbeinu who established 3 Cities of Refuge with their small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Courtrooms on the other side of the Jordan river. The Tannaim within the pages of the Jerushalmi Talmud debated whether king David established a small Sanhedrin court in the city of Damascus. A small Sanhedrin court in newly conquered land means that the government has nationalized this land as part of the borders of Israel.

Profound deep ideas compare to the layers of an onion. Peeling an onion often entails shedding of tears. Impossible to read a translation and understand complex abstract ideas. Any more that mobs of screaming assimilated Jews in New York holding up placards: “Not in Our Name”, who base their emotional assimilated mob mentality upon little more than Newspaper copy or pictures and gossip! The political assassination of Charlie Kirk testifies that mob emotional over reactions can no more bear rational thought than can diseased European minds can heal their brain cancer of antisemitism.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
הלוקח לולב מחבירו בשביעית נותן לו אתרוג במתנה לפי שאין רשאי ללוקחו בשביעית. גמ. לא רצה ליתן לו במתנה. מהו? אמר רב הונא, מבליע ליה דמי אתרוג בלולב וליתיב ליה בהדיא לפי שאין מוסרין דמי פירות שביעית לעם הארץ

Profaning shabbat in a public manner qualifies as a חילל השם, the same equally applies to profaning shemitah etrog/4 species in public. Selling or giving shemitah fruits to someone untrustworthy Heter Mechira modern orthodox who publicly display a lack of reverence for holy produce, resulting in חילול השם – showing public contempt for Torah obedience. Allowing and paying workers to work on Shabbat could result in חילול השם, as it not only violates Shabbat laws but also potentially influences public perception of Torah honor and obedience.

Torah in this sense compares to honoring ones’ father and mother. In both cases, the essence of חילול השם centers on public behavior that disrespects sacred traditions. Whether through giving shemitah produce to the untrustworthy Heter Mechira modern orthodox or allowing work on Shabbat while providing compensation, both situations risk undermining the sanctity of our common law judicial system as its respect applies in a communal context. Members of Israeli society bear full responsibility for upholding the values and integrity of the Torah as the Constitution of our Republic. The idea of חילול השם ברבים equally applies to קידושין witnessed by at least two kosher shabbat observant witnesses and a minyan of Israel. Forced child marriage likewise qualifies as a public חילול השם. That our “friend” Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale validate קטנה ביאה קידושין would seem to qualify as לפי שאין מוסרין דמי פירות שביעית לעם הארץ.

אמר רב מחלוקת בפרי ראשון אבל בפרי [מעשר] שני דברי הכל בין דרך מקח בין דרך חילול והא דקתני לקח לקח איידי דתנא רישא לקח תנא נמי סיפא לקח איתיביה רבינא לרב אשי מי שיש לו סלע של שביעית וביקש ליקח בו חלוק כיצד יעשה ילך אצל חנווני הרגיל אצלו ואומר לו תן לי בסלע פירות ונותן לו וחוזר ואומר לו הרי פירות הללו נתונים לך במתנה והוא אומר לו הא לך סלע זו במתנה והלה לוקח בהן מה שירצה והא הכא דפרי שני הוא וקתני דרך מקח אין דרך חילול לא אלא א”ר אשי מחלוקת בפרי שני אבל בפרי ראשון ד”ה דרך מקח אין דרך חילול לא והא דקתני אחד שביעית ואחד מעשר שני מאי שביעית דמי שביעית דאי לא תימא הכי מעשר מעשר ממש והא כתיב (דברים יד) וצרת הכסף בידך אלא דמי מעשר הכא נמי דמי שביעת “דרך מקח”

(Derech mekkach) means (purchase), while “דרך חילול” refers to the concept of redemption or sanctifying items. Rav Ashi clarifies that the handling of מעשר שני fruits (which are viewed with less sanctity) has different rules compared to שביעית fruits. He emphasizes that while it’s permitted to purchase second fruits, it’s not permitted to engage in an act of redemption for them. The concept of how shemitah and מעשר שני respected, significantly impacts interactions among communal economic and agricultural practices, ensuring respect for Constitutional “rights” even in financial matters.

Rav Ashi does indicate that different rules for managing מעשר שני compared to שביעית. Specifically, he clarifies that while one may engage in transactions involving second tithe fruits, it’s not permissible to perform an act of redemption on them. Does this precedent imply that a father can sell his בת קטנה שאין לה דעת [in] קידושין על ידי ביאה? Based upon the Torah which evaluates the worth of young and old, based upon their different ages.

A bat ketana, a girl between the ages of 3 to 6 years, her father has the authority to make certain decisions on her behalf. The father can arrange a marriage for his bat ketana. He can sell her as a servant, on condition of קידושין at an age where she has דעת. Such a conditional קידושין must adhere to halachic principles, emphasizing the welfare and dignity of the child remain protected and respected.

Jewish law requires consent and respect for the individual’s autonomy, even if a father can Constitutionally sell off his בת קטנה as a maid servant. While a father has Constitutional rights regarding his bat ketana, these rights, definitely limited and restricted. Not absolute, and must be exercised in a manner that respects the child’s dignity and well-being. רבקה שאלה אם היא מסכימה ללכת עם אליעזר. Using bi’ah to effectuate kiddushin for a bat ketana, even one between the ages of 3 and 6, definitely problematic, both halachically and ethically. Thus, while the father has rights to make decisions on behalf of his daughter, the implications of those decisions must align with Jewish values and laws aimed at protecting the dignity of all individuals, most especially minors.

Having presented the first two legs of the syllogism now turn to the conclusion reached that follows our Gemara’s shared “sh’itta” line of reasoning.

אי הכי אתרוג נמי בת ששית הכנסת לשביעית היא, אתרוג בתר לקיטה אזלינן. והא בין ר”ג ובין ר’ אליעזר לענין שביעית אתרוג בתר חנטה אזלינן דתנן אתרוג שוה לאילן בג’ דרכים לערלה ולרבעי ולשביעית ולירק בדרך אחד שבשעת לקיטתו עישורו דברי רבן גמליאל. ר’ אליעזר אומר אתרוג שוה לאילן לכל דבר הוא

According to Rabbi Gamliel, while the etrog may be treated like a tree for most laws, it follows the rules of vegetables at the time of harvesting. This implies that the classification might depend on when it is picked rather than when it first sprouted. Rabbi Eliezer argues that the etrog, treated like a tree in every respect, suggesting that its status remains constant and influenced more by when it first buds (hantah) rather than when it is harvested. Boris indeed rules that the halacha follows the opinion of Rabbi Gamliel, indicating that the status of the etrog is determined at the time of harvesting (lekita) rather than when it first sprouts. This aligns with Rabbi Gamliel’s view that the etrog functions like a vegetable in this regard.

חדושי הרשב”א השלם. אתרוג שוה לאילן בג’ דרכים: אבל בתוס’ הקשו ליתני לכלאים. דירק בכרם אסור ואילן שרי. וליתני ארבעה כאילן ומשום הכי פירשו דהכא דין חנטה ולקיטה קתני. כלומר לערלה ולרבעי ולשביעית בתר חנטה כאילן. ולמעשר בתר לקיטה כירק. וכן פרש”י בעצמו במס’ ר”ה יד:ב.

According to the Rashba and as aligns with Rabbi Gamliel’s earlier position, the etrog – treated as a tree regarding certain mitzvot (like orlah and shemitah) and akin to a vegetables regarding ma’aser. The classification depends on two criteria: hantah (budding) for determining its status as a tree for certain laws and lekita (harvesting) for determining its status for others. For the purposes of shemitah, Rabbi Gamliel treats the etrog like a tree regarding issues like orlah and fruits of the shemitah year (as discussed, treated according to hantah). Understood in the contexts of קידושין, as the maturity of a young girl as the determinant for the mitzva of קידושין.

However, for ma’aser, he positions it as being determined at harvesting (lekita), indicating that the status of the etrog as a mitzvah based on its maturity at the time of picking impacts its halachic standing. The mitzva of קידושין does not recognize ma’aser as a valid precedent for קידושין. Rabban Gamliel does treat the etrog regarding shemitah in terms of when it has spouted, using that hantah for its classification. This means that its maturity and the time of picking (lekita) play roles in establishing its halachic status as a mitzvah for the four species on Sukkot. The laws governing קידושין operate under distinct principles and cannot simply rely on agricultural analogy.

The concept of using the etrog’s classifications (particularly regarding hantah and lekita) primarily applies in agricultural contexts and may not directly translate into personal status cases or marriage contracts. Hantah applies specifically to agricultural laws (like shemitah and orlah) and relates to factors affecting status at sprouting rather than directly influencing legal determinations regarding personal relationships.

Addressing the subject of קידושין, the maturity of a קטנה absolutely essential. Halachically, a קטנה can enter into a marriage contract, but her legal status regarding consent and obligation differs from more mature individuals. Both Torah & Halacha recognizes maturity through biological and social frameworks, focusing more on age and maturity, rather than agricultural analogies. Whatever the age of Rivka, she possessed the maturity to actively offers to draw water for both the servant and his camels, displaying generosity and initiative. Rivka exhibits kindness, industriousness, and a sense of responsibility. She acts decisively and goes beyond what is requested of her.

While the etrog serves as a useful metaphor under specific contexts, it doesn’t conclusively establish precedents for understanding ביאה with regard to a קטנה. The legal discussions surrounding קידושין involve different principles, such as consent, maturity, and the ability to fulfill the obligations of marriage—factors not inherently comparable to the agricultural considerations surrounding the etrog. The precedent of the etrog, while informative in its own right concerning agricultural laws, does not equate or qualify as a valid halachic source for learning about ביאה and קידושין as applicable to a קטנה. The laws governing these matters, distinctly nuanced and require principles rooted in personal status, consent, and maturity rather than agricultural classifications.

Boris divorced his statute law halachic code unto shoe-box legal classifications. As such he failed to weigh the halachic value measured as a precedent by which to interpret the k’vanna of the Home Mishna. This failure condemns his Yad/Tur\Aruch sh’itta of learning as false and wrong. Simply because his halachic codes fails to understand the Talmud in the context of the Talmud’s own usage of halachic precedents. This gross fundamental flaw, this flagrant error perverts his halachic opinions and makes them נידוי in comparison to the halachic common law code of the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh.

Hantah relates to the classification of agricultural products and the conditions under which they grow. It’s primarily concerned with agricultural laws, especially regarding the timing of certain commandments like shemitah and orlah. This concept focuses on the biological aspects of plant growth and does not lend itself well to personal or legal status issues such as marriage.

The maturity of a קטנה (minor girl) is crucial in the context of kiddushin. While a קטנה can technically enter into a marriage contract, her legal status regarding consent, obligations, and responsibilities is different from that of more mature individuals. Halachic discourse emphasizes biological and social maturity as essential criteria for entering into kiddushin. The focus remains on the individual’s capacity to understand and fulfill marital obligations.

While the etrog serves as a metaphorical example in some contexts, it lacks direct applicability to personal status cases, particularly regarding bi’ah and kiddushin. Legal discussions about marriage require principles rooted in individual consent, maturity, and the responsibilities that come with marital commitments, simply not inherently connected to agricultural classifications.

By divorcing statute law from common law precedents together with the nuanced halachic historical and cultural contexts, Boris misinterpreting the Talmud’s own legal framework and principles. Common law makes a פרדס depth analysis by means of making comparative precedents. But the style of the Sha’s Talmud of ‘Difficulty and Answer’ – requires that down stream generations challenge the validity and strength of precedents which the Gemara introduces. Its this essence which makes Talmud in point of fact to actually mean “study”.

A scholar must train his mind to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of precedents introduced. In a Court of Law; the Defense and Prosecuting Attorney absolutely must weigh the precedents raised by their opposing Justice. And compare a precedent introduced in the opposing Justice brief weighed against the merits of his own counter precedents.

The purpose of lateral Sanhedrin courtrooms, they pit an equal number of judges against an equal number of opposing justices. This Court hears a Case by pitting the two opposing sets of precedential briefs head to head one against the other. Court justices have the training and obligation to weigh the merits & demerits of a precedent weighed against different counter precedents.

A Sanhedrin Court does not “race” to determine religious ritual practices! This error the Reshonim commentaries expressly transgressed. The Talmud serves to introduce precedents in a Court Case, and not a religious debate of how to keep ritual halacha according to some specified authority figure – as it halacha depends upon some cult of personality. G’lut Jewry during the Dark and Middle Ages of absolute church tyranny, this harsh reality twisted rabbinic Judaism into establishing fixed religious practices and prioritizes rabbinic opinions over other equally valid rabbinic opinions. Dispersed Jewish g’lut communities with little or no inter-state communications required a simplified standardization of halacha.

These cruel harsh realities of g’lut forced leaders like the B’HaG, Rif, Baali Tosafot, and Rosh to concede to the public need to organize ritual religious halacha into some simplified codes of halachic law; the Smag – a Baali Tosafot pro Rambam halachic codifier. The racist violence G’lut Jewry had to endure meant that the common man did not have the means to study Talmudic common law; the chief justification for Boris’s over-simplified Yad. Only the cream of the crop merited to study in Yeshivot.

Boris’s Sefer HaMitzvot, another over-simplified static codification of Torah commandments which divorced Talmudic Oral Torah halacha, like his code likewise divorced his halachic organization from their Home Mishnaot and halacha from aggadic sources. His sefer Ha’Mitzvot perverted Torah commandments, reduced to positive and negative commandments restricted only to the language of the Written Torah. This utter bone headed mistake makes his Sefer Ha’Mitzvot on par with his Yad travesty of justice. Acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven entails the k’vanna of the chosen Cohen people; the unification of Written Torah and Oral Torah as ONE set of time-oriented Torah commandments. The perversion of ONE interpreted as justification for belief in Monotheism – an utter Torah abomination.

As the statute halachic codes perverted Talmudic common law unto Roman statute law; the same exact thumb up the ass error made with the Written Torah vs the Oral Torah justification of exactly why the church condemned the Talmud as having no part with the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. The Sefer בראשית introduces Av mitzvot time-oriented commandments – inclusive of the halachot within the Sha’s whose k’vanna determined by the Aggadic and Midrashic drosh made upon prophetic mussar from the T’NaCH.

This crucial component of the Sha’s Bavli all the halachic codes totally ignored. Jews simply stopped or forgot that the framers of Midrash wrote those texts to serve as a commentary to the Aggada of the Talmud. The Aggada makes a פרדס דרוש\פשט directly to the T’NaCH Primary Sources. Prophetic mussar planted as seeds within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within our heart blooms into unique understandings. These understandings become the פשט meaning of Aggadic stories original intent. The next three Books of the Written Constitution of the Republic of Israel introduces קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה תולדות בניני אבות מצוות שלא צריך כוונה. The last Book of the Written Constitution of the Republic of Israel introduces משנה תורה-Common law courts. Common law stands upon the יסוד של בניני אבות precedents, based upon Sefer דברים. Herein defines the Order of the Sha’s Bavli and Yerushalmi.

Talmudic scholarship, according to the k’vanna of its Framers, seeks that down stream generations weave Aggadic prophetic mussar p’shat as the heart dedication of keeping halachic mitzvot whose aliya unto tohor time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna raises these rabbinic ritual observances unto mitzvot דאורייתא through פרדס רמז\סוד logic. Boris abandoned and caused Israel to forget the Oral Torah; he blew out the Hanukkah lights.

Zionism, which means Jewish self determination in the Middle East, denounces g’lut Jewry. It empathizes with their cruel plight Goyim barbarians forced them to endure. But it denounces as a war crime the Roman obliteration of Judean Judicial Constitutional common law courts perverted over the Centuries unto ritual religious observances.

Post the ’48 and ’67 two Wars of National Independence, can our people find it within their hearts to pursue the Zionist dream and achieve self-determination which restores the Written Torah as the Constitution of our Republic of 12 Tribes and the Sanhedrin common law courtroom Federal system of common law enforced by means of Prophetic police. Emphasis upon “common law”, because Boris and his Snidely Whiplash boot licking cronies have perverted T’NaCH\Talmudic common law unto Greek/Roman egg-crate statute law. Can our people achieve self-determination and achieve Legislative Review as a Torah mandate for the Great Sanhedrin Court to regulate, in the manner that a bureaucracy has overview upon Industry, all statute laws passed by our Knesset Parliament?

Not enough to cast the grave of Rambam upon the dung heaps of history.

The Avot—Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov—represent different paradigms of connection with God and expressions of faith. Not like Avraham who called it [the Beis Hamikdash] “mountain,” and not like Yitzchak who called it “field,” but rather like Yaakov who called it “house. . .” (Pesachim 88a)… What an utterly pathetic mistranslation!

The story of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov centered upon the wells they dug for their sheep. But only idiots assume that the Avot lived their lives as simple shepherds of sheep and goats! The Beis Hamikdash not some glorified slaughter house! It housed both the Great Sanhedrin and a Small Sanhedrin Federal Courtroom of Common Law!

The story of the korbanot dedicated by Kayin neged Hevel centers upon the choice of who merits to live as the chosen Cohen son! Kayin, like Yishmael, & Esav born as the first born son! A major Torah theme played throughout the Sin of the Golden Calf and the replacement of the first born son with the Tribe of Levi!

The prophetic mussar of the rejection of the korban dedicated by Kayin, HaShem does not recognize korbanot as a barbeque to heaven, a תולדות קום ועשה מצוה!!!! A korban requires that a person swears a Torah oath – through the altar like unto standing before a Sefer Torah – מלכות dedicates as specific tohor middah – like a toldoth “blessing” of oaths requires שם ומלכות – committing to the eternal pursuit of justice/צדק צדק תרידוף. Just that simple.

The Torah does not compare to Av tuma avoda zarah which prioritizes “Great theological themes” concerning belief in different Gods — the Lord vs Allah — any more that the Book of ויקרא commands offering korbanot as a ritual commandment like the קום ועשה תולדות הלכות of the Shulkan Aruch do not require k’vanna! Simple קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות, do not require k’vanna. This definition makes them secondary commandments to time-oriented commandments!

The Talmud has a warp/weft Halacha\Aggada loom like structure which weaves the garments, comparable to the Book of שמות garments made for the House of Aaron! Its not the literal garments of the House of Aaron משל but rather the customs and culture of the House of the Chosen Cohen people נמשל. The נמשל defines the כוונה of the משל; as such time-oriented commandments Av commandments.

The Torah not some glorified Book of Jewish religion similar to the Books of the New Testament and Koran Av tuma avoda zarah! The Torah serves as the Constitution of the Republic of 12 Tribes; it serves the same exact function as the Constitution of the United States – basic Law! Based upon the 1st Sinai Commandment. אני ה’ אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים. This the greatest of all Torah commandments – Jews who live in G’lut cannot accept the Torah as the Constitution of our Republic לשמה. G’lut Jewry cursed like Kayin, forced to worship av tuma avoda zarah as a religious belief system theology rather than as the substance of leaving Egypt to conquer Canaan.

Off the דרך Orthodox Judaism declared their av tuma declaration of faith – in the early Twentieth Century – when they declared Zionism as both secondary and foreign to the Torah faith. Absolutely a direct repetition of the Wilderness Generation which condemned the First Born Generation to accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai as not having a portion to the World to Come.

The Avot: falsely perceived as but a simple משל “mountain”, or “field”, or “house”, in equal like manner the משל בית המקדש. The lives of the Avot introduce the נמשל dedication – pursuit of justice within the oath sworn lands of Canaan. G’lut Jews who remain in exile cannot accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – the first commandment – לשמה, because they live their lives permanently in g’lut with no real or honest intention to make aliya. No different than the Shoah Wilderness Generation which has no portion in the World to Come.

The Book of בראשית introduces אב טהור זימן גרמא מצוות, like the Aggada of the Sha’s makes a דרוש\פשט to the prophetic mussar taught through the Books of the T’NaCH! Wisdom requires “shepherds” to weave the wool and linen threads of Halacha and Aggadah unto “garments” that the House of Aaron can wear in the “Beit HaMikdosh”. Obviously mixing wool & linen requires k’vaana as a time-oriented mitzva!

Only Jews who live in the oath sworn lands, who dedicate their Zionism as the eternal pursuit of self-determination to rule these lands with Sanhedrin lateral common law courts of Federal justice; as the basis of law of the Republic over the secondary Government rule of law by statute government Knesset decrees. Herein defines the meaning of Zionism post ’48 and ’67 Independence Wars victories! Common law judicial law the נמשל priority over Statute Law Knesset משל תולדות law. Do the Toldoth follow the Avot Yes or No? The defining question asked by Mesechtot Shabbat and Baba Kama.

The pursuit of judicial justice shares no common ground with personal belief systems/Creeds of faith about Gods in Heaven. Torah justice in this Earth, not in the Heaven skies above. Theological belief systems Av tuma avoda zarah. G’lut Jews cannot, by definition of the first Sinai commandment, possess genuine intention or moral integrity to accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, they remain in g’lut. Only within the borders of the oath sworn lands of alliance can Jews establish self determination of ruling the lands of Canaan with righteous Judicial common law justice. Sanhedrin common Law, UNLIKE the Rambam, Tur, Beit Yosef & Shulkan Aruch statute religious codes of ritual halacha,, centers upon judicial rulings which achieve fair restitution of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews.

Ritual religious observances do not weave the woolen & linen garments as time-oriented commandments. Av tohor time-oriented commandments they weave the culture and customs practiced by the Chosen Cohen Nation within the borders of the Jewish State of Israel.

G’lut Jews their Beit Din – a joke. The three Justices of their Torts court, do not divide their duties as Prosecuting כנגד Defense justices – who argue their opposing cases before one another through bringing halachic precedents, like as the Gemara does to each and every Mishna which it comments upon!

Religious ritual observances share no common ground with righteous common law courts of law; any more than do the Yad, Tur, Aruch assist students to study Talmudic common law. Torah does not “compare” to a Constitution any more than does a דיוק נמשל actually compares to its משל metaphor.

Employment of משל\נמשל a method of Hebrew speech. Children only understand the simple stories. Adults who cling to the understanding of children – what an utter disgrace. The challenge of maintaining a strong Jewish identity in g’lut … antisemitism-the curse of Amalek.

Jewish assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim invokes the curse of the 2nd Sinai commandment from generation to generation. Herein explains why the B’HaG ruled that the mitzva of reading the M’gillah qualifies as a time oriented commandment from the Torah.

The ever repeated conclusions made by generation after generation of g’lut Jews, that they can live in peace in g’lut – utterly false. Herzl understood that the curse of European antisemitism has no cure. Its a cancer of the Goyim minds which no doctor can heal. Only Jews who commit to leaving g’lut Egypt, a לאו דוקא משל, and making aliya to Israel — possess the potential to acquire Zionism – Jewish self determination to pursue justice among and between our own people.

Time to remove the grave of the Goy Maimonides unto a Non Jewish Grave Yard.

Rambam changed T’NaCH mussar – common law and Talmudic halachic – common law, unto Roman statute law. Two day and night – different legal systems. Truth,,, the Torah defines as path/halacha. The Rambam statute law halacha took Yiddishkeit completely of this משנה תורה common law path דרך.

Not only the court of Rabbeinu Yonah imposed the ban of נידוי upon this non Jewish רשע; just as a Ger Tzeddick becomes a “new creation” so too the רשע – the ban of charem makes that רשע into a non Jewish Goy. In 1232 the rabbis of Paris agreed with the Court of Rabbeinu Yona in Spain and likewise imposed a נידוי ban upon Maimonides. 10 years later the King of France together with the Poop of Rome burned all the Talmudic manuscripts in Paris France. In 1306 all Jews expelled from France. This permanently destroyed the French Rashi/Tosafot Schools of Talmudic common law scholarship!

Jewish rabbinic revisionist history pretends that a majority of the Baali Tosafot despised the Rambam as a רשע. Only twice in the whole of the Tosafot commentary upon the Talmud does the Baali Tosafot quote an opinion on halacha made by Maimonides. Both times the Baali Tosafot disputed that opinion as valid halacha! After the disaster in Paris 1242, 10 year after the Baali Tosafot placed the ban of נידוי upon Maimonides, Rabbeinu Yonah’s attempt to remove the books of the Rambam from rabbinic literature, comparable to the writings of Spinoza, collapsed. The Rambam Civil War blew out the lights of Hanukkah!!!!!

A Jewish Civil War which predated by at least a Century the rise of the New Testament abomination. Maimonides took up the revolt led by the Tzeddukim and later Karaites – both of whom rejected the Oral Torah as defined by the kabbala of rabbi Akiva’s 4 part פרדס inductive logic system. Both sects of Judaism preferred to assimilate and embrace the ancient Greek 3 part syllogism deductive logic model.

Statute law does not and cannot understand the Talmud. Read the statute law halachic codes of the Rambam Tur or Beit Yosef/Shulkan Aruch — tits on a boar hog! These statute law codes do not instruct how the Gemara halachic precedents interpret the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna! Not so the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh common law halachic codes! The latter understands that the Gemara halachic ruling serve most essentially as precedent to re-interpret – משנה תורה – the language of the Home Mishna. The statute halachic codes do not have the least bit of a clue which Mishna the Gemara halachic rulings serve as precedents. Statute law does not stand upon the foundation of precedents as does judicial common law.

Mark the contrast between T’NaCH common law legalism from Xtian propaganda preaching theology.

Proverbs 16:1-10 located within the T’NaCH sugya/sub-chapter of 15:20 – 17:24. The NT avoda zara propaganda rhetoric narishkeit trash “loves” to quote T’NaCH sources taken out of context. The bible abomination of the church perverted translations – Universally corrupt and evil. Taking an idea out of its surrounding contexts defines propaganda NOT T’NaCH common law. The NT Roman forgery would make Joseph Goebbels, the Propganda Minister of Nazi Germany – PROUD.

Taking T’NaCH sources ripped apart from their contexts compares to how abortion clinics employ suction to rip apart heads feet legs of unborn babies from its mothers’ womb for money. God has the same letters as DOG. The NT fulfilling the words of the Prophets – a brutal abortion of T’NaCH literature. The Old Testament bible of the church – an utter abomination! It replaces the natural order of sugya context replaced by the church perversion of Chapters and verses. Pardon me as I puke.

T’NaCH faith all about the pursuit of justice and fair restitution of damages inflicted upon others. The church whore turned faith into a theological creed belief system which created Gods from nothing. The Koran did the same Av tuma avoda zara with the creation of Allah. Both belief systems despise the Torah faith that enshrines the righteous pursuit of judicial justice. Judicial common law courtrooms share nothing in common with Cult of personality decrees; Paul declared to Goyim: YOU ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW. His propaganda half-truth failed to discern that 1) Goyim rejected the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, so naturally Goyim not under the Law. Goyim never taken out of Egypt by HaShem. They remain in foreign lands and countries; the oath sworn to Avraham that the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot would inherit the oath sworn lands of Canaan. And rule those oath sworn brit alliance lands with judicial common law justice. 2) Roman law – statute law not common law. A day vs night difference which the church whore of Babylon has totally ignored for 2000+ years; on par with the church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf. The church bible duplicates the sin of the Golden Calf in that it translates the 1st commandment Spirit Name unto word translations. No word can translate the Name of HaShem – that’s the sin of the Golden Calf!

Xtian believers have no sincerity. Proof: Never in 2000+ years has even a single Xtian or Muslim “believer” ever caught the Golden Calf Av tuma that Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. If only ONE GOD then no need to command the second commandment; all the Books of the Prophets which address the tuma worship of other Gods, starting with Par’o and the Egyptian worship of other Gods, followed by all the kings of Canaan who worshipped other Gods! Goyim have no t’shuva, they remember nothing of their past war crimes against humanity because they have absolutely no shame.

T’NaCH simply not read as a novel. The church whore never grasped the basics of T’NaCH common law. Common law stands upon the foundation of precedents. The arrangement of the Holy Writings within the Books of the T’NaCH serves as a precedent for the later arrangement of the Gemara commentary to the Mishna. Rabbi Yechuda the Chief Justice of the Great Sanhedrin Court codified his common law Mishna in 210 CE. Why did he name this common law codification of Great Sanhedrin judicial ruling by the name Mishna? Because the 5th Book of the Written Torah, known as D’varim, has a second name: Mishna Torah. What does Mishna Torah mean? Answer: Common Law. Hence rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna codifies Great Sanhedrin Courtroom ruling organized as “Common Law” – hence “Mishna”.

As the Holy Writings Books of T’NaCH literature serve as a commentary to the Books of the Prophets of the NaCH so too the Gemara duplicates/mirrors the Holy Writings Books of T’NaCH, it makes a common law commentary to interpret the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna. The whore of Babylon church abomination never grasped the obvious; it preferred to burn the Talmud (which means learning) predating the Nazi book burnings of the 1930s. Goyim have no t’shuva because they do not remember the war crimes committed by generations of church believers across the millennia of their Par’o like injustice and oppression. All the church great cathedrals built through serf slave labor. It took the American and French Revolutions to cast the whore of Babylon church upon the dung heaps of history ie 1) Separation of Church from State 2) citizens rather than feudal serfs. 3) taxation without representation.

T’NaCH a common law legal system – just that simple. Common law stands upon the foundation of making logical Case/Rule judical comparative rulings. The Book of Proverbs serves as a “Gemara” commentary to the Books of the “Mishna” Prophets. That’s how the Game played in order to righteously pursue judicial justice – no fancy dance’n. The sugya of Proverbs aligns with the NaCH Book of Yirmeyahu/Jeremiah 10:22-25. Just as the Gemara serves its Mishna through comparative precedents so too the Holy Writings serves the NaCH Books of the Prophets through comparative precedents. This requires inductive logic as opposed to deductive logic. The church whore of Babylon has never developed a systematic inductive reasoning thought process – not to this very day! How utterly bankrupt and pathetic.

The mussar of the sugya of Proverbs interprets the k’vanna of Yirmeyahu’s prophetic mussar for all generations of Israel. Only Jews within the borders of the oath sworn lands can do mitzvot לשמה, based upon the 1st Commandment of Sinai. HaShem brought Israel out of Egypt, Jews in g’lut remain in Egypt. Therefore Jews in g’lut worship other Gods, just as Par’o worshipped other Gods. Israel accepted only the first Two Sinai commandments till Moshe instructed the rest of the Torah revelation after the Oral Torah interpreted the intent of all Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot – as viewed through the prism of tohor time-oriented Av Torah commandments. The Torah brit – ruling the land with justice vs g’lut. Blessing vs. curse. Life vs. Death — choose.

A D’varim/Mishna Torah בנין אב\precedent: D’varim 5:16-18. Bereshit 3:14 – 21. The story of Adam first introduces g’lut. The story of Cain likewise introduces how a son dishonors his parents by assuming that offering a barbeque to heaven equals dedication through an oath alliance the commitment to pursue justice among the chosen Cohen People.

משנה תורה – קידושין Common Law

Shalom and Howdy from Israel. As a Jew I am an atheist praise the Gods. Theology and Creed based belief systems an abomination to me. Torah faith defined as the pursuit of judicial justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted. Torah law – a judicial common law system. The idea that the State pays the salaries of judges and prosecuting attorneys – bribery. Revolutionary America despised the vertical Star Courts whose bought and paid for judges justified and validated British impressment of American sailors, stolen off of American ships on international waters…The behavior of the American courts toward Trump before and after he won the election – day and night difference! What a total disgrace, proof that the American judicial system totally corrupt together with Nancy Pelosi and her ilk who made 100s of millions from insider trading! Forced to resign in disgrace from Congress, but that hardly qualifies as justice.

Torah defines “love” as ownership. A man cannot love that which he does not own. The Talmud interprets love through theft of his property. It teaches the mussar that a person attaches a portion of his soul to his owned property. “Life liberty and property” to keep this in an American context. Torah common law learns “love” through the mitzva of קידושין. Marriage – a man acquires his wife! But a woman simply not a slave or a whore – which can be bought and sold! So what does a man “acquire” through Cash, Contract, or Sex?

Torah a common law legal system. Common law stands upon the central premise that it requires similar Case/Rule precedential judicial rulings. American literature 101 calls this “Compare and Contrast”. The opposite of marriage – divorce. קידושין כנגד גט. A evil man who divorces his wife but treacherously refuses to give her her “Get”/גט makes this woman a “jailed”/agunah woman. This woman if she has a child from another man without her “get” births bastard children. How does this legal condition qualify as being – at all fair and just?

A superficial reactionary reading of the language of the Torah/Talmud – known as פשט – has no explanation. Hence rabbinic Judaism stuck in a טיפש פשט bird-brained box thinking unjust legal system! This type of law known as חוקים. Torah common law – judicial courtroom law based upon precedent similar Case/Rule -rulings made by earlier courts. Queer statute law Judaism – utterly perverted.

Torah Law (חוקים) has nothing to do with the absurd-unknowable divine revelation. That’s Xtian and Muslim avoda zarah whose theologies and creed belief systems create their Gods from nothing other than Human belief systems. Mishnaic Common law originated from human experiences and societal needs rather than some pie in the sky divine angelic command like Muhammad’s Koran. Mishnaic common law – Court room judicial rulings.

What does “derived from oral traditions/Oral Torah even mean? The kabbala taught by rabbis Akiva and Yishmael and Yossi HaGalilee פרדס ומידות. Herein defines “Oral Torah”. פרדס not a mystical interpretation but rather a 4 part inductive reasoning logic system. Its stands separate and apart from Plato and Aristotlte’s 3 part syllogism deductive reasoning logic system.

Unlike the syllogistic method of deduction which dominates Greek philosophy (i.e., moving from general principles to specific conclusions), Pardes employs a fluid inductive comparative analysis approach. This means that insights, derived from similar precedent Case/Rule judicial rulings. As a loom has a warp – weft, the Talmud has halacha – aggada.

The latter entails making a דרוש\פשט of T’NaCH prophetic mussar, which the Talmud, which means learning, cleverly weaves through רמז\סוד transforming toldot-secondary commandments & halachot – which do not require k’vanna – unto time-oriented commandments which do require k’vanna. Raising the status of rabbinic halachot to Torah time-oriented commandments defines how the Talmud/Oral Torah halachot – ritual religious observances – qualify as commandments from the Torah revelation at Sinai. Hence the reason why Oral Torah requires common law judicial precedents. Time not determined by a clock but rather prophetic mussar k’vanna. A fundamental רב חסד מאי נפקא מינא.

גופא, which means returning back to the original discussion following a digression. What does a man acquire through the “action” of קידושין? He acquires title to the woman’s “Nefesh O’lam Ha’Bah soul. What does this mean? Answer: her future born children. Based upon the precedent of Avram’s complaint to HaShem: ‘What can you give me seeing that I have no children to inherit my wealth’? This question defines the oath alliance sworn – commonly known as the brit between the pieces, as found in Parsha לך לך – the 3rd Parsha of the Book of בראשית. Upon this bedrock foundation stands the Torah mitzva of both קידושין וגט. We have completed the circle.

Why are the children which an Agunah woman births considered “bastards”? The mitzva of קידושין the man swears a Torah oath before two witnesses and a minyon of 10 men (like the 10 spies in the days of Moshe, or the 10 plagues or the 10 commandments etc – meaning a public event). Swearing a Torah oath/brit cut upon the soul of a man. What defines the soul of a Man? Answer: His children. The birth of his children, understood as his portion in O’lam Ha’bah!

But that רשע who refuses to give his ex wife her “get” too faces a horrific בנין אב precedent! Just as the גר צדק/convert qualifies as a “new creation” so too the Court has the power to impose the ban of נידוי/cherem upon this רשע which makes him a “new creation” – not Jewish. Race or DNA do not determine the Jewishness of a child. Similar to how the ticking of time on a clock likewise does not shape nor determines time-oriented commandments! Only the mother determines the Jewishness of any child born in this world. Hence the court can retroactively annul the original קידושין and issue a גט to this chained woman permitting her to marry a far more worthy man.

The language of the קריא שמע, law essentially interprets language, בכל נפשך – specifically “contract law”. Torah understood as a contract and not a theological creed belief system. Hence the wisdom of the Oral Torah it interprets the contract of the Written Torah oath brit alliance through out the generations. Interpretation of texts fluid like the falling of rain in its due season. פרדס inductive logic a dynamic rather than static syllogism deductive reasoning model. The skill required to design moving parts like as in an internal combustion engine, a completely different engineering skill than designing a fixed bridge which spans a river.