The Mishna model employs Case/Din as its judicial sh’itta of “common law”. Torah a common law mussar methodology. A Goy, regardless of the generation born, never accepted the revelation of the first or second Sinai commandments which Israel did with נעשה ונשמע. Israel never received the rest of the Torah until Moshe came down from Sinai the 2nd time after Yom Kippur where HaShem annulled his vow and made t’shuva (HaShem remembered” the oaths sworn to the Avot that they and only they would father the chosen Cohen people).

Therefore Goyim in all generations reject Leviticus 22:32 because they by the 2nd Sinai commandment worship other Gods. Deuteronomy 22:2–3 deals with bnai brit allies, not foreign Goyim enemies in times of war. Deut. 16:18; 17:14–20 – when David became king he married multiple wives; his son Shlomo worshipped avoda zarah consequent to his assimilation and foreign wives! Both men failed to establish the Sanhedrin Federal Courts which include the Cities of Refuge. Shlomo exiled his own teacher who cursed David as he fled from the Avshalom revolt! Yerushalem – should have served as the “Hub” of the Great Sanhedrin – and not as the small Sanhedrin Federal “spokes” wheel – cities of refuge. Proof that neither king David or Shlomo established the Torah constitutional mandate of Sanhedrin common law courts! Hence the specific of “blood on his hands” Natan rebuked king David’s failure to judge Uriah through Sanhedrin courts.

Lev. 19:16 לשון הרע does not apply to Goyim. Goyim reject the revelation of the Torah. Torah לא בשמים היא. Goyim absolutely reject judicial justice as their faith. The Goyim NT/Koran – both not under the law anymore than the Philistines!

1 Sam 17:26 contained within the larger sugya of 17:26- 33 Young David holds Goyim in utter contempt. Shall Jews today hold post Shoah Xtians and Muslims in equal contempt? The Rambam heretic abandoned Oral Torah פרדס inductive reasoning and attempted to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah interpretive logic in favor of assimilated Greek/Arabic syllogism deductive logic. The avoda zara of the Rambam embraced the foreign alien av tuma avoda zarah of some Universal Monotheistic God; he validated that Jews could dav’en in Mosques and his 7 mitzvot bnai noach perverted 7 mitzvot ger toshav unto applicable unto all Goyim. Utter nonsense. Among the Reshonim he stands alone in ruling halacha from aggadic sources!

Pikuach nefesh and communal duty learns from Exodus 23:7. The story of young David and the over-reaction by his older brother reached the ear of king Shaul who had already failed to kill the Amalek king and therefore the prophet Shmuel had already secretly anointed David as Moshiach. Eliab exposed the tuma midda of צר עיין toward his younger brother David. Alien statute law follows the logical foible of appealing to authority. Hence the Torah constitutional mandate of Sanhedrin courts empowers the Great Sanhedrin court “legislative review”. Which “Elohim” commanded the prophet Shmuel to anoint David as king? Based upon the כלל — תורה לא בשמים היא? Hence Shmuel as a prophet of the Sanhedrin court obeyed the ruling of the Sanhedrin אלהים and anointed David as Moshiach and rejected Shaul as Moshiach.

“Kolot u’Lapidim” — a metaphor combining two images: “voices” (kolot) represent noise, opinions, ideas, or vocal testimonies; “torches” (lapidim) represent light, attention, drama, or emotional flare-ups. Together it suggests an outpouring of voices that illuminate or ignite attention — a loud, attention-grabbing clamor that sparks emotional or public reaction.

The Reshonim such as both Rambam and later Kuzari both embraced as did the earlier Tzeddukim – Greek logic preferred over פרדס inductive logic. Early 16th Century Sforno serves as an example of ירידות הדורות, the domino effect of forgetting the Oral Torah as established in the Hanukkah blessing in ברכת המזון. Furthermore, ברית does not correctly translate into covenant. The latter term employed throughout the NT & Koran falls flat. A brit alliance requires שם ומלכות; the רוח הקודש Name of the 1st Sinai commandment and dedication of specific Oral Torah middot אל רחום וחנון etc. Hence the middle blessing of the Shemone Esrei affix the 13 blessing to these specific Oral Torah middot revealed to Moshe on Yom Kippur after the sin of the Golden Calf. The 13 middot function as pronouns to the רוח הקודש first commandment Name.

ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל – ויקרא כב:לב stands upon swearing Torah oaths during all korbanot dedications. This verse instructs the mussar נמשל of the Mishkan משל. Just as toldot blessing require שם ומלכות how much more so to dedicate any korban לשמה requires שם ומלכות. The alien utterly foreign pollution that confuses brit with covenant totally and completely false.

Goyim not automatically ‘enemies’. Antisemitism learns from the eternal commandment to war against Amalek. The language of D’varim amplifes the language of Sh’mot. Goyim by definition do not possess יראת אלהים because they worship other Gods – the 2nd Sinai commandment. Therefore the Zohar applies the lack of יראת אלהים to the ערב רב who came out of Egypt with Moshe! Esav as a people no different from the Philistines as a people. Both this and that nations became extinct. Hence יראת אלהים defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Jews who worship avoda zarah through assimilation and intermarriage – אין להם יראת אלהים … the eternal Torah curse of Amalek throughout the generations.

Prophets command mussar in order to enforce Sanhedrin court room rulings. תורה לא בשמים היא. Sanhedrin 2a, states that a king a prophet can anoint as Moshiach without the presence of the Sanhedrin, specifically in instances where no designated heir lives. However, both prophets and Sanhedrin courts only exist when Israel keeps the Yovel freedom commandment. During the whole of the בית שני Jews never observed neither Yovel nor prophets once Jews realized that Cyrus built the Temple in the days of Ezra to rule Judea as a banana republic. Even Rambam acknowledges the pre-condition of Yovel. Because Jewish political independence ie king, absolutely requires Jewish sovereignty.

Furthermore, the Talmud debates who merit greater respect 1. a king or 2. a Torah sage? The Talmud rules that a Torah sage merits greater respect because a person who learns לשמה one in 10,000 whereas any Jew, even a forced convert like Herod can rule as a king!

Arakhin 15b Talmudic judicial common law does not apply not to Xtians as taught by the apostle Paul nor to Muslims which deny the Avot as the fathers of the chosen Cohen people. Clearly the blood libels and host desecration slanders prove that Goyim morality views לשון הרע not as one of the prime causes of the g’lut of the Wilderness generations caused consequent to the spies report of giants in the land. In Hilchot Lashon Hara, rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan writes that it is not necessarily forbidden for Jews to speak lashon hara about Goyim! Perhaps based upon a Baali Tosafot manuscript which writes מותר גניבת גוי. The Ramban does not explicitly state that lashon hara applies to Goy. The language of these rabbis supports a “universal moral standard”, despite the cold fact that only Israel accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai. HaShem a local tribal god, not a Monotheistic Universal God. Monotheism by definition violates the 2nd Sinai commandment.

Sanhedrin 56-60: This Aggadic passage outlines the Seven Noahide Laws, associating them with righteousness for only the ger toshav because only when the Yovel operates Jews can establish and operate Capital Crimes Sanhedrin courts. The Torah establishes ger toshav and nacree in the Book of D’varim. Baba Kama affixes nacree which it called Canaani which referred to the rejection of the Shomronim which Ezra rejected to assist in building king Cyrus’s Temple. Tosefta Avodah Zarah 9 the status of gere toshav goyim. Midrash Bereishit Rabbah 16 elaborates on the moral imperatives for humanity which the Goyim dispersed following the tower of babel and Sodom clearly rejected. Ramban on Bereishit 34 did not dispute with Rambam’s universal ethics fraud. Proof of the domino effect which the sages describe as ירידות הדורות. The Meiri wrote his commentary to the Talmud on the same year that all British Jews expelled from England in 1290!

Torah prophets follow the model of Moshe Rabbeinu. Moshe sat as the Nasi of the Great Sanhedrin court. National destiny – the brit of blessings vs curses: the first two Sinai commandments.

The casuistic nature of the Mishnah allows for flexibility and adaptability in legal reasoning, enabling the application of Jewish law to a wide range of real-life situations. It signifies a methodology where halacha derived from particular Mishnaic case studies, fostering a required depth analysis of Mishnaic language based upon Gemara halachic precedents. Prophets cannot create halakha (Shabbat 104a, Bava Metzia 59b). All nations heard the revelation (Mechilta, Shemot 20). But only Israel accepted the Sinai revelation. Sinai was a cosmic event, not tribal (Ramban, Kuzari, Sforno). This interpretation reflects a broader, philosophical understanding rather than a strictly textual analysis from the Talmud. And since “philosphy” an imported Greek assimilation, by definition invalid regardless of the stature of the assimilated Reshon authority.

Later opinion made by Jewish authorities concerning Goyim falls outside of the jurisdiction of g’lut rabbis to determine. G’lut Jewish refugees often enjoyed no legal or even social rights. The Chafetz Chaim, for example, died the same year that Hitler voted in as Chancellor! The second Sinai commandments do not employ the language “do not worship intermediaries”. The language of the 2nd Commandment stands upon the precedent of the 10 plagues which judged the Gods of Egypt.

The medieval Karaite anti-philosophical polemic indeed generally rejected Greek philosophy, particularly the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, across the board. They maintained that reliance on rationalist philosophy diverges from a faithful interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Their stance reflects the commitment to scriptural authority and their disapproval of all Greek philosophical speculations. Herein separates the Karaites from the earlier Tzeddukim, where the latter emphatically embraced like obedient kapo Jews Greek tenets of philosophy and logic. This Karaim resemble the Tzeddukim in their obtuse literalism of reading the language of Torah as Divine rather than the Constitution which mandates משנה תורה legislative review through פרדס Oral Torah inductive reasoning. Both כרת societies rejected the revelation of the 13 Oral Torah middot spirits revealed at Horev – just as did the Rambam statute halacha – organized on the model of Greek and Roman statute law.

The Rif, two generations before the Rambam. Just as the Creation story introduces the concept of Torah wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot rather than the actual creation of the Universe. Torah commands mussar it does not dictate history. Hence a reading of NaCH prophets as history rather than mussar misses the boat on par with how Goyim read their Genesis translation of the Creation!

Amalek = only assimilated and intermarried Jews; the fundamental k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment not to worship other Gods. ירידות הדורות learns from the curse of Civil Wars Natan placed upon the kingdom of David when he profaned his Moshiach anointing in the matter of Uriah and the establishment of Federal Sanhedrin court system/בית המקדש. King Shlomo clearly ignored the prophetic mussar of Natan just as did his son, who chose to listen to his young buck advisors at Sh’Cem.

LOL shallow reactionary sophomoric translations suck.

Psalms 58: 1-8, 10 does not compare to Moshe struggling with his own Yatzir Ha’Ra together with the survivors of the Wilderness generations who both endured death and exile from the oath sworn lands of Canaan. The mitzva of Yovel and the pursuit of justice go hand in glove. Only in conquered Canaan where a free Independent Israelite nation rules the land can there exist “justice”. Even in the land of Canaan, whenever foreign kingdoms conquer the land and rule it, neither the Yovel כלל or the Justice פרט apply.

Goyim never accepted the Torah vision of justice at Sinai. Hence despite their “Courts of Law”, just as the Court of Par’o validated beating Israelite slaves for their failure to meet their daily quota of brick production so to all the Goyim courts throughout history ever once forced either the Church or Mosque to stand before the Bar and address their violent war crimes.

Psalm 59: 1-4, 9, 17 communicates emotional themes during times of peril. Numbers 20 re-introduces the Central “Curse” theme of the Torah – g’lut. G’lut as the negative Torah key theme opens with the expulsion of Adam from the garden, the exile of Noach in the Ark, the scattering of the people who built the Tower of Bavel, the destruction of Sodom, the exile of the sons of Yaacov to Egypt and the ensuing slavery that followed thereafter. Numbers 20, reintroduces this, the Central negative Torah theme of g’lut; which comes from the Evil Inclination known as ערב רב who came out of Egypt and reject – to this day – the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.  The ערב רב by Torah definition: אין להם יראת אלהים.  These assimilated and intermarried Jews – no different from Goyim – who likewises reject and do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai לשמה – the first and Greatest Sinai commandment which defines the whole of the revelation of the Torah.  ערב רב and Goyim have no brit inheritance not to the Avot as the fathers of the chosen Cohen people nor to the land inheritance given to the chosen Cohen people – the brit descendants of the Avot.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
Your foreign book of James fails.  Written some 1500 years after the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, it shares no connection to the Torah because Goyim never accepted the Torah at Sinai revelation.  Plus, the book of James addresses Goyim concepts of spirituality — not Jewish visions of Sanhedrin courtroom common law justice.  Your apostle Paul fails to distinguish Torah common law judicial justice from Greek & Roman statute law decrees.   T’NaCH Prophets, follow and compare to Moshe as a Torah prophet.  Aaron and his House anointed Moshiach, whereas Moshe through Torah prophetic mussar serve as the model for later prophets who functioned as the chief enforcers of Sanhedrin courtroom judicial rulings of justice. The foreign idea that prophets predict the future, and therein “fulfill Torah commandments”, confuses witchcraft with prophesy. Torah prophets command mussar to all living generations of the chosen Cohen people.  Bil’aam predicted the future as the definition of his foreign prophesy.

Hence the NT jargon of “fulfilling the words of the prophets” as off as Muhammad’s declaration that prophets sent to all Goyim and spoke in the tongue of these Goyim – who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The Koran, for example, declares that the Jews changed the Torah and replaced Yitzak for Yishmael at the Akadah. However, the Koran fails to show this theme where HaShem choses his Cohen people, rather than first born birth! The concept recorded twice in the opening kre’a shma blessing תמיד מעשה בראשית, understood that wisdom commandments “create” the chosen Cohen people rather than race.  The “human race” shares a 98.7% genome match with Apes.  Starting with Cain, through the rejection of Esav and even the first born of Israel! The still later Koran and the NT, both fail to distinguish: that korbanot exist as Torah time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna – based upon the rejection of Cain’s positive commandment and acceptance of Hevel’s wisdom commandment!

This fundamental Shabbat/Chol distinction both alien spiritualities universally fail to discern the distinction between Primary wisdom Torah commandments from secondary positive and negative Torah commandments – which serve as precedents to derives the k’vanna of wisdom commandments. Its the latter wisdom commandments which obey the Creation story whose משל metaphor of creation in 6 days – introduces the subject of wisdom time-oriented Primary Torah commandments.  The Torah commands not to do מלאכה – create מלאכים – on shabbat.  The Torah דיוק\inference, that the 6 days of Chol/shabbat dedicate wisdom time-oriented Primary commandments and on the last day of the week (also called shabbat, like all Torah commandments wisdom vs positive & negative secondary precedents – equally called “commandments”).
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

My response critically engages with your interpretation – utterly oblivious to the Jewish perspective of T’NaCH and Talmudic texts. My response denounces the fraud of church “justice”. Pretending that Xtian harmony prevails over Torah faith of justice in this world through Torah courts of common law represents a complete and total disconnect.

Your article addresses a specific NT gospel interpretation regarding the healing of a blind man (or men) as described in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The argument centers around potential contradictions in the accounts and explores the notion of whether these apparent discrepancies truly indicate a contradiction or if they can be harmonized. You emphasize the need for careful examination of the texts and posits that the existence of two Jerichos offers a plausible resolution to the alleged contradictions.

My article which you erased as out of hand, presents a more critical and dismissive tone regarding biblical translations and interpretations. It asserts the inadequacies of all Goyim made translations. It chooses as examples Tehillem נח,נט and contrasts how the Goyim biblical translations and the NT book of James fail to grasp the basic Torah curse theme of exile. The T’NaCH division into 3 parts: the Holy Writings which contain the 150 Tehillem as a subset, serves as a commentary to the Books of the Prophets rather than a direct commentary to the Written Torah. This fundamental of T’NaCH scholarship duplicated by the Mishna/Gemarah similar division which make up the Talmud. How much more so the New Testament has no real connection to the Torah.

By the time most if not all NT books written, the T’NaCH literature of mussar common law already sealed. The Mishna and Gemara follow the T’NaCH model and also sealed. The Mishna in 210 CE and the Bavli in approximately 450 CE. By the time of the 325 Nicene Creed, the Romans had pretty much murdered or expelled the Jewish population of Judea and renamed the Roman province “Palestine”. The Talmud mirrors the NaCH Books of prophetic mussar in that the codification of both Mishna and Gemara – the latter written in g’lut Bavil (hence the name Babylonian Talmud).

The Mishna, composed after the Bar Kochba revolt of 135CE! Therefore while the style of both Mishna and Gemara – common law, they set the standard for the time when Jews reconquer the brit Homeland. Yes during the Middle Ages Jewish Reshonim scholars established the g’lut religion of Judaism based upon the Talmud. But this much later development – done to address the Jewish people’s “self identity” culture to prevent Jewish assimilation to dominant foreign cultures and customs!

Just as Yovel requires an Independent Jewish Republic/State so too and how much more so, the Torah “faith” obligation to rule the oath sworn lands with Sanhedrin common law courts of justice! Never during the 450 years Jews returned from the Babylonian exile did Jews ever sanctify the mitzva of Yovel and actual Sanhedrin courts! Napoleon established a Sanhedrin court, no different than did the Romans. Make an examination of Kings David and Shlomo did they establish Federal Sanhedrin courts or did they confuse building a Grand Cathedral/Temple. The prophet Natan issued harsh mussar to king David not to copy the ways of the Goyim! The language ‘blood on your hands’ directly refers to the failure of king David to judge Uriah with justice.

The mitzva of Moshiach, no different than the mitzva of Shabbat! Both time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna. All generations of Jewish males can sanctify the mitzva of Moshiach. Moshe first anointed the House of Aaron as Moshiach. Shmuel anointed both Shaul and David as Moshiach. Later prophets would anoint even kings of Israel as Moshiach – like as Elisha anointed Yehu in מלכים ב.

The NT stands totally divorced from T’NaCH common law faith. Its foreign idea that only its God-man lives as the chosen messiah – so utterly foreign and alien to the T’NaCH literature which employs prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of all time oriented Torah commandments! All generations of Israel have the choice to accept or reject the vision-revelation of Torah common law. King Shlomo clearly preferred his own courts over the establishment of the Torah Sanhedrin Federal court system. Herod’s Temple simply no different than King Shlomo’s in that it prioritized architecture over Federal Sanhedrin courtroom justice common law. Your gospels all “mock” both king Herod and Sanhedrin courts! Your God JeZeus did not understand the difference between time oriented commandments from secondary positive & negative precedent commandments!

Just as JeZeus – dismissive, critical, and polemical so too my response which you chose to erase. The Greek of the Gospels makes no distinction between מלאכה from עבודה. Hence your God did not understand that Shabbat observance qualifies as “the definition” of time oriented commandments through the absence of actively doing time oriented Torah wisdom commandments on that day! The gospels stands upon the foundation of translations! It totally fails to address the key Torah theme of exile; which the earlier Apostle Paul capitalized upon with his “Original Sin” justification for messiah JeZeus. (The letters of Paul written before the gospel of Mark.) As JeZeus despise the P’rushim (Greek translation: Pharisees) so too later church doctrine and dogma despises the Hebrew T’NaCH – replacing it with their corrupt “old testament”.

Frankly, you’re correct that the one shares no common ground with the other. This succinctly represents a modern Jewish/Israeli response to the NT fraud. Yes you can erase it but this strongly supports the divide which proves the Pauline “grafted” notion as utterly false.

Don’t Do It. Let it Go! (Numbers 20; Psalm 58-59; James 3)

Psalms 58: 1-8, 10 does not compare to Moshe struggling with his own Yatzir Ha’Ra together with the survivors of the Wilderness generations who both endured death and exile from the oath sworn lands of Canaan. The mitzva of Yovel and the pursuit of justice go hand in glove. Only in conquered Canaan where a free Independent Israelite nation rules the land can there exist “justice”. Even in the land of Canaan, whenever foreign kingdoms conquer the land and rule it, neither the Yovel כלל or the Justice פרט apply.

Goyim never accepted the Torah vision of justice at Sinai. Hence despite their “Courts of Law”, just as the Court of Par’o validated beating Israelite slaves for their failure to meet their daily quota of brick production so to all the Goyim courts throughout history ever once forced either the Church or Mosque to stand before the Bar and address their violent war crimes.

Psalm 59: 1-4, 9, 17 communicates emotional themes during times of peril. Numbers 20 re-introduces the Central “Curse” theme of the Torah – g’lut. G’lut as the negative Torah key theme opens with the expulsion of Adam from the garden, the exile of Noach in the Ark, the scattering of the people who built the Tower of Bavel, the destruction of Sodom, the exile of the sons of Yaacov to Egypt and the ensuing slavery that followed thereafter. Numbers 20, reintroduces this, the Central negative Torah theme of g’lut; which comes from the Evil Inclination known as ערב רב who came out of Egypt and reject – to this day – the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The ערב רב by Torah definition: אין להם יראת אלהים. These assimilated and intermarried Jews – no different from Goyim – who likewises reject and do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai לשמה – the first and Greatest Sinai commandment which defines the whole of the revelation of the Torah. ערב רב and Goyim have no brit inheritance not to the Avot as the fathers of the chosen Cohen people nor to the land inheritance given to the chosen Cohen people – the brit descendants of the Avot.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
Your foreign book of James fails. Written some 1500 years after the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, it shares no connection to the Torah because Goyim never accepted the Torah at Sinai revelation. Plus, the book of James addresses Goyim concepts of spirituality — not Jewish visions of Sanhedrin courtroom common law justice. Your apostle Paul fails to distinguish Torah common law judicial justice from Greek & Roman statute law decrees. T’NaCH Prophets, follow and compare to Moshe as a Torah prophet. Aaron and his House anointed Moshiach, whereas Moshe through Torah prophetic mussar serve as the model for later prophets who functioned as the chief enforcers of Sanhedrin courtroom judicial rulings of justice. The foreign idea that prophets predict the future, and therein “fulfill Torah commandments”, confuses witchcraft with prophesy. Torah prophets command mussar to all living generations of the chosen Cohen people. Bil’aam predicted the future as the definition of his foreign prophesy.

Hence the NT jargon of “fulfilling the words of the prophets” as off as Muhammad’s declaration that prophets sent to all Goyim and spoke in the tongue of these Goyim – who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The Koran, for example, declares that the Jews changed the Torah and replaced Yitzak for Yishmael at the Akadah. However, the Koran fails to show this theme where HaShem choses his Cohen people, rather than first born birth! The concept recorded twice in the opening kre’a shma blessing תמיד מעשה בראשית, understood that wisdom commandments “create” the chosen Cohen people rather than race. The “human race” shares a 98.7% genome match with Apes. Starting with Cain, through the rejection of Esav and even the first born of Israel! The still later Koran and the NT, both fail to distinguish: that korbanot exist as Torah time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna – based upon the rejection of Cain’s positive commandment and acceptance of Hevel’s wisdom commandment!

This fundamental Shabbat/Chol distinction both alien spiritualities universally fail to discern the distinction between Primary wisdom Torah commandments from secondary positive and negative Torah commandments – which serve as precedents to derives the k’vanna of wisdom commandments. Its the latter wisdom commandments which obey the Creation story whose משל metaphor of creation in 6 days – introduces the subject of wisdom time-oriented Primary Torah commandments. The Torah commands not to do מלאכה – create מלאכים – on shabbat. The Torah דיוק\inference, that the 6 days of Chol/shabbat dedicate wisdom time-oriented Primary commandments and on the last day of the week (also called shabbat, like all Torah commandments wisdom vs positive & negative secondary precedents – equally called “commandments”).

The so-called Xtian “pentecost” shares nothing, no common ground with Chag Shevuoth – 50 days after Pesach. Goyim turn to later prophets such as Isaiah. Their theology divorces later prophets from the Torah Constitutional common law. All later prophets mussar interprets the intent of Torah commandments. Avoda zara by definition fails to understand this most basic Torah fundamental. The Torah event of Pesach I bring as a precedent to prove the assertion which condemns avoda zara to death. Only Jews commanded at Sinai to remember Pesach. Contrast the NT apostle Paul, his theology blurred the central theme of the exile\g’lut of Adam from the Garden replaced by his “original sin” justification for his messiah “pie in the sky” religious rhetoric nonsense. Moshiach not dedicated to cleanse sin, but rather to establish justice within the confines of the borders of the lands of Canaan – ruled by the Cohen people.

Xtian rhetoric of repentance for sin shares no common ground nor any common denominator with t’shuva. The precedent where Moshe reminded HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to the Avot that they alone would father the Chosen Cohen people. On Yom Kippur HaShem made t’shuva and annulled his vow to destroy the sons of the Avot and replace them with the seed of Moshe! The 49 days prior to Shevuoth, Jews commanded to count the Omer. Why? Xtianity just another false god no different than Allah. Counting the Omer learns directly from removing חמץ prior to Pesach. Again why? The Book of Sh’mot and the closing Book of D’varim of the Written Torah both refer to Amalek. Sh’mot 17:9 and D’varim 25:18.

The apostle Paul rhetoric declares in Galatians 3:23-25: faith in JeZeus replaces the law. In Romans 6:14 his ‘original sin of Adam’ concept supersedes the priority of grace over secondary law. But the Torah theme of Blessing/Curse 1st and 2nd Sinai commandments, Paul’s theological rhetoric clearly rejects. The Torah curse of exile, first introduced in the Creation story of Adam expelled from the Garden, the floods of Noach, the dispersal of the Tower of Babel, the exile of Avram’s future born Cohen seed to a land not their own, the descent of Yaacov and his sons to Egypt and their ensuing slavery by Par’o. Together with their liberation on Pesach, Paul’s religious sin:grace supersessionism fulfillment theology rhetoric replaces. But the Paul’s theology rhetoric equally compares to: Americans not under Russian law – either!

The 5th Book of the Torah has a second name משנה תורה, which means “common law”. Roman law by contrast, a “statute law” legislative legal system – NOT a “common law” judicial system. For example: British courts operate on principles of “common law”. Meaning, England unlike the US has no written Constitution. Laws passed by Parliament define the British Constitution! Hence British common law courts do not have a Constitutional mandate from Parliament to declare statute laws passed by Parliament as “unconstitutional”.

The Written Torah Constitution of the 12 tribes who make up the Israelite Republic of conquered Canaan, mandates Sanhedrin common law Capital Crimes and Torts courts. Common law judicial law under the Mandate of the Torah Written Constitution, has the power of “legislative review”. Meaning that the Great Sanhedrin common law court can not only declare a law decreed by any of the tribal-States of the Republic-unconstitutional, but the Great Sanhedrin can re-write the unconstitutional law passed by a tribal authority “State government”, such that this “statute law” decree, now obeys how the Great Sanhedrin courts interprets the intent of the Written Torah. This same legislative review equally applies to “statute laws” imposed by the Central Government/king as well!

Torah common law shares a common denominator with British common law courtrooms in that both legal systems fundamentally and absolutely stand upon previous common law courtroom rulings which share a direct similarity to the current case heard before the court. For example: a murder case heard 50 years earlier NOT a valid precedent for a petty theft case heard before a Torah Torts court today! A comparison of precedent Cases requires some shared connection or similarity between the Cases. A murder case and a petty theft case – simply not similar enough – due to the difference between a Capital Crime vs a Torts damage crime.

Therefore an example of two similar cases: the verses which address the precedent of Amalek in Sh’mot and D’varim. Sh’mot states that Amalek made war upon Israel as a place called Refadim. While D’varim adds “they did not possess fear of Elohim”. D’varim read out of context, but as a precedent for the verse in Sh’mot. D’varim implies that Amalek did not possess ‘fear of Elohim’. But the Book of D’varim, which means Mishna Torah-common law, serves as a precedent (בנין אב) to re-interpret the intent of the verse in the Book of Sh’mot! Neither Esav nor the scion of Esav/Amalek ever accepted the Torah at Sinai. Therefore ‘fear of Elohim’ ie the 2nd Sinai commandment, clearly does not and cannot apply to Amalek. Rather, this lack of fear of Elohim can only apply to the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt/ערב רב.

This same ערב רב stood at Sinai and declared their acceptance of the Torah. But 40 days later worshipped the Golden Calf which they called אלהים. The eternal commandment to war against Amalek, therefore refers not to a physical scion of Esav, but rather to the assimilated and intermarried Jews/ערב רב who bring the curse of Amalek/antisemitism upon all generations of Jews throughout the Ages. Herein a clear example of how Torah common law makes a Mishna Torah – legislative review of the Torah itself!

A similar example: the Torah commandment to remove all חמץ prior to Pesach. Compares to the Torah commandment to count the Omer after Pesach for 49 days – similar cases! Now lets examine the case of Amalek with the case of removing all חמץ\counting the Omer. Just as חמץ carries the din of כרת, so too the ערב רב carries the din of כרת. Rabbi Akiva refers to the Wilderness Generation as not having a portion in the World to Come – כרת. Why? Just as the ערב רב worshipped the Golden Calf-אלהים. so too the Wilderness Generation rebelled and refused to conquer the oath sworn land inheritance – Canaan – sworn as the land inheritance of Avram future born – world to come – chosen Cohen seed.

Hence the intent of counting the Omer compares to removing all חמץ from ones’ house prior to Chag Pesach! The ערב רב did not accept the Torah revelation at Sinai and therefore the ערב רב has no brit inheritance in the World to Come. Therefore the intent of counting the Omer, to remove the tuma Yatzir ערב רב as the dominant spirit which “wrestles against Yaacov in the womb of Rivka”, within the heart; heart spelled in tefillah from the Torah לבבך\כם as a Torah precedent. Rabbi Yechuda understood the repetition of the letter ב as the difference between the Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. the Yatzir Ha’Ra.

Herein an example how Torah common law makes a Mishna Torah-Legislative Review which interprets Written Torah commandments into prophetic mussar applicable to all generations of the Jewish people. Goyim not under – anymore than Americans under Russian law. Neither their NT nor Koran ever once refers to the 1st Sinai commandment לשמה. Both foreign religious books worship other 2nd Commandment Gods. The latter Gods declared as Universal Monotheistic. Monotheism by definition violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Moshe sent to Egypt as the מלאך of HaShem in this world, to judge the Gods of Egypt through the 10 plagues and splitting of the Sea of Reeds. Furthermore, the Talmud openly and repeatedly states that only Israel – not Esav or Yishmael – accepted the Torah of HaShem in this world at Sinai. The case of JeZeus prayer to his Father in Heaven proves conclusively that JeZeus did not comprehend the tefillah commandment of kre’a shma – acceptance of the Yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.

The yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven – תורה לשמה לא בשמים היא. Never once does the religions which worship other Gods bring the 1st Sinai Commandment Name. Rather like the Golden Calf substitutes אלהים for the First Commandment Name, which dwells in the hearts/Mishkan of the Chosen Cohen People who accepted alone לשמה this local tribal god, so too and how much more so the God substitutes of JeZeus and Allah Golden Calves.

The removal of chametz prior to Pesach does not “symbolize” removal of pride and sin”. Rather the tuma spirits which define the Yatzir Ha’Ra within the hearts of all generations of Israel forever and to all eternity. Acceptance of the Torah at Sinai learns through the precedents of the judicial oppression of the Court of Par’o who withheld straw and ordered the beatings of Israelite slaves for their failure to meet their daily quota of bricks. Coupled with the story of Yitro, Moshe’s father-in-law who rebuked him, that he himself alone could not judge all the cases of damages suffered among the Israelite people. The Book of D’varim precedent צדק צדק תרדוף links the righteous pursuit of fair compensation of damages through the Courts as the intent of FAITH! Israel came out of Egypt to conquer Canaan with the Faith to rule this land with righteous common law courts. These courts dedicated to pursue justice among our people.

Amalek cannot have “fear of Elohim” any more than can European Xtians during the Shoah – where was JeZeus? Or post WWII Arabs and Muslims who invaded Israel on the same day that David Ben Gurion named the new country with their proclaimed intent to complete the Nazi Shoah and throw the Jews into the Sea. Following the Arab defeats, the collapse of their declared intent to exterminate all Jews in Israel; this Nakba – where was Allah? Amalek simply does not exist as a metaphor for either Xtians or Arabs or Muslims. Amalek the commandment for Jews not to assimilate and marry Goyim on threat of Torah curses destroying Jews like as did the plagues which destroyed Par’o and Egypt together with the destruction of the Gods worshipped by the kings of Canaan.

The Sinai revelation, as expressed through the Mishkan – separates between substance and form – primary vs. secondary. Its not the forms of the Mishkan and later Soloman Temple but rather substance – that the tohor spirits רוח הקודש, revealed after the sin of the Golden Calf, ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון etc., that these tohor spirits dominate the tuma ערב רב spirits which define the clash between opposing tohor vs tuma – spirits within the heart. The classic examples of tuma spirits evil eye, evil tongue, and making a barbeque to heaven by way of sacrifices – as did the two sons of Aaron who died. Cain’s offering likewise rejected. The substance of Torah commandments fundamentally requires wisdom. This wisdom defines the k’vanna which time-oriented Torah commandments require. ‘Form commandments’ – positive and negative commandment – do not require k’vanna. Rather these ‘Form commandments’ function as precedents which permits all generations of the chosen Cohen people to make a legislative review of ‘Form commandments’ elevated unto wisdom time-oriented commandments…

The Blessing\Curse distinction between the first two Sinai commandments separates השם לשמה – לא בשמים היא, from earlier Divine Names, such as אלהים, אל אליון, אל שדי etc which perceive the vision of held by the Avot as HaShem creator of the Heavens and the Earth. The kabbalah which Rav Nemuraskii passed over to me, that such Divine Names refer to the faces of the soul (future born seed in the heavens). Pesach dedicates יה; Shevuoth sanctifies האל. Rosh HaShanna dedicates אל; Yom Kuppur sanctifies אלהים. Sukkot dedicates אל שדי; Shemeni Atzeret sanctifies: איש האלהים. The k’vanna of these Divine Names dedicated each on the 6 days of Chol Shabbat; to sanctify wisdom time-oriented commandments made holy – עבודת השם. Shabbat ceases to do מלאכה, and has the soul name שלום. The spirit verb foundation upon which this Shabbat soul name stands upon – בטחון; no trust no shalom – hence ideally defines the k’vanna of the 3 meals.

The 2nd Sinai curse commandment, defined through the later introduced Torah concept of tuma. The Golden Calf – אלהים. Contrast דברים כה:יח with שמות יב:לח. The Zohar suggests that כל הנחשלים אחריך ואתה עיף ויגע ולא ירא אלהים that this refers only to the ערב רב. Both Esav and Yishmael reject – to this day – the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore אין להם יראת אלהים cannot apply to Amalek but rather directly refers to the ערב רב. Herein serves an example of how משנה תורה makes a Legistlative review of the other four books of the Torah.

The employment of the verse in D’varim as a precedent to the similar verse in Sh’mot defines T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. The eternal mitzva to war against Amalek therefore cannot apply to a family off shoot of Esav because, as mentioned above – neither Esav nor Yishmael accept the revelation of the Torah לשמה – לא בשמים היא. Therefore the mitzva of Amalek refers to antisemitism as a Torah curse, no different than the Torah curses which plagued Par’o in Egypt. Since this eternal Torah curse stands upon the foundation of the 2nd Sinai commandment, then Amalek directly refers to assimilated and intermarried Jews who therein “worship” עבודה זהר.

The NT counterfeit cannot discern between מלאכה from עבודה. The Greek New Testament primarily uses broader terms like ἔργον (ergon, meaning “work”) and λατρεία (latreia, meaning “service” or “worship”). These terms do not have the same connotations of prohibition found in the Hebrew terms, leading to a lack of distinction in the original texts. The much later Vulgate translation clearly no different from the original Greek NT manuscripts because their Latin translations likewise completely fail to discern between the Hebrew מלאכה Latin Opus\עבודה-Servitium because the church עבודה זהר abomination worships/Opus their version of the Golden Calf-word translation which they call JeZeus.

While λατρεία itself is not specifically used in the context of the Sabbath in the New Testament, it appears in passages that discuss worship and service to God, reflecting attitudes and practices related to Sabbath observance. Romans 12:1, Hebrews 9:1, Hebrews 12:28 all employ λατρεία translated as “worship”. This radically differs from the Torah which employs מלאכה as the unique Torah wisdom known as time-oriented commandments. The מלאכה wisdom – the k’vanna required to elevate עבודה Torah commandments unto מלאכה Torah commandments. The Vulgate has no such fundamental awareness of מלאכה because the Church denies the Oral Torah מלאכה of 13 tohor spirits/אל רחום חנון etc., as the basis by which the Oral Torah interprets the k’vanna of Torah commandments applicable to even lower עבודה commandments when these secondary תולדות commandments used as בניני אבות\precedents — in order to derive the prophetic mussar of מלאכה wisdom as the k’vanna of time-oriented commandments. Shabbat the classic example of the מלאכה wisdom of not just this one commandment but all other time oriented commandments which have their own unique מלאכה wisdom k’vanna just as shabbat has its own unique מלאכה wisdom k’vanna. The latter example the mesechta Shabbat of the Talmud defines the wisdom of Shabbat מלאכה as 39 principle labors required to construct the Mishkan. The Vulgate λατρεία view in the context of Shabbat מלאכה completely oblivious of this Torah wisdom. Therefore its Opus\ Servitium no different from the original Greek ἔργον – λατρεία verbs, both this and that translations utterly and totally fails to make the required distinction between מלאכה from עבודה.

Most fundamentally the original NT Greek and later Vulgate Latin translations fail to differentiate between how the First Sinai commandment a מלאכה לשמה from the 2nd Sinai commandment an עבודה. This 2nd Sinai Commandment called עבודה זרה. Failure to differentiate between מלאכה from עבודה, exposes the fundamental lack of wisdom which eternally discerns and distinguishes acceptance of the Torah commandments לשמה from 2nd Commandment Golden Calf עבודה זרה word translations of Names of Gods. The first Sinai commandment a tohor Spirit not a Golden Calf word translation like the opening verse of the Gospel of John declares.

Avodah Zarah in all its historical forms shares a single structural pattern: the attempt to replace the brit of the Avot with a later revelation that claims to supersede or overshadow it. From the Assyrian‑implanted Shomronim, to the communities behind the New Testament JeZeus God, to later universalist theologies in Islam which declare Yishmael bound at the Akadah etc. This אב טומא עבודה זרה, inclusive of statute law halachic religious codifications to post Napoleon Jewish ערב רב sectarian movements. The recurring claim—that they—not the seed of Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov—inherit the “covenantal center”. In every case, the brit of the Avot—displaced and a foreign center—elevated in its place. Whether that “center” — theological, geographic, or cultural or vertical “Star Court” statute law courts. אב טומא עבודה זרה in its very essence employs replacement theology: the relocation of the axis of holiness away from the brit אש forged with the Avot, and toward a later system that declares itself the new Yerushalayim.

Continuation of the Morse Code interpretation of 5th sugya of קידושין. Where the “Dots – Dash – Asterisk” of this Rabbinic Code of inductive reasoning middot. Where “Dots” represent the 7 middot of Hillel; Dash represent the 10 middot of rabbi Akiva; Asterisk represents the 13 middot of rabbi Yishmael. Specifically, that the 7 middot of Hillel communicate the logic of Yovel-Freedom, based upon the liberation of Israel from Egyptian slavery as the Yovel model-basis. Specifically, that the 10 middot of R. Akiva communicates the inductive logic of Justice-Mourning, based upon the death of the 2 sons of Aaron who made a Cain-like “strange fire” korban. Followed by the sudden death of thousands of Rabbi Akiva’s talmidim. And the 13 middot of R. Yishmael – specifically communicates the inductive logic of Pursuit of Righteousness:Tohor middot. Which R. Yechuda referred to as Yatzir Ha-Tov middot within the heart. Therefore my question placed upon this small sugya, which transitions back to halacha away from the 4th Aggadic sugya: How definitive of these differing sets of middot learn and interpret the pressing problem of עגונה which threatens קידושין, replaced by ‘Civil marriages’ today?

No רבוי מיעט in this sugya. But this middah of רבוי מיעט dominates the 1st, second, and 3rd halachic sugyot. The Akiva פירכות, this דין that every קל וחומר must survive, serves as a clear “back-drop” of Oral Torah דיוקים logic which this short sugya defines.

The קל וחומר stress-tested through פירכא, and apparently collapses, due to conceptual distinctions like ”זקוקה ועומדת” term which often come up in discussions related to the rules of Yibbum-Chalitzah and קידושין-גט. Where the language זקוקה refers to a woman who requires a get – the return of her “Nefesh O’lam Ha-Bah soul”, based upon the בנין אב of childless Avram at the brit cut between the pieces. Whereas עומדת, understood through either – the verification by a beit din of her get, or the Chalitzah which releases a widow from the Torah obligation to marry the brother of deceased husband. זקוקה refers to a woman’s marital status; when a woman requires either a גט, or יבום in order to move on from a prior relationship.

Hillel’s 7 middot tend toward: בנין אב and גזירה שוה “early form” – general analogical extension. If two cases resemble each other → law flows between them; it trusts – similar enough – to generate law. This reflects foundational principles in Jewish legal reasoning. Particularly how laws can be derived from one another through analogical reasoning. For example: Binyan Av involves creating a legal category (or “family”) based on a specific case that can then be applied to other similar cases. For instance, if a law applies to one area of Torah law, it can apply to similar areas based on its foundational principle.

Gezeirah Shavah – a method of legal reasoning that draws analogies between two different texts that share key words or phrases. The essence of this interpretation – that when two cases resemble each other, Jewish law allows for a transfer of legal principles and applications between them. When two different situations share common characteristics or foundational elements, they qualify as “similar”.

T’NaCH\Talmudic Common Law flows between similar precedent Cases; based on their resemblance. The law applicable to one case (the “source”) based upon the foundation that Common law stands upon precedents, permitted to base judicial rulings applicable to the other case (the “target”) בניני אבות. The concept “Trust in Similarity”, this analogy trusts that the foundational reasons for the law’s application remain intact. This permits the dynamic logic of Oral Torah פרדס reasoning, to extend across cases.

Hillel’s methodologies represent a sophisticated method of legal thought. His prosbul serves as a strong example. The concept of Yovel, emphasizes creating a cohesive Independent legal interpretation of Torah intent, dependent upon the prevailing conditions of the times. It “understands” (compares a matter to similar matter, such as the separation of t’ruma from chol) by recognizing patterns and relationships between diverse cases. To ensure that the principles of Torah common law both dynamic/flexible and comprehensive.

ר’ עקיבא’s system introduces – sensitivity to every extra word. It makes sharp distinctions, and completely intolerant of Greek Chanukka Civil War Tzeddukim deductive logic/rhetoric – which stands upon loose emotional analogies, by which the elite of Athens controlled the ignorant democratic mobs, likewise as did Rome. Both static statute decree law societies, control democratic mobs through one sided, emotion packed, propaganda; and\or the price of basic staple foods, such the price of bread in Rome.

Fundamentally, R. Akiva’s middot system assumes that no two courtroom cases – identical. The language of the Mishnaic common law, reflects this by distinguishing between two similar Cases, contained within the language of any given Mishna. Hence his middot system, like as found in this 5th sugya, attacks טיפש פשט Case/Din comparison analogies – by exposing hidden differences. For example: “אמה עבריה” → “perhaps”, on the surface serves as a logical took with which to break the קל וחומר analogy.

The servitude of an Amah Ivriyah, generally expected to last for a maximum of six years. In the context of an Amah Ivriyah marrying her master or his son, קידושין applies. If the Amah Ivriyah marries while still in servitude, her husband does not automatically gain the right to determine her freedom. This means that marriage does not grant him authority over her status as a servant. She cannot be forced into emancipation, solely because her status changed from single to married. Her status as a servant remains distinct from that of a normal married woman. Although she becomes a wife through marriage, her terms of servitude still apply unless – formally freed—typically after a maximum of six years, by her master. The husband has specific responsibilities of food, clothing and duty of marriage. These obligations have no connection to her Amah Ivriyah status. Her indentured obligations do not dissolve simply because of marriage. None the less, essential to understand: if קידושין occurs during her captivity, the brit which Avram cut between the pieces – touching the creation of the chosen Cohen people – equally applies to her children.

The laws slavery concerning Amah Ivriyah, unique. On an immediate surface level, they do not conform to the general patterns established by other legal models such as קידושין – other than the oath כללי cut between the pieces by which HaShem swore the Avot, as the fathers of the Cohen people. Her rights and the consequences of her servitude, they differ significantly from normal Jewish women not sold due to conditions of family poverty. Therefore, while the treatment of an Amah Ivriyah externally contrasts sharply with free women in Jewish law, internally the brit cut between the pieces applies equally to the Amah Ivriyah. While our Gemara address the טיפש פשט surface break which separates the slave from a free woman, the פירכא, in the specific of קידושין does not hold with the non similar case of אמה העבריה. However, the Av oath brit Avram & HaShem swore: the mitzva of קידושין, none the less serves as a close בנין אב, which defines the k’vanna of this oath brit כללי umbrella – for all generations inclusive of the פרט “free” and the opposing פרט “g’lut” Jews. Amah Ivriyah serves as a בנין אב for יציאת מצרים.

The terms Zekuka and Omedet complicates our Gemara’s legal reasoning. Both types of Jewish women Zekuka and Omedet equally apply. This theoretical duality creates a legal tension, where different aspects of halacha applies simultaneously, and therefore validates the קל וחומר comparison of “similar” cases. Unlike Amah Ivriyah where rabbi Akiva’s פירכות, on the surface broke rabbi Yishmael’s קל וחומר; one can draw a strict analogy between Zekuka and Omedet. The interplay between “needing intervention” and “awaiting status resolution” cannot be easily likened to a simple straightforward legal categories – the language of the Torah פסוק in דברים. The latter does not throw out rabbi Yishmael’s קל וחומר like a baby with the bathwater; the פסוק does not easily dismiss or invalidate Rabbi Yishmael’s comparative case reasoning.

Rabbi Akiva engaged through nuanced interpretations that often served as tactical rather than strategic logical objections. Post sealing of the Shas Bavli, Reshonim often failed to make this fundamental distinction. They sought to impose clarity for scattered g’lut Jewry, rather than delve into the dynamics of the model of Hillel’s – Yovel priorities. Rabbi Akiva’s & rabbi Yishmael’s middot draw connections and distinctions, easily overlooked by g’lut rabbis faced with the threats of pogroms.

For example the famous Rashi Tosafot dispute wherein Rashi writes that only the קל וחומר permissible to employ post sealing of the Shas by rav Ravina and Ashi; the Tosafot reject this טיפש פשט rote reading of Rashi. In Rashi’s commentary on the NaCH, he himself employs a גזרה שוו, which supports the objections made by his grand children, the Baali Tosafot. The comments made by Reshonim – no different than the halachic rulings brought in a specific sugya of Gemara. Meaning, just as the Gemara halachot serve strictly and only as courtroom בניני אבות-precedents to interpret the multiple faces of how to interpret the wisdom\k’vanna of that specific Mishna; so too and how much more so, Reshonim halachot do not stand upon their own religious ritual feet – absolutely forbidden to isolate halachic precedent and “convert” them into religious statute law “divorced” from the Mishna with which the Framers of the Gemara brought them as precedents in the first place. Halachic opinion only function as בניני אבות to their specific Mishna. Organizing Gemara halachot into statute religious law (egg crate compartments), compares to anointing a bastard as a Cohen HaGadol. The Rambam Sefer Ha Mitzvot and Yad – this very same assimilated marriage which sought to “wed” Israel to Islam’s tawhid Allah Universal monotheism; Yishmael rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai just as it declares that Yishmael bound at the Akadah.

Both rabbi Akiva’s and rabbi Yishmael analytical styles allows for more creative interpretations which lovingly embrace complexity; specifically – recognizing the dual nature of the woman’s legal state. Their middot therein enhance the 7 middot of Hillels Yovel model. The dynamics of Zekuka and Omedet exemplify how Jewish common law resists simplistic statute law deductive analogical reasoning that draws comparisons between two different things, based on reactionary shallow similarities in certain aspects; the blood libel and Jews poisoned the wells and Christ killer analogies the stench of their ensuing pogrom violence remains as a permanent disgrace. This Talmudic Morse code captures the multifaceted nature of Oral Torah interpretive legal status-obligations. Its complexity, reminiscent of Hillel’s most basic interpretative style, highlights a deep understanding of the relationships between laws, obligations, and individual circumstances—thus challenging the straightforward application of legal principles, as codified in Jewish assimilated statute law codifications.

The language זקוקה directly refers to יבום and has nothing to do with גט. However a woman “chained” requires her גט just as a widow requires her Halitzah. Therefore the case of יבמה not categorically different, because it shares a common denominator with עבד עברה. The גט – חליצה comparison, this sugya rejects based upon obvious dissimilarities between the two cases. The silence on the issue of עגונה my objection.

In point of fact, both give “freedom” to the otherwise bound widow, slave, and עגונה; all three equally come within the Av brit umbrella cut between the pieces כלל. The classic reading of this small sugya by Reshonim, which interprets a rejection between גט וחליצה collapses in the matter of עגונה. The difficulty, this sugya does not analyze exit, but rather קנין אישות. This objection not equally addresses the need for the עגונה to return her קידושין קנין אישות? Hence the objection of קנין אישות equally applies to all three similar cases. A fundamental error in assimilated Reshonim deductive logic, which limits debate strictly to the written words on the dof. Oral Torah logic by stark contrast, stands upon making the critical “black fire – white fire” דיוק. The Talmud text understands משנה תורה as having depth. This day vs. night contrast separates T’NaCH\Talmudic common law as dynamic from cursed alien static statute law which dominated g’lut Jewry – especially after the public burning of the Talmud in Paris France 1242, with its ensuing mass population forced transfers from England, France, Germany, and Spain.

The opening thesis supports this premise: No רבוי מיעות employed in this sugya. But the middah of רבוי מיעות dominates the 1st, second, and 3rd sugyot. The 4th & 6th sugyot serves as proof. They switch the axis to an Aggadic prophetic mussar k’vanna pole. Akin to the Stars & Bars – Confederate Flag. So too the Talmud/T’NaCH warp\weft loom-like threads. יצירת קנין, applies both to the widow and the Kallah; the case of עגונה exemplifies contempt rather than respect. The mitzva of קידושין creates through wisdom/time-oriented commandments\ the chosen Cohen people. No discussion of the subject of קידושין — correctly understood without this foundation. המשך זיקה – extension of the קידושין bond, between a widow and her deceased husband’s family, especially in the context of יבום revolves around this: “extension of the bond” of קידושין. This 5th sugya draws a זקוקה ועומדת boundary as its decisive breaker Yabum and get; but fails to address the דיוק case of עגונה. What, this last case simply “chopped liver”?

The עגונה issue relevant now, this very day! Whereas יבומ a far less essential issue, at this time. Yeshiva education fundamentally fails to address the purpose and function of קידושין as the acquisition of the Nefesh O’lam Ha’bah title – acquisition of the woman’s “soul” ; the crux of the mitzva of קידושין, based upon the brit cut between the pieces. This 5th sugya only contains 11 lines of Gemara. Therefore the עגונה chiddush, “Crossing the Rubicon“ as a “logical error” within the constraints of the language of our sugya; this strong objection qualifies as nonsense. Based upon the larger problem of עגונה, not addressed in this sugya – the added subject of עגונה qualifies as a תיקו.

No single sugya in the Gemara fully ‘solves’ the עגונה problem that threatens the mitzva of קידושין – replaced by Civil marriages. No single sugya in the Gemara even implies placing the רשע under the ban akin to נידוי; as a ‘new creation’, which permits the beit din to retroactively invalidate the קידושין, and compel the burial of such רשעים outside of Jewish cemeteries. No different than Benedict de Spinoza’s excommunication from the Jewish community in Amsterdam.

ר׳ ישמעאל – “Anchors” דרשות, they must remain close to peshat. Meaning that the דרוש\פשט pair contrasts with the רמז/סוד pair — in the Warp/Weft Loom relationship which defines the framers of the Talmud Halacha\Aggada scholarship. The fourth sugya previous to our present sugya, an Aggadic sugya that employs the 32 middot of Yossi HaGalill, to make a drosh comparing T’NaCH sugyot which contain a fixed set of Torah middot (אל רחום חנון etc) compared to other בנין אב similar sugyot throughout the 5 Books of the Torah and Prophets, which likewise contain an identical order – the exact same Oral Torah middot which Moshe heard at Horev; based upon counting the שם השם – expressed through the prophetic mystic rotating wheels Divine Chariot. Where the 13 Oral Torah “middot” spin as the spokes/verb “spirits” – the prophetic wheels – of the mystical chariot. שם השם לשמה רוח הקודש the vortex/hub which the other Oral Torah 13 tohor spirit תולדות middot, spin around the שם השם Central hub. Comparable to the Small Sanhedrin common law courts in the Cities of Refuge and other Walled cities which perhaps includes Damascus.

The logical inductive comparison seems solid: יבמה → a weaker acquisition system → yet ביאה works; so קידושין → a stronger → should קל וחומר work. אמה עבריה: has כסף but not ביאה; so such an analogy – not universal. Counter-defence – אמה ≠ אישה :יבמה, because יבמה simply not a “new acquisition case” – because she remains halachically bound. This clearly refutes the קל וחומר, as a false logical comparison between non similar cases – as taught in this sugya.

Thus the logic of opposing sets of middot – in this 5th sugya – exhausts itself. It builds a Hillel-style base assumption, gets attacked by an Akiva-style distinction, which the sugya does not resolve. Therefore our comparison of similar cases fails “upward”. Meaning, instead of validating the קל וחומר, it escalates to a higher authority – ובעלה – the opening word of this sugya. By bypassing the failed similar case analogy, it creates law – the definition of משנה תורה – rather than simply confirms or obeys statute law imposed by Reshonim or Kings or State Legislatures.

קל וחומר – (ר׳ ישמעאל) – constructed & dismantled through פירכא (Akiva-style distinctions), and when no stable derivation survives, the sugya resolves by anchoring the דין directly in the פסוק “ובעלה” – דברים כד:א. But ignores: כי מצא בה ערות דבר which would apply to עגונה, wherein the ex steadfastly refuses to return “title” back to the woman, and permit her to move on with her life free from her ex. The system does not collapse—it ascends to פסוק. Justice defined as צדק צדק תרדוף, therefore Oral Torah inductive logic the generations of Israel determine and define. This contrasts with statute law whose deductive logic fixed and finite. דברים כד:א a complex פסוק. But it clearly states: וכתב לה ספר כריתת ונתן בידה ושלחה מביתו. This מביתו excludes this former אשת איש called בית. The דיוק, if the ex can go on with his life then מדה כנגד מדה so too the woman.

The Tzaddukim placed in נידוי by the P’rushim after the destruction of the Temple. This ban included their wives and children. Later the same ban placed upon the Karaites. Ezra’s generation forced Israel to divorce their foreign wives. The Talmud later refers to them as Na’Creeim; the Shomronim-who converted out of fear of lions. Torah operates upon the needs of the people. עגונה a need to prevent civil marriages. The פסוק ובעלה therefore not the bottom line. The Buck stops at the 2nd Sinai commandment. The Talmud defines av tuma avoda zarah through assimilation and intermarriage. Compare how this mesechta learns ובעלה on .ע, and its connection to ערוה.

ביאה here not just an act but the creation of an exclusive state. The brit cut between the pieces creates the exclusive state: “chosen Cohen people” as the definition of קנין אישות. The 5th Book משנה תורה serves as a בנין אב to “chosen Cohen people”. Based upon prior נידוי precedents: all Torah commandments exist as תולדות to the Avot first two Sinai commandments. Because Israel did not receive the rest of the Torah until Moshe Rabbeinu returned with both the rest of the תרי”ג Written Torah, together with the Oral Torah middot אל רחום וחנון etc by which to interpret the k’vanna of all mitzvot which depend upon the blessing/curse first two Sinai commandments.

The mitzva of קידושין establishes the prohibition of tahorat ha’biet. Tohor vs tuma defines the Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. the Yatzir Ha’Ra within the heart, according to rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nassi. Assimilation destroys the prohibition tohorat ha’biet. Regardless that tohorat ha’biet – a positive Torah commandment! The system never dissolves ערוה without גט. Hillel introduced prosbul to meet a need of his day and time. The Parshah of נח introduces the floods, which Mesechta Sanhedrin attributes to ‘false oaths’. The mitzva of קידושין made before 2 kosher witness and a minyan – no different from the 10 spies! Therefore the beit din has the authority by placing the רשע under the ban of נידוי to create a New Creation just as the beit din does create a New Creation with the ger tzeddick. And there declare that the רשע lacks the brit trust to sanctify the mitzva of קידושין retroactively. Therein the court returns the Nefesh O’lam Ha’ba title back to the עגונה. Justice. Israel came out of Egypt to rule the conquered land of Canaan with justice.

The din of נידוי an oath sworn by the בית דין. The precedent: the Wilderness generation whom rabbi Akiva instructs: אין להם חלק לעולם הבא. Meaning the mitzva of קידושין not applicable to them after the din of כרת. The resurrection of the dead refers not to some mystical NT myth, living on the right hand of the Father in Heaven or the other mystical narishkeit of 72 virgins. The resurrection from the dead stands upon the precedent of the Akadah of Yitzak, the father of the chosen Cohen people. There, Yitzak swore an oath to command his future born Cohen nation-seed, to sanctify wisdom time-oriented commandments which create the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין – in remembrance of the Akadah. Through the wisdom of time-oriented commandments – the holiness of these Av commandments תמיד מעשה בראשית creates from nothing the chosen Cohen people and our מלאכים agents whereby Israel sends forth these Angels to judge the Gods worshipped by Goyim.

Granted that the Reshonim interpret Rabbi Akiva’s “אין להם חלק לעולם הבא” as an eschatological/ aggadic judgment. But rabbinic religious Judaism did the same with the Rambam’s halachic perversion of the 7 mitzvot Bnai Noach as having Universal applicability despite the cold hard fact that only the 12 Tribes of Israel stood at Sinai and accepted the Torah that the שם השם לשמה lives only within the Yatzir Ha’Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people; the Torah itself designates two types of Goyim living within the borders of conquered Canaan: Ger Toshav and Na’Creem.

Rabbis across the board today kiss the Monotheism idol of a Universal ONE GOD narishkeit. Clearly the psok halacha made by rabbi Akiva against the Wilderness Generation, not inclusive of their children who lacked the maturity to understands תורה לא בשמים היא, as the acceptance of the Torah לשמה-מדדות. The counterfeit religions, equally blind to this revelation. A Goy who accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – a ger tzeddick. אישות through the mitzva of קידושין creates from nothing the chosen Cohen people. In like manner a person who publicly profanes his קידושין oath, a בית דין has authority to impose the נידוי din of כרת.

Tohorat ha-biet makes ערוה reversable. Upon eleven clean days without any spots, the woman goes to the mikveh, just as does the ger tzeddick, and come out tohor! ובעלה stable only under these tohorat ha’biet conditions sworn, prior to the Revelation of the Torah at Sinai and again at the brit of Sh’Cem/Rabbeinu Tam tefillen\, that Israel dedicates the services of עבודת השם only when tohor and not in tuma Yatzir Ha-Ra states of emotional hatred. Which the Torah links to the death of the two sons of Aaron, their Cain-like ‘strange fire’ which confuses toldoth commandments with Av tohor wisdom commandments.

A Torah oath stands Worlds apart from a Torah Vow. Both Rosh Ha’Shanna and Yom Kippur definitively prove this fact. Not even השם can annul a Torah oath sworn to the Avot that they alone would father the chosen Cohen people. Even in the face of av tuma avoda zarah – Golden Calf. השם therefore remembered the oath sworn to the Avot and made t’shuva on Yom Kippur. No oath No brit. The טומאה of swearing false oaths – this tuma negates the brit: a man who in public refuses to return the sacred Title property acquired through the mitzva of קידושין by giving her a גט, negates “himself” as traitor of bnai brit. Both the mikveh in one case and the beit din in the other similar case, publicly validates the status of both the woman and the רשע. No different than a Karaite today, who must become a ger tzeddick to join the bnai brit Cohen society.

What fundamentally serves as the foundation of the oath brit identity? יראת שמים. The man who refuses to give his ex-wife her get and return Title of her soul, destroys his good name reputation. No different from a man who publicly profanes Shabbat. The 10 tribes of Israel lost precisely over their loss of their good name reputation identities. Obviously for a beit din to place the ban of נדוי upon a רשע, not a trivial matter. But then again עגונה not lite either.

Just as the עבד עברי losses his free status so too and how much more so the רשע who publicly humiliates his ex-wife by refusing to return her Nefesh Olam Ha’ba soul. Based upon this פסוק condition, that he would return this Title upon their divorce. Further supported by the din of a woman property wherein she enters קידושין – likewise returns to her possession upon divorce.

This Nabal like רשע qualifies within the category of מבטל ברית\הפקעת קידושין. His stands on par with the respect given to an Apikorus – a person whose actions have destroyed their good name reputations. The reference to a “stubborn and rebellious son”, a משל only. Such a Nabal משל, based upon the Book of Shmuel, similar to Cases of Capital Crimes! His דעת throughout the Shas, such as in the opening Mishna of Chullen, another similar משל.

A man who persistently refuses גט, in defiance of beit din and ציבור, reveals retroactively that his דעת קידושין – never aligned with אדעתא דרבנן. A בית דין which exposes that this tuma קידושין, never sustainable within the brit framework, because the husband’s conduct proves itself as a rupture in אדעתא דרבנן – collapses the original קידושין … הפקעת קידושין. The כרת din of נדוי exposes the evidence of rupture on par to the metaphor – stubborn and rebellious son. Thus while rabbi Yishmael’s קל וחומר fails → analogy unreliable; the פסוק anchors system — however, אדעתא דרבנן gives dynamic authority, it establishes a meta-framework of קידושין = אדעתא דרבנן.

The stubborn and rebellious son משל serves to amplify the רשע who refuses to grant a גט – in contempt of a beit din court, which demonstrates a rupture in both ברית and ציבור trust. Such a man, his disgraceful behaviour, as if that man lacks possession of sane דעת. This rupture, not merely moral but legal: it reveals that his original קידושין lacked sustainable אדעתא דרבנן. Through נידוי and ציבור designation, the beit din does not “create a new גט,” but rather exposes and activates the mechanism of הפקעת קידושין—collapsing the original bond due to defective brit דעת. Therefore the בית דין it proves that his דעת invalid → קידושין collapses under אדעתא דרבנן. This tuma marriage – נידוי functions as the ציבור’s formal declaration that this rupture is legally recognized; treated as if it never fully took hold under valid תנאים. Classified as כמי שלא נתקדשה כראוי.

Through נידוי and ציבור designation, the בית דין establishes this rupture as a legal fact. It effectively serves as the evidentiary trigger that activates the הפקעת קידושין—not by replacing the גט, but by collapsing the original קידושין as lacking valid covenantal דעת. Herein the clarified chiddush made upon our sugya of Gemarah which rejects loose analogies but still directly addresses the עגונה crisis. Such a Man, his דעתו אינה מתקיימת במסגרת אדעתא דרבנן של קידושין….אדעתא דרבנן → הפקעת קידושין → פתרון עגונה.

In conclusion: A husband who persistently refuses to grant a גט in defiance of בית דין and ציבור demonstrates a fundamental rupture in ברית and communal trust. This rupture does not negate his general legal capacity, but it reveals that his דעת within קידושין cannot be sustained under אדעתא דרבנן. Through נידוי and ציבור designation, בית דין establishes this rupture as a legal fact. On that basis, they may activate הפקעת קידושין—not by replacing the גט, but by recognizing that the original קידושין lacked valid covenantal דעת and therefore never fully took hold under its תנאים. Accordingly, the woman is no longer bound as an אשת איש, without the need for a גט.