The Book of Acts, in Koine Greek. The Greek word “cleansed” not remotely the same as the Hebrew word tohor. Just as מלאכה different from עבודה. But Koine Greek lacks the nuance to distinguish the two different Hebrew verbs. The Greek word ἐκαθάρισεν (ekatharisen, from katharizō) in Acts 11:10 does not have a single, one-to-one equivalent that perfectly captures the full spectrum of the two distinct Hebrew concepts of “tohor” as it relates to “work” as expressed through the Torah. The Hebrew טהור stands upon the foundation of the Oral Torah 13 “tohor” middot which Moshe heard at Horev on Yom Kippur – 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf. The revelation of “Oral Torah” pronouns of the שם השם revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment. This Spirit revelation the Avot did not know. The sanctification of shabbat לא תעשה מלאכה – this wisdom stands on the foundation of tohor spirits holy to HaShem.

Just as the כלל second Sinai commandment defined through the פרט of the Golden Calf; so too טמא רוחות define the ערב רב שאין להם יראת אלהים. Viewed from this Torah perspective, the limitations of the Koine Greek in Acts 11:10 – indeed significant.

Acts 11:10 fails to address the struggle between the Yatrir Ha-Tov\Yatzir Ha-Rah (how Rabbi Yechuda in the Mishna of ברכות interprets בכל לבבך as the prophet Yerami’s ברית חדש). The Greek ἐκαθάρισεν often implies a removal of dirt or a general purification; perhaps similar to how modern Hebrew today refers to refined olive oil as טהור. But modern Hebrew as different from Biblical Hebrew as Koine Greek.

In this framework, the “cleansing” in Acts 11 is not just a removal of dirt but a re-alignment of the assimilated & intermarried Egyptian Erev Rav that came out of Egypt and declared themselves as “grafted” on to the chosen Cohen nation. The Greek koinoō (to make common) fails to distinguish between Chol (Israel) and Tamei (profane), perverting through a false translation the nuanced understanding which distinguishes the middot which struggle for dominance within the prophetic ברית חדש heart.

The Greek koinos blurs these, treating the Erev Rav as merely “common” rather than addressing the fundamental Av Tum’ah middot which define their alien Esav Yetzer HaRa. It fails to grasp the eternal struggle expressed through the struggle between Yaacov and Esav in the womb of Rivka. טיפש פשט literal translations as idiotic as the literalist viewpoint that the Universe created in 6 days.

Acts 11:10 perverts the prophetic ברית חדש into the NT diseased whore prostitute; ערב רב “Jews” defines the Torah curse of Amalek throughout the generations, commonly referred to today as antisemitism – first coined during the period of the Dreyfus Trials. Katharizō implies a physical or general removal of dirt. It treats purity as a static condition. Rather than a dynamic Torah spiritual struggle. By using this word, the text erases the 13 Middot and the specific Oral revelation that defines true Tahor middot — through T’NaCH,Talmudic, Midrashim, and Siddur scholarship. Hence the church abomination has always and forever denied the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev.

The Greek κοινός (koinos) and κοινοῦ (koinou), on par with how “covenant” (as expressed through both the NT & Koran.) perverts ברית. The latter requires swearing a Torah oath (שם ומלכות) within the borders of Canaan, based upon the prophet Yehoshua’s definition of tefillen through the oaths sworn first at Gilgal and then at Sh’Cem. The Order of Rashi tefillen – remembers/t’shuva\ the oath sworn at Gilgal; the Order of Rabeinu Tam tefillen – remembers\t’shuva/ the oath sworn at Sh’Cem. Both stand upon the יסוד Blessing & Curse oaths affixed to two opposing mounts through שם ומכלות sworn oaths.

The Greek text of Acts 11:10, not merely a translation error, but a theological rupture that severed the connection to the Shem HaShem and the Middot-מלכות, replacing the dynamic struggle of the Brit with a static, “idiotic” literalism that facilitates the Erev Rav – Amalek curse. Greek κοινός (koinos) fails to distinguish between חֹל and טמא. The ערב רב – Amalek eternal Torah curse – the Prime Torah precedent which further defines the פרט of the Golden Calf av tuma avoda zara – 2nd Sinai commandment. The Greek diatheke(covenant) introduces a statute static decree which totally negates the oaths sworn by the Avot and the Oath HaShem in his brit turn swore back separately to each of the Avot.

The Order of Rashi tefillen remembers – As HaShem sent Moshe as his מלאך to judge the Gods of Egypt, so too HaShem sent Yehoshua as his מלאך to judge the Gods of Canaan. The Order of Rabeinu Tam tefillen remembers the oath, ((as again expressed through lighting the Hanukkah lights)), only to interpret the k’vanna of time-oriented wisdom commandments through the Oral Torah tohor spirit middot; which chazal has clarified as פרדס – expressed through the rabbinic middot of 7 Hillel, 10 Akiva, 13 Yishmael, vs 32 HaGalil. In that Jewish Civil War the Tzeddukim together with the Greeks sought to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. The Tzeddukim assimilated ערב רב, like the Wilderness generation – both have no portion in the World to Come.

The 6 Divine Names Ya/Pesach Ha’El/Shevuoth El/ר”ה, Elohim/Yom Kippur, El Shaddai/Sukkot and Eish Ha’Elohim\Shemini Atzeret + Shabbat = the 6 days of Chol where Israel sanctifies time oriented mitzvot wisdom and shabbat – called Shalom – where Israel dedicates not to do wisdom acts of מלאכה – based upon תמיד מעשה בראשית, the eternal creation of the chosen Cohen people through sanctification of Torah wisdom time-oriented commandments on Shabbat – meaning the “week” of Creation.

The Greek ἐκαθάρισεν (ekatharisen), therefore – a reductive translation that fails to capture the metaphysical depth of טהור…the Yatzir Ha’Tov alignment of 13 middot of mercy – understood as blessing & curse as defined by the first two Sinai commandments; as affixed within the 13 middle blessings of the Shemone Esrei tefillah דרבנן. The Greek text ignores this duality, offering a single “cleansing” that bypasses the blessing curse oaths which mark the borders of the Cohen nation from the Goyim. In short, the Greek text of Acts 11:10 – a theological revisionist history g’lut Av tuma avoda zarah JeZeus false messiah catastrophe.

This sugya of Aggada serves as the basis to learn the mixture of halacha and aggada. By giving you קידושין ה as the established case of middot contained within a Vilna Shas format of a defined sugya, I seek to duplicate this in some other defined sugya of the Vilna Shas. The 32 Middot of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose ha-Gelili – the definitive horizontal threads (ערב – Weft) that weave through the vertical lines of judicial common law (שתי – Warp). They interweave the stark transactional realm of pure Halakha.

Aggadah/Mussar—the structural matrix that reveals the Kavanna, the ethical, national, and historic blueprint k’vanna of common law. The : ___ : sugya precedent ideally seeks similar Aggadic precedents; but not in this case. By demanding that the twin be strictly Aggadic (Weft) and perfectly bound by internal colons (:), this ideal rejects the popular sh’itta of learning Shas with an exact, spatial sh’itta of Dof Yomi – which flatten Talmudic texts and simply do not & cannot replicate Torah common law legalism.

Precedents (בניני אבות) require something that connects one case with another in Talmudic common law. What other Aggadic sugya of the Shas Bavli employs this exact set of middot? To my knowledge none. Where do the middot sequence in .קידושין ה of rabbi Yossi — what other sugya or combination of sugyot across the entire Shas Bavli have this exact same sequence of middot?

Sugya intergrity defined through the [ : ] which separates one sugya of Gemara from another; like as does the ס או פ in the Written Torah. The precedent for sugya integrity learns from the ס/sugya and פ\chapter of the Order of the Written Torah. Upon this יסוד the T’NaCH repudiates the Xtian bible abominations whose chapters and verses change the Order of the T’NaCH on par with the church belief in a man/God.

There a person must count the שם השם in a repeating 13 middot ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון etc revolving wheel across all 5 Books of the Torah. Hence the prophets referred to this as the chariot wheels within wheels metaphor סוד conceals the kabbalah of Torah common law. Torah a common law legal system. משנה תורה – דברים means 1. Legislative Review. 2. Common Law. The Book of Divarim “constitutionallly” mandates common law Sanhedrin courts; hence Moshe Rabbeinu established the 3 cities of refuge Sanhedrin courts, and Yehoshua did the same after Israel crossed the Jordan and kept Pesach as the model of the mitzva of Yovel, together with brit melah – the sign of the brit to rule the conquered land of Canaan with Sanhedrin courtroom justice.

The entire purpose of the Books of Shmuel, mitzva of Moshiach … prior to that time Israel did not rule the land in “Liberty”! This reality, the generation following the passing of Yehoshua the prophet, that Book described as “worshipped avoda zara”. Avoda zarah does not literally refer to bowing down to a pesel. Rather foreign cultures and customs the bnai brit people assimilated and embraced and abandoned the culture and customs which the Torah and much later Talmud define.

The Torah NaCH Prophets learn from one another by containing the same identical sets of middot, for example רחום חנון ערך הפנים רב חסד. If one sugya in the Torah has this set of middot and a different sugya in the NaCH prophets has this identical set of middot within a specific sugya or sugiot סמוך combination, the latter becomes a precedent from which a person can derive the k’vanna of prophetic mussar down through the generations.

The warp/weft Talmud operates in the same model. Only instead of counting the שם השם in a revolving 13 middot revolving wheel. The Talmud ideally divides halachic sugyot from aggadic sugyot through affixing the 7, 10, 13 middot of Hillel, Akiva, and Yishmael to halachic sugyot and 32 of HaGalilee to addadic sugyot. Its called a sh’itta of learning among many others. But its this sh’itta which Rav Nemuraskii taught me.

The precedent for sugya integrity learns from the ס/sugya and פ\chapter of the Order of the Written Torah. There a person must count the שם השם in a repeating 13 middot ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון etc revolving wheel. Hence the prophets referred to this as the chariot wheels within wheels metaphor kabbalah. The foundation for the Torah common law legal system. משנה תורה – דברים means 1. Legislative Review. 2. Common Law.

The Book of Divarim “constitutionallly” mandates common law Sanhedrin courts and דיעבד permits kings. Hence Moshe Rabbeinu established the 3 cities of refuge Sanhedrin courts, and Yehoshua did the same after Israel crossed the Jordan and kept Pesach as the model of the mitzva of Yovel, together with brit melah – the sign of the brit to rule the conquered land of Canaan with Sanhedrin courtroom justice, the vision of faith first revealed to Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov. The entire purpose of the Books of Shmuel, to define the mitzva of Moshiach. Prior to that time, Israel did not rule the land in Yovel “Liberty”!

This reality the generation following the passing of Yehoshua the prophet described as “worshipped avoda zara”. Avoda zarah does not literally refer to bowing down to a pesel. Rather, embracing foreign cultures and customs the bnai brit people assimilated and embraced and abandoned the culture and customs which the Torah and much later Talmud define. Hence the B’HaG rules that lighting the lights of Hanukkah a mitzva דאורייתא!

The Torah, and NaCH Prophets learn from one another by containing the same identical sets of middot, for example רחום חנון ערך הפנים רב חסד. If one sugya in the Torah has this set of middot and a different sugya in the NaCH prophets has this identical set of middot, within a specific sugya or sugiot סמוכים combination, the latter becomes a precedent from which a person can derive the k’vanna of prophetic mussar down to all generations thereafter. The warp/weft Talmud operates in the same model. Rabbi Yechuda compiled his Mishna after the Bar Kochba disaster where Rome changed the name of Judea unto Palestine. Throughout the entire Beit Sh’ne Jews never experienced Pesach/Yovel freedom. Hence the Mishna functions in the identical role of NaCH prophetic mussar. Rabbi Akiva laughed when he saw a fox leave Herod’s “holy of holies”.

The Talmud, only instead of counting the שם השם in a revolving 13 middot revolving wheel. It weaves together halachic sugyot with aggadic sugyot through ideally affixing the 7, 10, 13 middot of Hillel, Akiva, and Yishmael to halachic portions and 32 of HaGalilee to addadic portions. Its called a sh’itta of learning.

A comprehensive Shitta (system) of learning that treats the entire Oral Torah as a single, multi-dimensional matrix of legal precedents, completely integrated through the language of rabbinic middot of פרדס inductive logic reasoning. By grounding this עולם הבא vision together with the constitutional architecture of Sefer Devarim as a foundation for common law; which map middot דאורייתא ודרבנן as a dynamic “chariot wheel” – code kabbalah, the true nature of a cross-Shas sh’itta – parallel – ideally becomes clear.

Justice defines true Liberty (דרור) under the Yovel model. Hence kre’a shma remembers the Yovel from Egypt. When the Book of Shoftim records that the generation after Yehoshua “worshipped Avoda Zarah,” it means they abandoned the native common law court culture, & assimilated unto foreign administrative customs, and stopped rendering justice according to the middot Horev revelation. Remembered through the Divine name האל dedicated on Chag Shevuot.

When an internal, closed sugya contains a specific sequence of these middot, it acts as a precise structural fingerprint. If you can find another sugya or combination of sugyot locked between the same structural boundaries (the equivalent of a Parsha Setuma or Petucha – that runs the exact same string of middot, the later sugya reads as a direct precedent of the former. It reveals the underlying Kavanna of the Mishnaic common law case.

The sugya of .קידושין ה begins with Kal VaChomer, flows to דבר הלמד מעניינו, followed by מיעוט, דבר שהוא שנוי. Hence the wisdom – how to locate an exact Talmud precedent in either the Bavli or even the Yerushalmi. By giving you קידושין ה as the established case of middot contained within a Vilna Shas format of defined sugyot, I seek to duplicate this in some other defined sugya of the Vilna Shas. The 32 Middot of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose ha-Gelili the definitive horizontal threads (ערב – Weft) that weave through the vertical lines of the law (שתי – Warp), they do not ideally belong to the stark transactional realm of pure Halakha. They belong to Aggadah/Mussar—the structural matrix that reveals the Kavanna, the ethical, national, and historic blueprint of Yatzir Ha’Tov k’vaana within the heart.

The : ___ : sugya Order precedent must by definition ideally be Aggadic. By demanding that the twin be strictly Aggadic (Weft) and perfectly bound by internal colons (:), this ideal perspective of Shas acknowledges בדיעבד cases; a spatial precision that Dof Yomi – which flattens and ignores sugya text integrity simply cannot replicate. Torah common law legalism, replaced with frum religious ritual observance. Warp (שתי): the halakhic framework—the legal rulings, obligations, liabilities, and procedural logic. Weft (ערב): the aggadic matrix—the historical memory, prophetic mussar which through the פשט-דרוש axis, links the Oral Torah spirit middot through the Aggadah and Midrashic rabbinic middot; akin to AC & DC electricity.

This provides the mussar k’vanna which defines the Yatzir Ha-Tov middot spirits within the heart. Such that when a person keeps a specific halachah he can through common law precedent based learning potentially elevates ritual halacha transformed unto the wisdom of Torah av time-oriented commandments, as first introduced in the בראשית creation Aggada story. The g’lut לא לשמה טיפש פשט literal worship of words compares to a dog chasing after its own tail – a hurry up and wait frum religious mentality.

The Vilna Shas layout becomes significant because it preserves recognizable sugya units within which these interpretive patterns can be traced. Creating an original catalog of precedents, starting with the Aggada the next revelation of the Torah prior to Israelis keeping the Yovel and establishment of the federal Sanhedrin Court system, according to the expectations placed upon this sh’itta of learning.

Comparing Kiddushin 5a to Kiddushin 23a בדיעבד exposes how the Talmud runs the exact same code string through both the Warp and the Weft, changing the entire nature of the transmission. On Kiddushin 23a, the Gemara runs that precise sequence of middot—the Kal VaChomer, the textual comparisons, and Rava’s rigorous dialetical response—but the current is strictly Halakhic (Warp). This later precedent, a related clause of the סמוך adjacent Case/Din Mishna! דתנן: עבד כנעני נקנה בכסף ובשטר ובחזקה. וקונה את עצמו בכסף על ידי אחרים ובשטר על ידי עצמו ולא ע”י אחרים דברי רבי מאיר.

This contrast hammers out the stark transactional mechanics of Kinyan (specifically regarding an Eved Kena’ani / Canaanite slave, Ketubah parameters, and the structural exclusions of acquisition). קידושין by contrast acquires title to the brit soul of the Avot. Hence divorce requires that a man return back to his ex her “Title soul” by way of a גט.

Because the mitzva of קידושין involves much more than simply dealing with pure procedural liabilities, and obligations. קידושין does not apply to Goyim because they have no portion with the chosen seed of the Avot through the brit. Ritual halacha that has no k’vanna no wisdom time oriented commandment – such תולדות secondary commandments do not generate the prophetic Mussar K’vanna. The av wisdom which separates Torah time-oriented commandments from religious beliefs common among Goyim and g’lut Jews who can only observe Torah mitzvot under the Torah death curse of g’lut. קום ועשה מצוות והלכות operates as the functional AC current of frum religious observances, rather than the internal DC current that transforms the heart תמיד מעשה בראשית from nothing, unto the Cohen inheritors of the Avot within conquered Canaan. Halacha not framed as a self-contained Drusha living prophetic spirit; created to breath the spirit of life into the Yetzer HaTov heart of clay; simply because to sanctify time oriented commandments לשמה, this mountain hanging by a hair, depends upon Jews dedication of Yovel and brit melah לשמה within conquered Canaan – the first Sinai commandment.

This comparison attempts to validate the sh’itta that Rav Nemuraskii taught me in Yeshiva D’var Yerushalim. The identical sequence of middot can appear in both places, but if you treat them flatly—the way Daf Yomi or a literalist (peshat) Rambam halachic surface reading does—this immensely popular g’lut sh’itta completely misses the transformation. Kiddushin 5a holds the higher structural K’vanna, serving as the architectural blueprint for how this wisdom time-oriented commandment elevates the human spirit, while 23a provides the technical, baseline legal boundaries how to acquire an עבד כנעני. A כלל applicable to virtually all literature, the rule of compare and contrast. But in Talmudic scholarship a different כלל – never separate Gemara halachic precedents from their Mishna. Because Talmudic common law serves as the prophetic vision for when Israel conquers Canaan, dedicates the Yovel time-oriented count of judicial liberty in the land sworn to the Avot as their future born Cohen seed eternal inheritance. No word mutilated “covenant” translation in either fraud NT or Koran can change the oath ברית sworn alliance לשמה which to Avot cut upon their future born living souls at the brit cut between the pieces\מגן אברהם.

Our Mishna excludes קטנה from קידושין ע”י רבוי מיעט\קמ”ל. As: גט דאורייתא כל שכן קידושין. Hence “ספק קידושין” does not apply to a קטנה anymore than an immature etrog qualifies as one of the four species during Chag Sukkot or קידושין applies to an עבד כנעני.

Shall now contrast Boris Badenov & Natasha Fatale. Both of whom learn halacha divorced from its Mishna. Both prioritize religious ritual and ignore the prophetic mussar of the Talmud that stands upon Yovel Liberty and Sanhedrin common law courts guarded לשמה. Both mourn the destruction of Herod’s temple abomination by the Roman meshiach akin but opposite of the Moshiach king of Persia who from his own treasury permitted the generation of Ezra to build a “house of worship” but like the Romans ruled the land as a banana republic. Hence throughout the entire בית שני Jews never sanctified the Yovel as a דאורייתא מצוה. And how much more so post Bar Kochba Rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s Mishna published in Roman Palestine. Based upon how Natasha Fatale learns the statute decree of Boris Badenov, clearly both assimilated Jews ignored the Talmudic כלל – never separate Gemara halachic precedents from their Mishna.

הלכות דירושין: פרק ראשון – א וב. == אין האשה מתגרשת אלא בכתב שיגיע לה וכתב, זה הוא הנקרא גט. ועשרה דברים הן עיקר הגירושין מן התורה ואלו הן: א. שלא יגרש האיש אלא ברצונו ב. ושיגרש בכתב וא בדבר אחר וכו’. כסף משנה: === אם לא תמצא חן בעינין שאינו מגרש וכו’. פרק חרש (יבמות דף קי”ב:) האשה יוצאה לרצונה ושלא לרצונה והאיש אינו מוציא אלא לרצונו

Neither statute law assimilated codes understand our Gemara precedents brought to interpret the intent of the Framer of this av Mishna of קידושין. The later codes address the situation of g’lut Jews post the collapse of the Roman roads where people stopped international travel or in Natasha Fatale situation – Jews confronted with the church war crimes of ghetto gulags.

If Boris built the clean, administrative framework, Natasha built the impenetrable defensive perimeter for a traumatized, post-Expulsion nation. Reeling from the chaos of the shifting G’lut, Yosef Karo takes the code concept and turns it into a survival checklist.

In the Shulchan Aruch, the text – completely divorced from its prophetic Mussar. It becomes a hyper-vigilant operational manual: Do this, don’t touch that, say this word at this exact minute. It treats the symptoms of exile with rigorous ritual observance (Kum Ve’Aseh), but because it sits entirely on the surface level, it cuts off the internal DC current that was meant to transform the human heart from clay into a living sanctuary.

A logical פרדס דיוק – inference of inductive reasoning made on Rom 12:2 → “church avodah zarah” → based upon the either/or first two Sinai commandments which Moshe Rabbeinu reinterpreted as blessing/curse– life/death. Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox both embrace dogmatism and Creedal based belief systems. The “genesis” of the condemnation of the entire NT fraud – begins with Romans 12:2; by universalizing a substitute “covenant” for ברית, it untethered the “covenant” substitute Universal Monotheism God from the local god Eretz Canaan, conquered and ruled by the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot. Just as the Torah has its בראשית-introduction of wisdom time-oriented positive commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna so too and how much more so the Pauline theology of Original sin and Romans 12:2 serve as the “Genesis” Latin NT bible substitute.

Paul’s theology laid the exact intellectual groundwork that allowed the later Church to completely detach belief in their man\God from Judea and acquiesce to Rome’s erasure of the land’s Jewish identity – post destruction of the Bar Kochba revolt. Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox both embrace dogmatism and Creedal based belief systems. The genesis of the condemnation of the entire NT fraud begins with Romans 12:2; Rom 12:2 → “church avodah zarah” Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox both embrace dogmatism and Creedal based belief systems. The genesis of the condemnation of the entire NT fraud begins with Romans 12:2.

Rom 12:2 τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ (to thelēma tou theou) totally off the grid. The Torah brit revolves around ארץ Canaan. Not the world. The Greek phrase behind “pattern of this world” commonly understood as the prevailing way of life in the present era. This declaration openly either repudiates the Roman empire or rejects Judea and supports the post Bar Kochba Roman renaming of the conquered province of Palestine. Which one?

Paul by most super-commentaries the author of Romans. He wrote it from Corinth while on his way to Jerusalem (commonly dated around 57–58 CE), only a few years before the outbreak of the Jewish revolt against Rome! The dominant “age/system” in Judea and across the entire Roman empire. So a religious box thinking simply absurd.

Strictly with Rom 12:2: the text doesn’t mention Rome, Judea, or any renaming of Judea to Palestine! Written in Greek the “God’s will” it refers to fails to obey the 1st Sinai commandment. And therefore it justifies the 2nd Sinai commandment and directly refers to some Greek God. Its Greek language says believers should not be conformed to the “pattern of this age/system,” but be transformed by renewing their mind, so they can discern/approve God’s will. Torah judicial common law stands upon previous judicial precedents not what individuals personally believe or not believe. This language supports the suggestion that avoda zara believes in Gods in the heavens.

The whole of the Xtian bible, not just the book of Romans, totally ignores the 1st and 2nd Blessing vs. Curse commandments which the entire Torah judicial system hinges upon. Hence the Xtian bible whose NT supplants the OT worships a Nicene Creed Trinity God in Heaven. This violates the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – תורה לא בשמים היא. The NT prioritizes “love as the greatest of all commandments”. D’varim 6:5 the paragraph of the kre’a shma tefillah דאורייתא, prioritizes love. However, משנה תורה\דברים – means common law/legislative review of the k’vanna of the other 4 Books of the Written Torah. The בנין אב precedent to learn the k’vanna of “love” learns from the brit cut between the pieces wherein childless Avram counted the Olam HaBah future born chosen Cohen seed. The mitzva from the Torah which best achieves the brit cut between the pieces … the opposing mitzvot of קידושין – גט – wherein a bnai brit Israel acquires or returns title to the “soul” of his wife. “Soul” in this context: the future born seed of this marital union. Hence upon divorce the obligation to give his ex her גט – which returns the title of her “soul” back to her possession.

Rom 12:2 promotes a belief system: “how believers are to think and live”. The Torah NEVER commands any such commandment – ever. This av tuma avoda zara presumes that “faith” linked to belief in God. This false assumption/religious rhetoric propaganda fails to weigh the word translation of אלהים which replaced the Spirit Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment. The 1st Sinai commandment does not command to love God as the NT prioritizes as the greatest of all commandments – false.

τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ (to thelēma tou theou) means the word has been inflected—changed at the ending—to indicate that something belongs to, originates from, or is closely connected to God. Utter and complete rhetoric nonsense. The Mishna Chagigah 2:1: instructs that any person who contemplates upon that which is above, behind or below him – better that that person never born. The Greek Word God in no way shape or form defines the 1st Sinai revelation of the שם השם. Based upon the 2nd Sinai commandment Goyim worship other Gods; Egypt and Canaan worshipped other Gods just as did the ancient Greeks and Romans and before them the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians.

Torah Lo BaShamayim vs. Internal Discernment – Romans 12:2 introduces an entirely different mechanism for determining what is right. Paul shifts the locus of the law from objective, courtroom-tested statutes based on precedents to an internalized, subjective “renewal of the mind” (anakainōsis tou noos) to discern an abstract “will.”

The Greek word (Theos) carries centuries of baggage from Greek philosophical and mythological thought. In the Greco-Roman world, Theos or theoi belonged to a cosmic hierarchy—deities inhabiting the heavens, or the abstract “Unmoved Mover” of Hellenistic philosophy. When the Greek NT text uses “of God”, it uses a term that, to a Greek or Roman audience, fits cleanly into their existing cosmic/theological “box.” It abstracts the Divine into a universal, heavenly entity.

The historical context of 57–58 CE from Corinth, Paul’s use of the phrase tō aiōni toutō — “this age” or “this system” – is intentionally subversive, but it operates on an apocalyptic axis rather than a localized geopolitical one. By telling his readers not to be “conformed to this age,” he is asserting that the entire current political and physical world order is obsolete, waiting to be supplanted by a celestial kingdom. To a jurisprudence built on the permanent, physical inheritance of a specific geographic territory (Eretz Canaan), treating the physical world order as a transient “age” to be transcended completely undermines the territorial and physical nature of the brit.

The Gospel: By their fruits you shall know them judges Romans 12:2 rhetoric as utterly false. The NT rejects both circumcision and declares Goyim not under the law – which post NT church openly rejected Torah Oral Torah common law. The Church embraced Roman statute law; hence by their fruits you shall know them.

Rom 12:2 τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ (to thelēma tou theou) totally off the grid. The Torah brit revolves around ארץ Canaan. Not the world. The Greek phrase behind “pattern of this world” commonly understood as the prevailing way of life in the present era. This declaration openly either repudiates the Roman empire or rejects Judea and supports the post Bar Kochba Roman renaming of the conquered province of Palestine. Which one?

Paul by most super-commentaries the author of Romans. He wrote it from Corinth while on his way to Jerusalem (commonly dated around 57–58 CE), only a few years before the outbreak of the Jewish revolt against Rome! The dominant “age/system” in Judea and across the entire Roman empire. So a religious box thinking simply absurd.

Strictly with Rom 12:2: the text doesn’t mention Rome, Judea, or any renaming of Judea to Palestine! Written in Greek the “God’s will” it refers to fails to obey the 1st Sinai commandment. And therefore it justifies the 2nd Sinai commandment and directly refers to some Greek God. Its Greek language says believers should not be conformed to the “pattern of this age/system,” but be transformed by renewing their mind, so they can discern/approve God’s will. Torah judicial common law stands upon previous judicial precedents not what individuals personally believe or not believe. This language supports the suggestion that avoda zara believes in Gods in the heavens.

The whole of the Xtian bible, not just the book of Romans, totally ignores the 1st and 2nd Blessing vs. Curse commandments which the entire Torah judicial system hinges upon. Hence the Xtian bible whose NT supplants the OT worships a Nicene Creed Trinity God in Heaven. This violates the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – תורה לא בשמים היא.

Rom 12:2 promotes a belief system: “how believers are to think and live”. The Torah NEVER commands any such commandment – ever. This av tuma avoda zara presumes that “faith” linked to belief in God. This false assumption/religious rhetoric propaganda fails to weigh the word translation of אלהים which replaced the Spirit Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment. The 1st Sinai commandment does not command to love God as the NT prioritizes as the greatest of all commandments – false.

τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ (to thelēma tou theou) means the word has been inflected—changed at the ending—to indicate that something belongs to, originates from, or is closely connected to God. Utter and complete rhetoric nonsense. The Mishna Chagigah 2:1: instructs that any person who contemplates upon that which is above, behind or below him – better that that person never born. The Greek Word God in no way shape or form defines the 1st Sinai revelation of the שם השם. Based upon the 2nd Sinai commandment Goyim worship other Gods; Egypt and Canaan worshipped other Gods just as did the ancient Greeks and Romans and before them the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians.

Torah Lo BaShamayim vs. Internal Discernment – Romans 12:2 introduces an entirely different mechanism for determining what is right. Paul shifts the locus of the law from objective, courtroom-tested statutes based on precedents to an internalized, subjective “renewal of the mind” (anakainōsis tou noos) to discern an abstract “will.”

The Greek word (Theos) carries centuries of baggage from Greek philosophical and mythological thought. In the Greco-Roman world, Theos or theoi belonged to a cosmic hierarchy—deities inhabiting the heavens, or the abstract “Unmoved Mover” of Hellenistic philosophy. When the Greek NT text uses “of God”, it uses a term that, to a Greek or Roman audience, fits cleanly into their existing cosmic/theological “box.” It abstracts the Divine into a universal, heavenly entity.

The historical context of 57–58 CE from Corinth, Paul’s use of the phrase tō aiōni toutō — “this age” or “this system” – is intentionally subversive, but it operates on an apocalyptic axis rather than a localized geopolitical one. By telling his readers not to be “conformed to this age,” he is asserting that the entire current political and physical world order is obsolete, waiting to be supplanted by a celestial kingdom. To a jurisprudence built on the permanent, physical inheritance of a specific geographic territory (Eretz Canaan), treating the physical world order as a transient “age” to be transcended completely undermines the territorial and physical nature of the brit.

The Gospel: By their fruits you shall know them judges Romans 12:2 rhetoric as utterly false. The NT rejects both circumcision and declares Goyim not under the law – which post NT church openly rejected Torah Oral Torah common law. The Church embraced Roman statute law; hence by their fruits you shall know them.

Obviously Romans 12:2 by itself alone does not support the later Roman renaming of Judea to Palestine. But Rome embraced Xtianity and after the name change to Palestine never did the church of Rome ever once challenge the Empire. Just as Pope Pius XII did not openly challenge the Nazi Shoah.

The NT bible substitute treats the Greek phrasing as harmless. It totally ignores the first two Sinai commandments and the linguistic shift to the linguistic shift to Theos; totally ignoring the אלהים Sin of the Golden Calf. You do not need the text of Romans 12:2 to say the words “Nicene Creed” to prove it is the genesis of Creedalism. Rav Nemuraskii repeatedly emphasized directly to me: if the foundation cracked, then the entire structure must come down. By definition, once you shift the definition of the Torah which remembers/t’shuva the oaths sworn to the Avot unto covenantal alignment which prioritizes salvation from sin and by-passes the brit inheritance of the land of Canaan unto a internal mental state, you must eventually invent Creeds\inquisition to police beliefs – happening inside people’s hearts & minds. A common-law system polices actions via courts; a psychological system polices beliefs via dogmatic Creeds — the two not even remotely connected.

First commandment “who brought you out of the land of Egypt”, changed to belief in JeZeus brings salvation to Original Sin! Paul’s theology laid the intellectual groundwork, it never foresaw the disaster of the Bar Kochba revolt and the Roman name change to Palestine. The Pauline rhetoric stripped the oath sworn to the Avot and made the Church the “new Israel”. Inductive reasoning relies on observing a pattern of outcomes to determine the nature of the premise. The history of church barbarism and war crimes against humanity the reality “bridge” that forever separates the NT theology as fundamentally and absolutely false. Once the Church became the state religion of Rome, it systematically institutionalized exactly what Romans 12:2 set in motion: a top-down, creedal, imperial system that replaced the terrestrial Halakha of the Avot with an abstract celestial theology. When Moshe sent spies to Canaan, those spies did not come with a sign declaring their intent!

The mussar of the prophet Yerimia touch ברית חדש centers upon the פרדס Oral Torah interpretation of tohor middot within the Yatzir Ha’Tov heart. The perversion that JeZeus saves from Paul’s Original Sin narishkeit theology totally uproots the בראשית ברא אלהים wisdom time-oriented commandments theme which the Book of בראשית introduces and the משנה תורה Book of D’varim seals; the Torah Constitution mandates Sanhedrin common law courts to rule the conquered land of Canaan with justice/fair compensation for damages inflicted by our people to our people. Herein the tiqqun O’lam for hatred without cause.

To grasp this subtle distinction shall open with a quote from Isaac Asimov’s novel: The Second Foundation: The Mule p. 62. As an atheist-praise God, Yid, working on a kibbutz that specialized in Organic farming. I sat in the library on Yom Kippur and ate this small book with great satisfaction.

“”So he created his Foundations according to the laws of psychohistory, but who knew better than he that even those laws were relative. He never created a finished product. Finished products are for decadent minds. His was an evolving mechanism and the Second Foundation was the instrument of that evolution. We, First Citizen of your Temporary Union of Worlds, we are the guardians of Seldon’s Plan. Only we!””
This quote, it seemed to me, best describes the k’vanna of the Torah Mishna and Gemara; Siddur and Midrashim. The BaHaG, the Rif & Baali Maor, the Rashi common law commentary to the Chumash, the Rabbeinu Tam & Baali Tosafot, and Rosh common law commentaries to the Talmud.

What does “NOT STANDARD RABBINIC FORMULATION” mean? 3 Types of Torah commandments 1. Av time oriented. 2 Toldah positive. 3. Toldah negative. The latter toldot mitzvot serve as precedents used to elevate a learned Torah commandment or even rabbinic halacha interpretation as a mitzva from the Torah. This chiddush defines how the B’HaG understanding of Torah commandments radically – day vs night – differs from the Rambam טיפש פשט literalism of Torah commandments…בראשית creation story introduces wisdom. The main Torah theme: time-oriented Av commandments; it does not teach the history of the creation of the Universe.

In short: “Not standard” here means not aligned with the Rambam’s statutory, codified model, which became the de facto “standard” after the 13th–15th centuries, especially in Sephardic and later Ashkenazic communities. The B’HaG code: the first rabbinic work to include a formal Hakdama, which includes the 13 principles of rabbi Yishmael. Thereafter this code often introduces a Mishna followed by Gemara precedents which interpret the language of the Mishna as recorded by the Talmudic language. It often summarizes the Talmudic discussion to arrive at the law, rather than quoting a Mishna first to interpret it. Its defining structural feature is the Introduction and the enumeration of the 613 commandments, not a Mishna-based opening for every section. The book frequently utilizes the 13 Hermeneutical Principles (Middot) of Rabbi Ishmael used to derive laws from the Torah text. While these are not unique to the Halakhot Gedolot, they represent the structural tools used throughout the book to organize the laws. The warp-weft Talmudic loom employs rabbinic 7,10, 13 middot to interpret halacha and 32 middot to interpret Aggadah/Midrash.

This directly explains why the B’HaG code — with its Hakdama, 613 enumeration, Talmudic Gemara summaries, and heavy use of the 13 Yishmael midot — feels so “evolving and non-finished” compared to the Rambam’s static list: it keeps the entire Talmudic loom alive, using the earlier middot for the core legal precedents and the later (Galilean) 32 for the aggadic depth that gives every mitzva its time-oriented k’vanna and tohor spirit.

The B’HaG introduction to his common law halachic code radically differs from the טיפש פשט of the Rambam statute law assimilation abomination. Roman law-statute law! Rome changed the name of the 2nd Jewish commonwealth to “Palestine”. The Gemara commentary to the Mishna a common law sh’itta methodology which centers common law upon how Mishnaic courts ruled opinions based upon בנין אב precedents. A halacha does not create its own religion. The Gemara brings an off the dof halacha as a precedent to interpret the intent of a clause of Mishnaic language – based upon a fixed witness like perspective. The Rambam טיפש טשט halachic rulings pervert the Talmud from precedent common law courtroom judicial rulings derived through comparing similar precedent cases unto fixed religious law. The latter has nothing, zero common ground with the former.

“Av / Toldah positive / Toldah negative” framework as seen in the B’HaG: 100 blessing a day דאורייתא, reading the Megillah of Esther דאורייתא, lighting the shabbat candles דאורייתא, tefillah kre’a shma דאורייתא; lighting the lights of Hanukkah דאורייתא, separating Challah as holy דאורייתא etc etc etc.

Tefillah usually read as Shemone Esrei! The common denominator of the B’HaG chiddush – all the mitzvot דרבנן which he rules “potentially” דאורייתא – all זמן גרמא מצוות שצריך כוונה. Toldoth secondary commandment do not require k’vanna. Herein the traditional rabbinic understanding of all three types of Torah mitzvot. Kre’a Shma, requires k’vanna. K’vanna not a word that any fool can simply translate as meaning “intent”. The Shas Bavli/Yerushalmi interpret k’vanna as prophetic NaCH mussar learned to define the Oral Torah middot spirit “pronouns” of the שם השם לשמה which Moshe Rabbeinu heard orally on Yom Kippur after the Golden Calf “revelation” which forever serves as the Av precedent to learn avoda zara – the 2nd Sinai commandment. Specifically, through the commandment precedent which commands do not compare anything in the Heavens, Earth or Seas to HaShem. The k’vanna of this “time-oriented” commandment (as opposed to a simple negative commandment), based upon the sin of the Golden Calf, do not worship words. The ערב רב שאין להם יראת אלהים worshipped the word אלהים rather than the first commandment שם השם לשמה. Words convey ideas they do NOT communicate tohor spirits. The revelation at Horev of the 13 tohor spirit middot “pronounds” of the שם השם לשמה רוח הקודש – spirtis NOT words – despite the Torah speaking in the language of Man.

The Gemara of ברכות debates weather the blessings surrounding the kre’a shma דאורייתא? Why? The language of ברכת כהנים, קריא שמע, ותפילה all lack שם ומלכות. The Siddur opens with ברוך שאמר which contains within this praise שם ומלכות. Understanding how שם ומלכות means swearing a Torah oath elevates a תהילים שבח unto a blessing/oath. This kabbalah חכמה defines the Order of the Siddur blessings. The language מלכות dedicates a particular Oral Torah middah spirit. Hence the Middle Blessings of the Shemone Esrei – 13 – to affix a blessing to a מלכות Oral Torah spirit!

Post the Rambam Civil War (Jews did not fight with armies like as did the North vs South in the American Civil War. בראשית opens with the creation of Order out of Chaos and anarchy. Civil War defines chaos and anarchy among a people.), g’lut Jewry during the horrors of the Dark Ages (G’lut defined as Jews cursed to do mitzvot לא לשמה.), embraced as their “Standard/Flag” – that Shema, Birkat Kohanim, or tefillah are missing “name and kingdom” in a technical sense. The question is more about whether a text functions as a full berakhah and whether it has the required form.

Israelis living in Israel today respond with an emphatic NO. The lack of שם ומלכות not a technical sense what so ever. Rather a k’vanna. Time-oriented commandments specified above, absolutely require swearing a Torah oath – which requires the dedication of Oral Torah spirits לשמה. Rabbi Yechuda understood Yatzir HaTov through בכל לבבך. A Yatzir – a tohor spirit k’vanna – not a ritual technicality. Hence the Cohen blessing Kre’a shma and tefillah all “technically” lack שם ומלכות.

Contrast standard לא לשמה g’lut rabbinic learning. שם ומלכות still usually means the structural form of a berakhah, while kavanah is the inward aim. לשמה Israelis say NO. Kavanna never directed heart/mind toward Heaven. Post Sinai תורה לא בשמים היא. Malchut Shamayim never acceptance of divine sovereignty, but dedication of tohor Oral Torah spirit middot to rule the heart over tumah Yatzir ha-rah spirits also within the heart. The precedent learns through Yaacov and Esav wrestling in the womb of Rivka. Torah common law interprets k’vanna of mitzvot through precedents.

Herein separates how the B’HaG and also the Baali Tosafot rejected the way of Rambam. The Baali Tosafot include Rabbeinu Tam who passed prior to the Rambam publication of his av tuma avoda zara statute law perversion of the Torah vision — to in the future rule the land of Canaan through Sanhedrin court justice. The Rambam perversion changed the Talmud into a religious ritual creed belief system no different from the Xtian and Muslim separate but different “belief systems”. A Torah judge who tries a case based upon a pre-established belief – no different than a judge who accepts a bribe.

The Rambam statute law perversion fundamentally addressed the dire straights of g’lut Jewry during the Dark Ages. The collapse of the dead Roman empire road system made tiny Jewish communities isolated. The Baali Maor criticized the Rif common law code because its structure – while common law – invited a religious statute law reading. B’HaG, Rif, Rosh common law codes as a rule open with Mishna followed by Gemara halachic precedent rulings. But especially after the Rambam statute law abomination prevailed following the public burning of all the Talmud in France in 1242 (((A majority of the Baali Tosafot agreed and supported the Spanish court of Rabeinu Yona and placed the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam in 1232. But The Semag – one of the Baali Tosafot hardily agreed with the Rambam codification.))), the expulsion of all Jews from France in 1306 permanently destroyed the Rashi Tosafot common law school of Talmudic scholarship. The main criticism of the Baali Tosafot commentary to Rashi, that the latter’s Talmudic commentary learned the Talmud more like a dictionary of difficult terms. Totally different from how Rashi’s common law p’shat theory learned the Chumash!

The Semag followed the mitzvot established by the Rambam sefer Ha-Mitzvot egg-crate code which divided Torah commandments into positive and negative 613 commandments! The Semag – one of the Baali Tosafot! He organized Halacha rulings, based upon the model Written Torah commandments. This error, shattered the Gemara employment of Halachic rulings as precedents to learn the language of the Mishna and elevate the Mishna unto time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna. K’vanna simply does not mean the טיפש פשט of “intent”.

The Gaonic school, one of their greatest chiddushim, initiated the Midrashic scholarship which limits itself to making a commentary upon Talmudic Aggadic sources. Its chiddush of affixing aggadic stories to the Order of T’NaCH p’sukim emphasizes the sh’itta of how to study Talmudic Aggada through the פרדס – axis of דרוש\פשט affixed to the warp of Aggadah and the רמז\סוד affixed to the weft of halachic Talmudic scholarship. The Semag codification of halachot supports the false learning of halacha/mitzvot as religious ritual law rather than lateral Sanhedrin courtroom comon law vision for the day when Jews conquer Canaan; the oath brit time oriented commandment of ruling the land of Canaan with wise Sanhedrin lateral courtroom justice which makes righteous compensation of damages inflicted upon others among our people. This latter vision of faith follows the brit established by the Avot who dwelt as ruled strangers in Canaan rather than rulers of Canaan. The Mishna Gemara – Talmud: learns the culture and customs of the chosen Cohen nation like a loom has warp/weft opposing threads to weave garments. 

Rabbeinu Yanah’s court first placed the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam in Spain. He petitioned the Pope and king of France to burn his books. In 1232 a majority of the Baali Tosafot likewise imposed the ban upon the Rambam. Rabbeinu Yonah never visited Rambam’s grave. Repent a Xtian term does not mean t’shuva. Yom Kippur defines t’shuva as remembering the oaths sworn to the Avot that they alone would father the Cohen people. Goyim repentance has no connection to remembering through the generations the oath each and every Av swore to cut a brit with HaShem. Historians do not know these 3 separate oaths which the Avot Swore which Moshe reminded HaShem to remember and annul the vow to make Moshe the father of the Cohen people.

Hence I open with a quote from the 2nd Foundation to distinguish between the Torah vision of the avot from the religious ritualism (1st foundation) of g’lut reshonim. The quote affixes the 1st foundation to Rambam literalism and religious ritualism which has no k’vanna. The Rambam never defined time oriented commandments. His 5th positive commandment proves this conclusively — תפילה דאורייתא – קריא שמע, תפילה דרבנן שמוני עשרי.

The Rambam confused Shemoneh Esrei with kre’a shma according to the RambaN’s rebuke of the Rambam. The Order of krea shma adjacent to the Shemone Esrei סמוכים defines the k’vanna Order of the Siddur. The ברוך שאמר contains שם ומלכות in the Ashkenazi siddur. The kre’a shma does not contain שם ומלכות but the 1st blessing does. The repetition of the krea shma the reader adjoins the word אמת into the kre’a shma linking the 3rd blessing סמוך to the 2nd blessing and on to the Shemone Esrei itself through סמוכים.

This interpretive framework explains how Rabbi Yehoshua taught מערב תפילה as both רשות וגם חיוב. And the dispute between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam 3 stars vs p’lag ha’mincha. P’lag ha’mincha a person can place Rabbeinu Tam tefillen and has the רשות to affix the kre’a shma ערבית back to the Mincha Shemone Esrei and the Shemone Esrei ערבית to the kre’a shma ha’mita through k’vanna. Tefillah ערבית unlike Tefillah שחרית the חצי קדש separates the kre’a shma from the Shemone Esrei. G’lut super-commentaries fail to explain the contraction of rabbi Yehoshua which resulted in Rabban Gamliel’s replacement.

Rambam’s code aims to provide practical rulings without requiring study of T’NaCH, Talmudic or Siddur primary sources. The forced expulsions of Jews 1290, 1306, 1492 etc combined with the blood libel pogroms crusade slaughters and 1648 Kossack rebellion resulted in the absolute destruction of Jewish physical historical evidence. The Nazis sought to make a museum of the extinct Jewish people! But its really not relevant because Torah commands mussar – the definition of prophesy NOT history.

The prophets, specifically Isaiah mocked the worship of idols as brain dead bat-shit crazy. The stretch conclusions which the NT fraud attempts to draw, no different from Muhammad’s who declared that Allah sent prophets to all humanity and nations and those prophets spoke in the native tongues to whom they were sent – belief in a Universal God to all Humanity.

NO. Simply NO. Yona sent to g’lut Israel in the Capital of Assyria. The horrid bible corrupt translations do not understand that t’shuva specifically requires remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot wherein אל שדי- אל עליון – Divine Names – require Oral Torah common law judicial precedents to interpret the k’vanna of these Divine Names, NOT empty word-game translations. אל שדי remembers the struggle of the Avot who lived in Mishkan like tents! The Sinai revelation of the משכן centers not so much upon the external vessels but the living tohor spirits which the metaphor of those vessels remember. Hence אל שדי remembers both the Shekinah indwelling רוח הקודש spirits which indwell within the Yatzir Ha-Tov within the bnai brit heart. On Chag Sukkot Jews dedicate to remember the sacred dedications sanctified upon Chag Sukkot on every יום חמישי of the week/shabbat. Shabbat not just a single day as the Goyim literally presume, and likewise equally “presume” that they can arbitrarily change that day to יום ראשון או יום ששי.

Shabbat specifically commands NOT to do מלאכה wisdom commandments. Why? Shabbat observance during the 6 days of Chol wherein the Torah commands specifically to dedicate Torah wisdom time-oriented commandments. Hence shabbat not one day out of the week but rather the entire week = shabbat. The day of shabbat the white fire back-drop which amplifies the av Torah commandment to sanctify as sacred – av time-oriented commandments as the eternal wisdom of the Torah.

אל עליון remembers the oath brit sworn to childless Avram which commanded him to gaze upon the stars in the heavens and know – so too the number of his future born עולם הבא chosen Cohen seed. The first blessing of the Shemone Esrei contains this remembered memory אל עליון which the future born chosen Cohen seed of the Avot remember as our t’shuvah.

The av tumah translation “butchery” of אל עליון to ‘most high God’ what a total homosexual butt-fuck abomination. Torah common law (Oral Torah) cannot simply be read like a Harry Potter NT novel. All attempts to translate Torah common law – compare to declarations that the “day of rest” falls on Sunday or Friday. Declarations supporting the NT fraud fall flat because documents 1500 years after the facts – already established on the ground – do not determine squat. The dedication of the mitzva of Moshiach falls upon every man living in Israel to pursue establishment of Yovel liberty on the Pesach model established by Moshe Rabbeinu and righteous lateral (NOT VERTICAL) common law Sanhedrin courtrooms.

The NT fraud inserts false notions of “fulfill the words of the prophets” but fails to grasp that the Torah defines prophesy – as mussar commanded to all generations of the Chosen Cohen people אל עליון. Prophets simply not Universal religious messengers because the Torah does not recognize any Universal God but rather a local tribal god of the chosen Cohen offspring of the Avot who judges the foreign Gods worshipped in both Egypt and Canaan. Prophets command mussar. The specific case of Moshiach: prophetic mussar dedicates Israel to pursue righteous justice in the reconquered land of Canaan, based upon the model established by Yehoshua who kept the Pesach ie established the Yovel liberty count (time-oriented commandment) through the sign of this brit – brit melah. The NaCH Books through Shmuel define the mussar k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach through the opposing foil failures of both anointed kings to judge their people through Sanhedrin lateral common law courtrooms and not Par’o like vertical courtrooms like as did king Shlomo with the case of the two prostitute mothers. Justice tied to State appointed courts does not equal Yovel liberty; just as building a copy-cat Cathedral does not remember the oaths sworn by the Avot, wherein the Torah commands that they cut a brit wherein they alone would father the chosen Cohen people.

The name אל שדי remembers the good eye of the Avot who dwelt in tents rather than fancy castles or Houses of Cedar mansions. Gold and silver do not determine the chosen seed of the Cohen people; Avraham gave gifts to Yishmael and his other children. Goyim cannot buy their way into the Sinai brit faith regardless of the Pauline rant which compares Goyim to a foreign grafted branch attached to the Chosen Cohen people “Tree of Life”. Such narishkeit comparable to the gross translation of both אל שדי and אל עליון.

Shabbat = the whole week, because the prohibition of מלאכה on Shabbat, presupposes wisdom‑melacha during the six days—time‑oriented mitzvot: Torah common law in action. The NT fraud and Koran fraud of “changing the day of shabbat” – simply literalist טיפש פשט narishkeit on the scale of the literalist reading of the opening בראשית creation story – blind to the fact that this prophetic mussar introduced “time-oriented commandments” as the central theme of Torah common law/משנה תורה.

The mitzva of Moshiach simply not that a person must believe in, in order to be saved. But rather, like shabbat, a mitzvah on every man in Israel to establish Yovel liberty and lateral Sanhedrin common law Federal Court system across all 12 tribes in the land – on the Pesach model of Moshe who imposed a compound precondition upon the 2.5 tribes on the other side of the Jordan. The NT narishkeit “Fulfill the prophets words” טיפש פשט bird-brained literalism fails to grasp that all down stream (future born generation) commanded to grow this prophetic mussar within our Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts, as a Torah constitutional practice. Not to tick off בלי עם\Bil’am prophetic witchcraft predictions as if they existed as checkboxes.

Bunk on 1 Corinthians 1:1-10. False translation to read the 2nd Sinai commandment as prohibition of images/idolatry – simply dishonest. The 1st Sinai commandment likewise false to imply “exclusive worship” utter nonsense. Only Israel accepts the Sinai revelation therefore the god of Sinai a local tribal god – NOT a Universal monotheistic God. אלהים אחרים in no wise implies a commandment not to venerate images! Nor does this commandment promote what the later prophets openly mocked as insanely stupid – idolatry! Corinthians language of “Lord,” “Christ” no different than the Golden Calf language of אלהים! No where in the language of either the first or second Sinai commandments any appeal for unity in any “after the fact” belief creed theologies. Such religious rhetoric compares to homosexuals declaring that the Torah permits perverted sexual relations.

The First Sinai commandment does not promote “exclusive worship”. It commands Israel to remember which god judged the Gods of Egypt and brought Israel the Yovel liberation which eternally binds all later generations to pursue judicial justice strictly within the borders of the lands sworn as the Cohen inheritance of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov – the fathers of the Chosen Cohen people. Judaism does not view divine status reserved to anything other לשמה בארץ ישראל; which means the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which dedicates to make fair compensation of damages inflicted upon the innocent as the basis to prevent hatred without cause/avoda zarah. Judaism as developed during the Dark & Middle Ages of g’lut forced to “convert” Torah into a religious creed halacha ritualism. Religious halacha ritualism has zero to due with ruling the oath sworn Cohen lands with righteous just courts of common law. The Greek language “Christ” no different from אלהים in the av tumah worship of the Golden Calf.

Corrupt translations – all Xtian bibles – confuse mysticism for prophesy. The Book of Daniel not included in the Order of Prophets. Daniel a mystic not a prophet. The Xtian av tumah avoda zara not only worships a Man as God, but a Hercules bastard child conceived by Zeus the father! The writings of Paul closely resemble to Ancient Near Eastern practices which expressed support for images of JeZeus nailed to the cross and other similar cultic manifestations of divine presence and political legitimacy, not merely aesthetic idols.

Early Pauline titulary predates the writing of any of the later gospel counterfeits. Pauls 1 Corinthians promotes a rival cultic-political allegiance language, analogous to Israelite confessions of the deity אלהים language the ערב רב שאין להם יראת אלהים used as the name of their Golden Calf cult abomination. Monotheism rapes the 2nd Sinai commandment because no Gods of Egypt ever really judged through the 10 plagues! Furthermore, ברית, as found in ברית אש\בראשית in no shape manner or form implies equivalence to the false translation “covenant”. To cut a Torah brit requires שם – the Sinai Name revealed in the 1st Commandment, and מלכות – the tohor middot Moshe heard at Horev following the av tumah avoda zara which the Golden Calf defines as the permanent definition of translating words substituted for Divine Spirits like the Oral Torah “pronouns” אל רחום חנון etc. These 13 Oral Torah spirits a bnai brit person can dedicate a Torah sworn oath/מלכות, just as a person can be referred to by a pronoun rather than his actual name.

Why does the Torah open with בראשית ברא אלהים and not the Sinai 1st commandment Name? The avot did not know the 1st Commandment revelation Name. Avraham called upon אל שדי – for example. The avot perceived the vision of the Creator as in both the Heavens above and the Earth beneath. Post Sinai revelation the revelation לשמה teaches a chiddush: תורה לא בשמים היא. Israel has the obligation to establish Yovel liberty in the Canaan inheritance and rule this land with righteous judicial justice. Courtroom common law not a theology or creed or belief system. Courtroom common law stands upon the foundations of prior Sanhedrin judicial rulings.

Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The two “daughter religions” pervert both JeZeus and Allah as their Golden Calf respective אלהים. The Torah opens with בראשית to introduce the main theme of Torah common law – Av wisdom commandments which the Mishna refers to as “Time-oriented commandments”. Neither the NT nor Koran has any knowledge of the Torah wisdom which the בראשית creation story opened with this introduction. Islam came more than 2000 years after the Torah revelation, its declaration that Yishmael dedicated at the Akadah – fails to discern the rejected korban dedicated by Cain! Wisdom time-oriented commandments require מלכות middot as the ברית חדש, interpretation of Yermiah’s mussar, which rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nassi interpreted בכל לבבך as Yatzir Ha-Tov dominant over the Yatzir Ha-Rah spirits which wrestled within the womb of Rivka.

Paul’s 1 Corinthians represents simply his version of a substitute God theology, no different than the later Allah substitute and the Prime Cause tuma אלהים substitute prior to the revelation of the 13 Oral Torah Divine Spirits. Early Pauline theology promotes a rival cultic-political allegiance analogous to king Shlomo’s Temple which the prophet Natan directly condemned as the manner how Goyim worship their Gods. The Torah revelation of the Sinai Mishkan distinguishes the klippah forms from the Shekinah substance whose tohor Spirits lives within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the chosen Cohen people. Tefillah a matter of the heart and not some prayer to a Zeus father in heaven above.

The Mishna and Gemara came after the Bar Kochba disaster and Rome had already changed the name of this conquered province as Palestine rather than Judea. King David failed to establish the Yovel within the land. The rebuke of Uriah no different than the rebuke of Amalek wherein king Shaul profaned the dedication of Moshiach. None of the kings of Israel ever prioritized the pursuit of judicial common law justice; meaning liberty not a priority in any of the Tribes of Israel or Yechuda prior to the Babylonian g’lut. The Talmud openly states that the Yovel never observed throughout the בית שני period. Hence the Talmud – a vision when Jews reconquer our homeland of Canaan and rule this land through the Torah Constitutional mandated common law Sanhedrin Courts – with their hub in Jerusalem and the spokes of the Federal court wheel in the 6 or more Cities of Refuge.

The Golden Calf like the Mishkan separates klippah from substance. The substance of אלהים אחרים worship of substitute names as gods. This prophetic Av definition of avoda zarah – 2nd Sinai commandment – any attempt to replaces words of Man for tohor Spirits. Linguistic avoda zarah precedes image-avoda zarah as seen in all Catholic churchs. The Torah speaks in the language of Man; meaning Spirits expressed through word metaphors God/אל; Mercy/רחום; Grace/חנון etc. The conflict between Tohor vs Tumah spirits – a matter of the heart and not the Heavens above.

The T’NaCH defines avoda zarah through the war with Midian ie assimilation and intermarriage. Later examples of kings copying the foreign altars or Shlomo’s Cathedral and foreign wives; or Ezra’s demand that Israel divorce their foreign wives. The Golden Calf rivals in comparison to the revelation of the Mishkan. Moshe anointed the House of Aaron as Moshiach to lead the generations through korbanot the dedication of pursuit of justice within the borders of the homeland.

The vision of the Framers of the Talmud – not the g’lut assimilated statute halachic religious codes. פרדס divided into Aggadah דרוש\פשט of T’NaCH prophetic mussar which through wisdom defines the k’vanna distinctions between the spirits of the 13 Horev middot/Oral Torah. The Talmud affixes רמז/סוד to the Halachic ratio of the warp/weft common law “fraction” which stands upon the יסוד of בניני אבות-precedents. The Prophetic interpretation of Oral Torah spirits which distinguishes the k’vanna which separates אל רחום חנון etc from one another — as affixed to the 13 inside middle blessings of the Shemone Esrei like the 3 + 3 opening and closing blessing remember the dedications made on each of the Chag Yom Tov. Each and every Shabbat affixed to the annual reading of the Torah with its 54 Parshiot; where the twice repeated blessing/curse – the responsibility and accountability of each and every generations and the remaining 52 Parshiot (4 X 13) affixed to a given Oral Torah spirit לשמה.

The korban (Tefillah stands in the place of korbanot, based upon the Temple as a House of tefillah) distinguishes between the dedication of living blood from dead blood. If a person cooks liver in a pan, בדיעבד kosher to eat because this rabbinic blood not the same as the living blood thrown upon the altar. In like manner, the dedication of tohor spirits from within the Yatzir Ha-Tov heart not the same as the breath a person exhales from his lungs.

Making an aliya of mitvot elevated from תולדות commandments which do not require prophetic mussar defined Oral Torah middot, where by a person stands before a Sefer Torah or sits with his tefillen and swears to dedicate his Yatzir Ha-Tov middot to rule over his tumah Yatzir Ha-Rah middot within not just his heart but how he socially interacts with his family, friends, neighbors community and people within the borders of this the brit inheritance lands of the chosen Cohen nation. Based upon the t’shuva of remembering the judicial oppression of Par’o and Egypt as the eternal memory why our people left Egypt to conquer Canaan.

Moshe Rabbeinu summed up his Torah which makes an eternal משנה תורה-legislative review of the conflicting tohor – tumah middot spirits within the hearts of all generations of Israel. Here! Life or Death – choose LIFE. Only in the fully conquered land of Canaan does Israel stand in the shoes of King David and choose to establish Sanhedrin common law courtroom Federal Legislative Review of State and National Government statute law לשמה. Herein the way wherein the prophet Moshe envisioned his Torah to function as the Constitution of the Cohen Republic of Tribes.

Goyim treat their Gods JeZeus, now called Jeshua, they mutilate the Sinai Spirit unto Yahweh, Lord, Allah etc. The false prophet Muhammad declares that Prophets sent to all humanity speaking in the native tongues of those people who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai by saying Yishmael dedicated at the Akadah or other such perversions.

The first Sinai Name לשמה commands the action to remember/t’shuva the liberation from Egyptian slavery. Egypt a לאו דוקא word which applies equally across the board to all lands outside of conquered “liberated” Canaan. Yahweh = Elohim = The Golden Calf…all linguistic idols. Torah defines faith as the righteous pursuit of justice NOT a belief theology or creedal system.

King Shlomo the Civil War curse the prophet Natan placed upon David for his failure to trial the capital crimes case of Uria before a Sanhedrin court! King David once he had defeated all foreign kings from off the land he should have immediately established from the Torah the mitzva of Yovel and immediately thereafter restored the Cities of Refuges with their small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Courts. The window of opportunity of anointing a king to fight the necessary wars for all the 12 Tribes to celebrate the Yovel liberty slammed shut when שישק conquered Yerushalem and profaned the Holy of Holies by stealing the golden shields. NaCH commands mussar it does not teach history; based upon the Torat Moshe whose written Torah ideally functions as the Constitution of the republic and directly mandates Sanhedrin common law courts.

Hence the Book of Shmuel and D’ray Ymin/11:10–47 & 12:1–40 lists Uriah as one of the mighty men; and likewise Tehillem 51 makes reference to Uriah. The purpose of the Moshiach to fully conquer the land that all 12 Tribes can keep the Pesach based mitzva known as Yovel: proclaim liberty across the land; establish as the “Temple” the Federal Sanhedrin common law Court system across this land. Herein defines the mitzva of Moshiach by which the prophet Shmuel anointed first Shaul and later David; again with a Torah curse of causing it to rain during the dry season, because the oath to the Avot had already blessed their seed to conquer these lands. But the people rebelled and demanded a king to fight their wars.

How does Oral Torah common law affix/interpret 2 Shmuel 11 to David failed to try Uriah before a Sanhedrin court for capital crimes? Torah common law stands upon precedents. The precedents for this basic fundamental the vertical court of Par’o which vindicated the beating of Hebrew slaves despite Par’o orders to withhold the necessary straw required to make bricks. Yitro’s rebuke to Moshe – some say made before the revelation of the Torah, some opinion say that rebuke came after the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

Yovel vs Pesach learns from the prophet Yehoshua. How do the generations remember the liberation from Egyptian slavery – through the mitzva of the Yovel; furthermore the precedent of acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven requires remembering Egyptian judicial oppressions. Chazal teaches that for the Yovel to apply as a Torah mitzva that all 12 tribes dwell in liberty in the land.

If so, why do most rabbinic readings of 2 Shmuel 11-12 fail to directly frame this requirement? Answer: Oral Torah which learns from prior בניני אבות a kabbalah. Torah common law not a statute law legalism. The latter persons can read law decrees codified in legal codes. Examples: of this non kabbalah assimilated Jewish scholarship, the Rambam Yad, the son of the Rosh Tur, and Karo’s commentaries on the Tur Beit Yosef with the Shulkan Aruch cliff notes.

The common law codes on Talmudic common law B’HaG, Rif, Rosh they fundamentally understand the kabbalah of common law, (Also concealed – meaning not directly mentioned. Why? Torah wisdom commandments require common law precedents – this wisdom concealed from Goyim foreigners who worship other Gods.), as did the Baali Maor commentary on the Rif and the French school of Talmudic common law – the Baali Tosafot.

Why did the RambaN so strongly dispute with the Baali Maor objections to the Rif common law code? During the Dark Ages Ashkenazi Jewry but Sephardi Jewry too (Rambam had to flee Spain or convert, the son of Ibn Ezra converted to Islam.), experienced extreme distress during the Dark Ages, when the Roman road system had collapse and people stopped almost all international trade due to the chaos and anarchy of those times. Therefore the isolated pockets of exiled Jewish communities requires a simple “so to speak” kitzer shulkan aruch to quickly inform them of Torah culture and customs.

Chazal rabbis lived during g’lut. G’lut Jewry post the codification of the Mishna (Post the Bar Kochba revolt crushing defeat where the Romans changed the name in 135 from Judea to Palestine.), and Gemara; restricted interpreting the Talmud limited only to morality and religious halachic ritual observances. Chazal – stuck in g’lut did not read the Mishna-Gemara/Talmud as a blue-print for the time when Jews would reconquer the homeland and keep the Yovel. Even the sages of the Talmud openly admit to this fact. Jews during the 2nd Commonwealth never observed the Yovel as a Torah commandment.

Sanhedrin Capital Crime Courts have jurisdiction only within the borders of the Jewish State free from foreign rule. Hence no real Sanhedrin court existed during the Babylonian Persian Greek and Roman occupations of the land. Just as the Sanhedrin court established by Napoleon a sham Sanhedrin court!

The Baali Tosafot chief criticism of Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash, his failure (post the 1st Crusades slaughter of almost all the Jews of Germany) to write a common law commentary on the Talmud. Many commentaries on Talmudic aggada as well as upon the Baali Tosafot! But not one of them, no different than the commentaries written on the Yad Rif or Rosh learns the halachot tied to a specific sugya of Gemara which reinterprets a phrase of the Mishna based upon the precedent of Halacha within the Dof (and how much more so off the Dof) of the Gemara. Rather all the commentaries treat halacha as if it stands upon its own two feet rather than as a precedent which views the language of a specific Mishna phrase viewpoint; attempting to duplicate eye witness courtroom testimony.

The kabbalah of rabbi Yishmael amplifies the 7 middot of Hillel and 10 middot of Akiva. בנין אב means precedent. Precedents apply strictly to common law courtrooms not to statute law religious decrees. The kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט opens with a broad assumption and then restricts the din. For example the Gemara learns the opening Mishna of קידושין – אישה נקנית through the precedent of etrog. Just as an immature etrog invalid for the 4 species on Chag Sukkot, so too a young girl does not qualify as אישה. Common law (T’NaCH & Talmudic) stand upon precedents. Statute law does not stand upon precedents.

A classic proof, hence the Baali Tosafot appear to dispute the Rashi comment, where the latter said that of the 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael – only the kal v’homer valid for g’lut Jews to use. Absurd, Rashi in his commentary to the NaCH employs a g’zrah shvah! The Baali Tosafot rebuked the טיפש פשט reading of Rashi’s commentary divorced from the context of Rav Ashi sealing the Gemara! Once the Talmud sealed, it became the fixed masoret for all generations of Israel. Hence just as the sages in both the Mishna and Gemara relied on the rabbinic kabbalah of middot so to all generations of Israel could employ a middah employed on a dof of Gemara and by means of a Kal v’homer use it to re-interpret another sugya of gemara!

The situation of David and Uriah according to Shabbat 56a and Sanhedrin 107a.: “כל האומר דוד חטא אינו אלא טועה”. Batsheva is at least a safek eshet ish, possibly already divorced on condition, which softens the accusation of full-fledged adultery. Tosafot wrestle with the details of this in Bava Metzia 59a. So already in Chazal, the legal axis is not “David skipped a Sanhedrin trial,” but “Uriah was halachically liable as a rebel, and Batsheva’s marital status was halachically complex. However the Talmud clears David but fails to address the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach. Based upon the anarchy and chaos post the generation of Yeshua who conquered the land and established the Yovel through keeping Pesach and brit melah – the sign of the brit of liberty which HaShem and Avram cut at the brit of pieces, once David achieved piece in the land, then his Moshiach anointing required that he establish first the Yovel and then the Temple (not a building of wood and stone), but Federal common law courts like the spokes on a wheel as visioned by the prophets – Jerusalem as the central hub and the cities of refuge as the small sanhedrin spokes.

King Shlomo the Civil War curse the prophet Natan placed upon David for his failure to trial the capital crimes case of Uria before a Sanhedrin court! King David once he had defeated all foreign kings from off the land he should have immediately established from the Torah the mitzva of Yovel and immediately thereafter restored the Cities of Refuges with their small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Courts.

Hence the Book of Shmuel and D’ray Ymin/11:38 one of the mighty men; 18:17 \, and Tehillem 7,31, 32, 51. The purpose of the Moshiach to fully conquer the land that all 12 Tribes can keep the Pesach based mitzva known as Yovel: proclaim liberty across the land; establish as the “Temple” the Federal Sanhedrin common law Court system across the land. Herein defines the mitzva of Moshiach by which the prophet Shmuel anointed first Shaul and later David; again with a Torah curse of causing it to rain during the dry season.

How does Oral Torah common law affix/interpret 2 Shmuel 11 to David failed to try Uriah before a Sanhedrin court for capital crimes? Torah common law stands upon precedents. The precedents for this basic fundamental the vertical court of Par’o which vindicated the beating of Hebrew slaves despite Par’o orders to withhold the necessary straw required to make bricks. Yitro’s rebuke to Moshe – some say made before the revelation of the Torah, some opinion say that rebuke came after the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

Yovel vs Pesach learns from the prophet Yehoshua. How do the generations remember the liberation from Egyptian slavery – through the mitzva of the Yovel; furthermore the precedent of acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven requires remembering Egyptian judicial oppressions. Chazal teaches that for the Yovel to apply as a Torah mitzva that all 12 tribes dwell in liberty in the land.

If so, why do most rabbinic readings of 2 Shmuel 11-12 fail to directly frame this requirement? Answer: Oral Torah which learns from prior בניני אבות a kabbalah. Torah common law not a statute law legalism. The latter persons can read law decrees codified in legal codes. Examples: of this non kabbalah assimilated Jewish scholarship, the Rambam Yad, the son of the Rosh Tur, and Karo’s commentaries on the Tur Beit Yosef with the Shulkan Aruch cliff notes.

The common law codes on Talmudic common law B’HaG, Rif, Rosh they fundamentally understand the kabbalah of common law, (Also concealed – meaning not directly mentioned. Why? Torah wisdom commandments require common law precedents – this wisdom concealed from Goyim foreigners who worship other Gods.), as did the Baali Maor commentary on the Rif and the French school of Talmudic common law – the Baali Tosafot.

Why did the RambaN so strongly dispute with the Baali Maor objections to the Rif common law code? During the Dark Ages Ashkenazi Jewry but Sephardi Jewry too (Rambam had to flee Spain or convert, the son of Ibn Ezra converted to Islam.), experienced extreme distress during the Dark Ages, when the Roman road system had collapse and people stopped almost all international trade due to the chaos and anarchy of those times. Therefore the isolated pockets of exiled Jewish communities requires a simple “so to speak” kitzer shulkan aruch to quickly inform them of Torah culture and customs.

Chazal rabbis lived during g’lut. G’lut Jewry post the codification of the Mishna (Post the Bar Kochba revolt crushing defeat where the Romans changed the name in 135 from Judea to Palestine.), and Gemara; restricted interpreting the Talmud limited only to morality and religious halachic ritual observances. Chazal – stuck in g’lut did not read the Mishna-Gemara/Talmud as a blue-print for the time when Jews would reconquer the homeland and keep the Yovel. Even the sages of the Talmud openly admit to this fact. Jews during the 2nd Commonwealth never observed the Yovel as a Torah commandment.

Sanhedrin Capital Crime Courts have jurisdiction only within the borders of the Jewish State free from foreign rule. Hence no real Sanhedrin court existed during the Babylonian Persian Greek and Roman occupations of the land. Just as the Sanhedrin court established by Napoleon a sham Sanhedrin court!

The Baali Tosafot chief criticism of Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash, his failure (post the 1st Crusades slaughter of almost all the Jews of Germany) to write a common law commentary on the Talmud. Many commentaries on Talmudic aggada as well as upon the Baali Tosafot! But not one of them, no different than the commentaries written on the Yad Rif or Rosh learns the halachot tied to a specific sugya of Gemara which reinterprets a phrase of the Mishna based upon the precedent of Halacha within the Dof (and how much more so off the Dof) of the Gemara. Rather all the commentaries treat halacha as if it stands upon its own two feet rather than as a precedent which views the language of a specific Mishna phrase viewpoint; attempting to duplicate eye witness courtroom testimony.

The kabbalah of rabbi Yishmael amplifies the 7 middot of Hillel and 10 middot of Akiva. בנין אב means precedent. Precedents apply strictly to common law courtrooms not to statute law religious decrees. The kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט opens with a broad assumption and then restricts the din. For example the Gemara learns the opening Mishna of קידושין – אישה נקנית through the precedent of etrog. Just as an immature etrog invalid for the 4 species on Chag Sukkot, so too a young girl does not qualify as אישה. Common law (T’NaCH & Talmudic) stand upon precedents. Statute law does not stand upon precedents.

A classic proof, hence the Baali Tosafot appear to dispute the Rashi comment, where the latter said that of the 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael – only the kal v’homer valid for g’lut Jews to use. Absurd, Rashi in his commentary to the NaCH employs a g’zrah shvah! The Baali Tosafot rebuked the טיפש פשט reading of Rashi’s commentary divorced from the context of Rav Ashi sealing the Gemara! Once the Talmud sealed, it became the fixed masoret for all generations of Israel. Hence just as the sages in both the Mishna and Gemara relied on the rabbinic kabbalah of middot so to all generations of Israel could employ a middah employed on a dof of Gemara and by means of a Kal v’homer use it to re-interpret another sugya of gemara!

The situation of David and Uriah according to Shabbat 56a and Sanhedrin 107a.: “כל האומר דוד חטא אינו אלא טועה”. Batsheva is at least a safek eshet ish, possibly already divorced on condition, which softens the accusation of full-fledged adultery. Tosafot wrestle with the details of this in Bava Metzia 59a. So already in Chazal, the legal axis is not “David skipped a Sanhedrin trial,” but “Uriah was halachically liable as a rebel, and Batsheva’s marital status was halachically complex. However the Talmud clears David but fails to address the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach. Based upon the anarchy and chaos post the generation of Yeshua who conquered the land and established the Yovel through keeping Pesach and brit melah – the sign of the brit of liberty which HaShem and Avram cut at the brit of pieces, once David achieved piece in the land, then his Moshiach anointing required that he establish first the Yovel and then the Temple (not a building of wood and stone), but Federal common law courts like the spokes on a wheel as visioned by the prophets – Jerusalem as the central hub and the cities of refuge as the small sanhedrin spokes.

Clearly the prophet Yermia conditioned a blessing from g’lut to keeping the Yovel. The mitzva of Moshiach a mitzva from the Torah, not the later prophets. The 13 tohor middot (“אל רחום וחנון”) in g’lut liturgy in the Jewish state institutional design which the prophet Yermia referred to as ברית חדש; to make the middot of HaShem the DNA of courts, land tenure, debt release, refuge, and royal power etc. To ensure that no din melech exists without Sanhedrin משנה תורה legislative review.

Yovel defined through the opening mussar Books of NaCH

Kedesh – one of the six cities of refuge – located in the territory of the Tribe of Dan. Shimshon acted as a judge during his lifetime, but did not sit as a judge within Kedesh. Rather he served as a judge embodied to resolve the inter-state conflict between Yechuda/Shimon against Philistine dominance and oppression. This implies that while the wars remained that Israel could not keep the Yovel. This would explain why not till king David destroyed the Philistines from off the land, that Israel could only there after keep the Yovel.

Why did king Shlomo confuse building a cathedral of wood and stone rather than establish the Federal Sanhedrin court system as the Torah constitutionally בית המקדש? Confusing the priorities of constructing a Central Place of worship for the Torah mandated Sanhedrin court system – a fundamental av tuma avoda zarah. The revelation of the Mishkan at Sinai centered not on leather skins and gold plated vessels but rather תורה לא בשמים היא. תפילה הדבר שבלבב.

The prophetic mussar of Natan rebuked David over Uriah not brought before a Sanhedrin court. The mussar of the prophet Natan employed “the blood on David’s hands which caused the curse of eternal civil war within the house of David. Just as king Shlomo ignored the elder advice of Natan concerning construction of the בית המקדש so too Rehova’am placed no weight upon the advice given by Shlomo’s elder advisors.

No prophetic commandment to build a House of Cedar. A direct Torah commandment to righteously pursue justice among our people. King Shlomo did not pursue justice, he prioritized pursuing women. Torah defines faith as pursuit of justice. Avoda zarah defines faith as belief in some theological creed which shapes and defines the Gods worshipped in other societies and religions. The mitzva of Moshiach, a wisdom time-oriented positive Torah commandment to rule the conquered land of Canaan with justice. Confusing the reactionary death of Uriah with the strategic error – David’s failure, once shalom ruled in the land, to affix and establish 1. The Yovel and 2. The Federal Sanhedrin Court system.

Hence the prophetic mussar of Shoftim/Shimshon functions to show how AFTER the first generation of Israel conquered the land and established the Yovel – starting with Yehoshua keeping Pesach and brit melah – both Torah mitzvot directly linked to keeping the Yovel – and established the Six Cities of Refuges/small Sanhedrin Federal court system which ideally judge Capital Crimes cases among and between the 12 Tribes of our people.

The Talmud teaches, during the first 6 years of the wars of invasion Israel did not keep koshrut. The language 6 years לאו דוקא. Not till king David did Israel fully conquer the land of Canaan. As such assuming that king David understood the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach, when he commanded Shlomo to build the בית המקדש – based upon the mussar rebuke of Natan/2nd Sinai commandment – David called upon his son to establish the Yovel and permanently affix the Sanhedrin Federal Court system of the Republic of 12 Tribes.

The av tuma avoda zara of king Shlomo, no different from the generation that ruled Israel after the generation of Yehoshua passed. King Shlomo serves as a פרט to the כלל, of Israel pursuing avoda zarah rather than righteous justice among our people within the borders of the eternal inheritance lands of the chosen Cohen people. NaCH prophets command mussar – they do not teach history. This mussar by Natan’s interpretation of the 2nd Sinai commandment equally applies to all Israelis now that our people has conquered once again the land of Canaan.

The Book of בראשית introduces Av wisdom commandments called תמיד מעשה בראשית\זימן גרמא מצוות. Avoda zarah worships the chosen God of a particular Creed/theology belief system. Justice לא בשמים היא – the revelation of the Torah at Sinai לשמה. A man does not wake up from out of the blue and the pursuit of justice burns hot in his blood. Yovel justice first and foremost domestic, within and among the society of our people. Yovel means absolutely nothing to Goyim who never came out of the judicial oppression of Egypt!

The revelation of the Mishkan at Sinai compares to fruit which has an external klippah. The בראשית mussar which rejects the korban of Cain, the identical mussar where the Fire from Heaven consumed the strange fire of the two sons of Aaron. Korbanot as a barbeque to heaven a direct Torah abomination. Korbanot as a wisdom time-oriented positive commandment which requires prophetic mussar that interprets Oral Torah middot which chazal labels as מלכות לשמה as the dedication of the Yatzir Ha-Tov spirits within the heart as Torah wisdom which chazal labels as k’vanna.

Avoda zarah – the tuma middot of the Yatzir Ha-ra within the heart – confuses form for substance. Not the revelation of the Mishkan at Sinai. But the vision that the tohor middot spirits of the שם השם breath life within the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of our people who live within the Yovel lands of conquered Canaan. The avoda zarah of king Shlomo prioritized the tuma klippah of constructing a House of wood and stone and despised the dedication k’vanna of Oral Torah spirits/middot within the Ya’tzir Ha-Tov hearts/לבב of our people. The spelling לבב teaches the משמע mussar that the tohor spirits of our people live within our national hearts.

The יסוד of faith stands upon יראת שמים. Av tumah avoda zarah worships Gods in the Heavens. Torah faith does not exist in the heart of any man who despises the burden of obligation to protect his ‘Good Name’ reputation. Avoda Zarah prays to Gods in the heavens to cover and conceal the sins which profane this world. Justice לשמה pursues fair restitution of damages inflicted upon others among our people.

Just as Jefferson’s ‘Bill of Rights’ apply only to citizens of the American Republic. So too and how much more so judicial justice stands upon keeping the Yovel within our homeland. Yovel as a mitzva does not apply to Goyim in any land or country across the Planet Earth. The ‘son of God’ or ‘Arab prophet’ can proclaim declarations in ancient Harry Potter books of fiction. But where was JeZeus during the Shoah? Where was Allah during the murder of Ali ibn Abi Talib … the disgrace of ’48 Nakba? Fiction stories tell a good narrative that many fervently believe. But ‘fear of heaven’ confused as ‘fear of God(s)’; goyim theologies of fiction do not prioritize Torah constitutional Sanhedrin common law courts.

Mikdash has no meaning by its ornate or ritualized ‘forms’ alone. Any more than a dead body buried in a grave has life. Sanhedrin courtroom common law breaths the Oral Torah tohor spirits, first heard at Horev on Yom Kippur, which move and inspire Men – to pursue and rule the land through justice; meaning fair compensation for damages inflicted upon our people. Natan’s rebuke over Uriah, not primarily about adultery and murder—but rather bypassing the Sanhedrin, acting as a “cult” king -oblivious to the k’vanna mitzva of moshiach. The latter always chooses architecture, aesthetics, and ritual over Yovel, Sanhedrin and mishpat justice.

The Torah blessing/curse brit absolutely and most fundamentally requires that bnai brit Man accepts responsibility for his actions in this world. Avoda zarah trumpets ideal life in the world to come. Any talk of Mikdash, geulah, or “Jewish values” without a serious project of Yovel‑rooted justice and a binding Sanhedrin‑like legal framework repeats Shlomo’s av tuma avodah zarah.

Confusing ועשו לי מקדש as Shekinah as absurd as declaring the Universe created in 6 days! The בראשית Creation aggada introduces wisdom time-oriented commandments through the משל of creation. Literally believing Genesis – a theological fabrication known as religious rhetoric.

Torah constitutional doctrine of the 2nd commandment

Prophetic mussar interprets the k’vanna of 13 Oral Torah middot Spirits which Moshe heard at Horev following the calf abomination! To do this requires common law precedents which compare a NaCH sugya with a similar but different NaCH sgya/ot which contain the exact same order of Oral Torah middot. To interpret Oral Torah wisdom spirits – the rhetoric of the NT does not teach these wisdom skills.

The NT—Paul included—does not present itself as a rabbinic legal interpreter of Mosaic Oral‑Torah middot or as engaging in NaCH sugya methodology; it operates with different “avoda zarah” categories and interpretive aims which promote not only a false messiah but JeZeus is God and dress this theology as prophesy fulfilled. The Pauline religious rhetoric flat out fails to differentiate statute law from common law. Paul and the NT do not use rabbinic sugya methodology or the formal “middot” precedent method; the NT introduces Greco‑Roman rhetorical forms, typology, & citation to foist the lie that any son of man/God can fulfill the words of the prophets – straight up avoda zara.

A crystal clear example: the concept that a married woman could conceive through “virgin birth” the son of God; Hercules serves as a classic example of this av tuma avoda zarah. Paul’s letters repudiated brit melah but ignore the bi-polar kiddushin/get commandment from the Torah which the catholic virgin birth invalidates.

The NT ignores the Torah commandment of Yibum where a man who dies without children the brother has a mitzva to marry his brothers’ wife – the story of Yechuda and Tamar. This latter example serves as evidence that just as the Torah commands divorce through get, equally so kiddushin the mitzva of transferring “title” to the baal that he will father the children of that union. In cases of divorce, get required which returns “title” back to the woman such that she can marry through kiddushin another Jew.

This Torah implied backdrop (דיוק) the gospel narratives of Mary totally perverts. Paul as a student of Rabban Gamliel would most definitely known this fundamental Torah דאורייתא fundamental. His ‘not under the law’ rhetoric likewise conceal fundamental Torah commandments! Just as speaking “tongues” has no T’NaCH precedent so too the Pauline hype “not under the law” fails to differentiate Torah commandment of the status of a bastard son!

The Pauline letters and later Gospel false messiah stories, establish an entirely new religious substitute theology belief system by which the later church introduced its NT\OT perversion as the opposite of accurate. Goyim simply do not compare to a grafted Kilayim (forbidden mixtures) as Paul suggests. Based upon the T’NaCH example of Ruth the ger tzeddick process rigorous.

This day night divergence a historical fact. Does the Harry Potter false messiah gospels expose a Roman attempt to promote Jewish civil war among the already violently divided Jewish sects prior to the outbreak of the 66 Jewish revolt? Does Paul in turn function as an agent provocateur tasked by Rabban Gamliel to infiltrate and push-away and undermine the influence of this new heretical sect by preaching circumcision not a Torah commandment for Goyim in Damascus; while preaching to Romans to come worship the Son of God king of the Jews in the city of Rome. Impossible to know. Only that the writings of Paul clearly different from the other NT writers. And in point of fact, Paul’s “method” closely resembles to that of Yechuda Maccabee in his revolt against the Syrian Greeks.

The famous Israeli spy Eli Cohen, like Paul – publicly executed. Spies by definition rely upon duplicity rather than making bold declarations to the enemy that they seek the destruction of that opposing enemy state. Consequently, there exists no physical evidence that Paul operated upon a secret agenda. Nonetheless the Pauline propaganda as codified in the NT did greatly contribute to the overthrow of the earlier Greek and Roman Gods. As such, this speculation as believable as Zeus giving birth to Hercules as a belief system.

Whereas T’NaCH serves as common law which operates independent (as humanly possible) of any and all theological belief systems; for example the Talmud never once brings the 1st commandment שם השם. The NT\OT stand upon the Greek rhetoric bedrock of sand/fuzzy logic wherein the mobs believe language as inspired even though they do not understand that “tongue” – such as practiced in all Pentecostal churches; Xtianity and later Islam – both theological belief systems by the core. Whereas the Torah faith of justice rejects “belief” as something akin to accepting a bribe.

Rome’s Achilles heel, Egypt the primary source of cheap bread. A unified Jewish revolts in Alexadria Egypt and Judea which expelled Roman legions from their home base in Syria – represented a nightmare threat to the known Roman empire.

What proves the definitive fraud of both church and mosque the “by their fruits you shall know them” slander libel taxation without representation ghetto gulag Inquisition mentality which produced the Nazi Shoah.

Torah as prophetic common law, trains the chosen Cohen people in the conquered land of Canaan to riteously pursue justice in remembrance of the judicial corruption of ancient Egyptian vertical courts which obeyed Par’o. Both NT/Islamic cult of personality belief-systems replace justice with mythical Gods not know to the Torah NaCH and Writings. Such foreign Universal God rhetoric, exercised through racial KKK – power structures, whose fruits for Am Yisrael utterly catastrophic down through the Ages. So cruel, that any attempt to dress them garments of nevu’a language, the very wolf dress in sheep garments; itself, both NT and Koran define the 2nd Sinai commandment. As such, when will Israel expunge this cancerous avoda zara from within the Jewish state? Starts with the rigid rejection of rhetoric slogans of belief in God – Jewish, Xtian, or Muslim. The righteous pursuit of justice defines the Constitutional Zionist Republic which mandates a Federal lateral common law judicial system which regulates akin to a bureaucratic regulations statute law, starting with belief in a Universal montheistic god in heaven.

Interpreting the 2nd Sinai commandment “expunging avoda zara” not limited expelling foreign Goyim churches and mosques or even synagogues! Rather expelling the very idea that the State may coerce belief at all. Tzedek, tzedek tirdof the top dog (so to speak) of Zionism/Jewish self-determination.