קידושין (משנה תורה) סוגיה ב – אב משנה

The study of Talmud, a discipline which compares and contrasts different sets of logical middot. Upon this fundamental יסוד defines both T’NaCH and Talmudic common law systems. So far this week have contrasted how foreign alien Goyim read their scriptures; exposing how completely different Goyim view and understand their scriptures as “the word of God” as opposed to the vastly inferior idea of “word of Man”.

The Talmud and T’NaCH as judicial common law, has a vast gulf separation between Xtian fiction and Islamic poetry literature which both cultures declare as “sacred scripture”. Jewish common law never comes “from Heaven” as does Goyim scripture avoda zara. T’NaCH prophets with their Holy Writings (Gemara) commentaries examine how mussar defines the k’vanna of the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the bnai brit hearts. Aggadah together with its Midrashic reference sources, both based upon the T’NaCH; how prophetic mussar transforms rote halachic ritualism unto Avot time-oriented commandments of the Torah which require k’vanna.

The halachic portions of the Talmud make a משנה תורה-common law-legislative review employing halachot as precedents to re-interpret the language of the Sanhedrin courtroom judicial rulings codified within the 6 Orders of the Mishna. The righteous pursuit of justice defines “Faith” as the definition of Talmudic scholarship. A Grand Canyon separation between how Goyim worship their “word of God scriptures”.

Therefore for modern day Jews, struggling with assimilation to the dominant Goyim cultures and customs, and perhaps intermarried with alien Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, learning Talmud requires tremendous patience because it requires stepping outside the box of Greek deductive logic, freeing their minds from the “Word of God” cage Zoology; sinful Man condemned to Hell but either saved by a fictional messiah or warned in Arabic by some last prophet – Arabs being the last people on this Earth to receive their warning prophet.

The Framers of the Talmud already lived in g’lut/exile. There vision: to establish the Model of a Sanhedrin judicial court system which would serve as the basis, the foundation – for the time when Jews fought successful wars and reconquered our banished homelands from Goyim occupiers. Both the Mishna and the Gemara/Talmud – post disaster Bar Kokhba revolt against Roman rule (132–136 CE); post 70 CE destruction of Herod Temple ‘fairy-tale nostalgia’.

The prophet Natan’s mussar rejected king David’s assimilated fantacy to build a “House of Cedar” for God avoda zara; not because that David had “blood on his hands” – Israel anointed him king to fight their wars! The Talmud defines avoda zara as A) assimilation and B) intermarriage. Av tuma avoda zara defines “blood on his hands”, according to how the Talmud understands the 2nd Sinai commandment.

Grasping the layered nature of both T’NaCH and Talmudic common law essentially requires stepping away from the skewed perspectives of foreign cultures and customs wherein g’lut Jewry lives. T’NaCH and Talmudic common law endeavors to shape and define Jewish (chosen Cohen people) culture, customs and practices which maintains the integral Jewish identity “drop” which has fallen into the far larger ocean of Goyim societies and civilizations – all of which reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – to this very day.

The Siddur shapes the 6 “Orders” of the Mishna – words within words/רמז. The כלל always applies in Talmudic scholarship: First Order, then Speed. Scholarship must first discern which set of basic middot define the substance of a particular Gemara sugya. The first two sugyot rely heavily upon rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט middah to determine that a young child not “acquired” through קידושין through כספ שטר וביאה; this the second sugya excludes (קמ”ל) chuppa as the first sugya excluded small children. Middot function as the critical most important building blocks upon which פרדס inductive logic stands. Just that simple, no fancy dance’n. Yet the Reshonim commentaries virtually all failed to acknowledge this most essential top-priority of Talmudic transcription of Oral Torah 13 middot & Tannaim middot — unto the “written word” of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law!

The righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which strives to restore fair compensation of damages inflicted simply does not exist in Goyim avoda zara which defines faith as belief in some theologically established creed dictated belief system which “define” their Gods. T’NaCH and Talmud teach: defining the nature of the Gods beyond the Human “pay scale”. In short: the theology of Monotheism (daughter religions), an utter Torah abomination due to the arrogance of the Yatzir Ha’Raw, which prioritizes the worship of some newly – theologically created – God, over & above the righteous pursuit of justice among and between any given set of people/nations as the meaning & definition of faith.

The righteous pursuit of justice – “Words of Man” and not “words of God”. The Torah commandment to remember the slavery of Egypt, best summarized by the corrupt court of Par’o whose command withheld the essential straw required to make bricks and whose Court condemned Israelites for their failure to meet Par’o quota tale of production; learned in conjunction with Yitro’s mussar rebuke to Moshe Rabbeinu when he alone judged the disputes over damages between the Jewish people who came out of Egypt. Israel did not come out of Egypt to worship the “word of God”, but rather to physically invade conquer Canaan and rule this land with righteous judicial justice.

Torah “faith” established a completely different judicial set of priorities based upon the Tower of Babel. The latter understood as the critical mussar which addresses: How does a human civilization collapse? The answer: ‘Diverse languages’, a טיפש פשט ignorance of Torah prophetic mussar. Rather a conflict of interests wherein Man despises contractual agreements made. Herein understands the mussar of ‘diverse languages’.

For example: the modern Torah oath “Never Again”. Jews cannot dictate that we shall “Never Again” rule our homelands with a Herod like injustice. Rather, that Europeans societies in particular shall “Never Again” decide their “Jewish Problem” with their own unilateral dictates. Hence Israelis reject UN Resolutions 242, 338, 446, 2334 etc etc etc. European and post ’48 and ’67 Arabs have no ‘Fear of Heaven’. The latter repeatedly sought to complete the Nazi genocide of the Jews across the Middle East. Both corrupt religions of avoda zara have permanently destroyed their “Good Name Reputations”; on par and similar to how the nations of Canaan equally destroyed their “Good Name Reputations” through their criminal judicial injustice. Therefore the idea of “Fear of Heaven”, stands upon the foundation of the collapse of the Tower of Babel Torah prophetic mussar rebuke.

With this summation, shall now examine – based upon the midda רבוי מיעט of פרט – בראשית כג:יג, and how a precedent search comparison defines the k’vanna of the exclusion of Chuppah which this sugya currently addresses. The study of law, not a religious belief system but rather a ‘be here now’ application of prophetic mussar to Jewish day to day lives throughout the generations, times, and Eras. The rabbis of Conservative/Historical Judaism missed this most basic of fundamental, on par with off the דרך Orthodox rabbinic Judaism which fails to educate in Yeshiva the difference between common law from statute law. Each generation of Jews living compares to a new floor in the construction of the Jewish civilization which contrasts with the Tower of Babel collapse — as exemplified by the recent Fall of the Nazi, French, British, and USSR empires.

The sugya of Parshat חיי שרה – כג: א-כ. Learning in context perhaps describes rabbi Yishmael’s midda of פרט כלל או כלל פרט. Bottom line: the different middot systems of Torah and rabbinic common law compare to the straw required to make brick in Egypt. Rav Nemuraskii repeatedly emphasized: if the foundation cracked, then the entire building must come down. The statute law codes made by the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch serve as examples of a cracked foundation; in no way, shape, manner, or form do they qualify as “Oral Torah”.

The years of the life of Sarah, our mother, duplicates the number of Republics within the Persian empire. The king Cyrus the Great ordered the construction of the 2nd assimilated Jewish Cathedral as the basis of the restoration of the Jewish return to Judea. By stark contrast the rabbis of the Talmud prioritized Sanhedrin rule as the basis of the restoration of the Jewish return to Judea. The Shomronim\Canaani, Tzeddukim, Karaim, Rambam all invalidated the dedication of the lights of Chanukkah – the miracle of the restoration of Jewish National Sanhedrin Legislative Review Independence. The 13 Oral Torah Horev middot and Tannaim halachic middot “building-blocks”, by absolute juxtaposition – opposition: sanctify and validate the k’vanna of the mitzva to light the lights of Chanukkah to advertise the miracle of Jewish National Freedom which restores Sanhedrin common law Legislative Review Independence.

The acquisition of burial land for Sarah our mother, serves as an eternal building block foundation upon which stands all generations of Israelis building a civilization within the borders of the lands of Canaan. The mitzva of קידושין as both a Torah and Talmudic precedent stands upon this bedrock יסוד.

This opening sugya of חיי שרה directly linked to the two previous פ chapters of Parshat וירא which address Akadat Yitzak and the family of Rivka our mother. The Akadah established Yitzak as the chosen heir of the Cohen brit seed of Avraham as establish at the oath brit alliance – brit between the pieces. The dedication of Yitzak, placed upon the altar, not some barbeque unto Heaven טיפש פשט made by the Koran in in Surah Al-Saffat (37:102-107), but rather the sanctification of Yitzak as the dedicated father of the chosen Cohen people.

The Koran prioritizes “obedience and submission” as faith to Allah’s Will. The Torah prophetic mussar instructs the dedication, based upon the Torah precedent of korbanot, called “עבודת השם”. The time-oriented commandment Akadah established Yitzak as the father of the chosen seed of Avraham the father of the Cohen people. The Koran “obenience and submission” substitute theology completely changed the Torah Central theme; no different than the NT revisionist history which replaced JeZeus for the Chosen Cohen children of the Avot.

The Akadah represents the logical consequences of the oath sworn between the pieces that the future born chosen seed of Avram would father the Chosen Cohen people. Therefore its not the “sacrifice” which defines the mitzva of עבודת השם – the טיפש פשט reached by the Koran fraud, which fails to address the Central Torah theme – the building of the chosen Cohen people through the מלאכה חכמה שהוא נקרא עבודת השם. Herein defines the k’vanna of this time-oriented prophetic mussar Torah aggada.

All Korbanot dedications stand upon the common law יסוד of the Akada dedication of Yitzak as the chosen seed of Avraham, which like Cain & Esau both rejected as the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham. Therefore the Koran fraud fails to either submit or obey the Torah oath brit cut between the pieces which establishes Avraham as the father of the chosen Cohen people.
ויאמר בי נשבעתי נאם ה’ כי יען אשר עשית את הדבר הזה ולא חשכת את בנך את יחידך כי ברך אברכך והרבה ארבה את זרעך ככוכבי השמים וכחול אשר על שפת הים ורש זרעך את שער איביו.

כלל: Law precedes text. Avoda Zara – statues law, metaphysics, & theology. Aggadah interprets Nevuah, to shape kavvanah; aggada does not to replace halacha. Halakha functions through precedent which re-interpret the language of the Mishna, viewed from a completely different perspective, simply not fossil statute law religious dictates made by cults of personality. The Sanhedrin, not some assimilated foreign Cathedral-Temple, but rather the substance or constitutional heart of Israel. Confusing substance with form amounts to טיפש פשט.

Roman law deductive logic does not replace פרדס inductive common law jurisprudence. Kiddushin does not begin with romance, mysticism, or ritual; it begins with קניין—because marriage in Torah – a legal acquisition of obligations, not a sacrament. Classic Rabbi Akiva: 1) Define the legal object. 2) Exclude improper cases. 3) Only then build the rule. Chuppah does not create kinyan; Chuppah, a consequence of kiddushin, not its cause. Korbanot sanctify avodat Hashem – time-oriented commandments, not appeasement. Torah sanctifies human legislative authority. Torah does not come from Heaven but from Torah sages who have dedicated their tohor middot\Yatzir Ha’Tov within their hearts.

A בנין אב interpretation of the בראשית aggada: דברים ב:לא-ג:ב. The mitzva of קידושין establishes an inheritance just as does the conquering of the nations of Canaan. Translating the שם השם to Golden Calf “word translations” violates: לא תשא את שם השם אלהיך לשוא. Like as similarly does causing ones’ children to embrace and follow the cultures and customs practiced by foreign aliens who reject and despise the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Directly based upon the commandment to totally obliterate the nations of Canaan. The eternal k’vanna inheritance of the mitzva of קידושין.

Placing the blessing upon הר גרזים and the curse upon הר עיבל, the summation of the first two Sinai commandments, upon which hang – like a mountain by a hair – all other Torah commandments.
כי אם אל המקום אשר יבחר ה’ אלהיכם מכל שבטיכם לשום את שמו שם לשכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה
This p’suk understood as Sanhedrin courtroom common law justice and not some cult like building made from wood and stone. The latter compares to making permanent tatoo marks upon ones’ flesh, comparable to eating tuma and treif animal flesh.

The mitzva of קידושין compares to Jews observing Chag Pesach. This Chag not applicable to Goyim anymore than קידושין. The removal of חמץ – the destruction of avoda zara within our hearts through the dedication of the Divine Name האל. Impossible to become tohor by entering a mikva while holding a dead rat; cannot accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai while worshipping alien Gods. In like manner justice depends upon wisdom, not what a person personally believes. Israel requires righteous judicial justice-cities of refuge. Synagogues simply icing on the cake. Xtianity and Islam directly compare to the מיעט of עמוני ומואבי, excluded from the Jewish people.

As a man has an obligation to honor and build the dignity of his wife and children, this obligation extends to giving tzedakah to the poor, widows, orphans etc among our bnai brit extended family. Why do “strangers”, especially the poor or distressed merit such respect? Because poverty does not prevent Jews from doing mitzvot. Even Moshe Rabbeinu himself excluded from entering the land due to mocking the poor and weak of Torah faith among our people; when Moshe’s satire challenged, if he or Aaron, bring water out of the rock. Comparable to plagues which afflicted Egypt. This error, it forgets the humility of Sinai; wherein the Torah reveals a local god rather than a Great monotheistic Universal God.

A NaCH precedent: ישעיה יז:א-יח:ז. Hear the mussar of our prophet, the Torah curse of the Tower of Babel applies equally to all man-kind, including the nation of Israel. Who endures g’lut on multiple occasions consequent to our pride and arrogance; tuma middot which our Yatzir Ha’Raw breaths from within our hearts…

The language “before God … and the Father” introduces a duality that the First Sinai commandment does not tolerate. Therefore this line of NT reasoning utterly and totally false no different than the Nicene Creed Triune Gods Monotheism theology. This NT attempt to differentiate between the Gospels Father and Son God duality fits into line with the Persian Zoasterian theology which also defines their “monotheism” as a duality of Gods.

The language of the Sinai first commandment introduces the Spirit Name – that’s not a word. The Nicene Creed theology hence introduced “Holy Spirit” in their triune God speculations. The language of the Sinai second commandment validates that Goyim worships other Gods. Because only the 12 Tribes of Israel accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, by definition Goyim worship the 2nd Sinai negative commandment of “other Gods”. Hence the Xtian Muslim theological speculations which both call “Monotheism” violates all the commandments of the Torah. Because all the rest of the Torah commandments subsumed within the opening first two Sinai commandments.

Furthermore, the Torah specifically reject theological debates upon some theoretical “God-Head”. Tawhid, literally “to unite” or “to make one”, refers to the principle of monotheism in Islam. This Islamic creed belief system, like the Nicene Creed, and bi-polar Zoroaster Gods of Light & Darkness — all equally a Torah av tuma abomination of avoda zara.

The first Sinai commandment abhors a strict monotheism. Only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai. Therefore the god of Israel a local tribal god. Not a Monotheistic Universal God as all three religious mentioned above, their theological creeds dictate. Furthermore the language “pure” in James 1:27 does not correctly translate to the Hebrew tohor. The NT “pure” — a state of being free from any contamination, mixture, or impurities, representing an unaltered or unadulterated form of a substance or quality. Tohor: by stark contrast directly refers to the 13 Horev spirits Orally “breathed” unto Moshe.

“Pure Olive Oil” in no way, shape, manner or form compares to the Spirits of the Oral Torah revelation of אל, רחום, וחנון וכו. Just as Lord, Son, Holy Spirit, or Allah “words” do not in any wise compare to the Spirit of the שם השם לשמה רוח הקודש. Impossible to communicate any spoken word to the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed during the first Sinai commandment.

The Torah “faith”: pursuit of righteous judicial justice among and between the chosen Cohen people within the borders of the oath sworn inheritance land of the chosen (as opposed by the unchosen) seed of the Avot, likewise shares no common denominator ground foundation with the NT theology which defines faith as “belief” in the Father/Son bi-polar God. Any more than the Muslim Allah, or 101 names or titles of Zoroastrian bi-polar Gods.

Furthermore, prior to the Babylonian exile the NaCH prophets forbade sticking names upon Angels. Book of Judges 13 where an Angel apppeared to Manoah and his wife. When asked by Manoah the name of the Angel, the Angel refused to reveal his name because it served only as a messenger and nothing more. After the Persians permitted Israel to rebuild Judea, only then did the NaCH latter prophets permitted names assigned to Angels. This indulgence, strictly forbidden by prophets prior to the first exile, understood through the error of attempts made by the NT counterfeit to affix to some foreign align God – Father/Son duality.

The top priority insistence that strict Monotheism, a cardinal creed in both Xtianity and Islam – an utter Torah abomination. The 2nd Sinai commandment “”””validates”””” Goyim belief in other Gods. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. The first Sinai commandment does NOT introduce the false notion of some singular, unambiguous monotheism, EMPHATICALLY NOT articulated in the First Commandment.

The “indulgence” of affixing names to Angels made by the 2nd Temple prophets exposes Jewish avoda zara assimilation to the culture practiced in the land of Babylon during the 70 year exile. This tuma of applying names to Angels justified the NT attempts to apply Father\Son names to the God of Israel. If Joe – not the same person as Bob, the insistence the the Name of Joe not get confused with the name of Bob — simply not “MONOTHEISM”.

The revelation of the Torah at Sinai eternally emphasizes the revelation of judicial common law obeyed לשמה and NOT this or that Name for the Sinai first commandment god – dressed up in the theology of Monotheism. An utterly false notion to argue that the NT shifted away from strict Torah monotheistic purity – because the Torah clear as the Sun in the Sky does not command belief in any form of Monotheism.
The insistence on strict monotheism and the accompanying critiques of other religious practices – the Torah absolutely abhors. Obedience to rule Canaan with judicial justice day and night different than belief in conflicting theologies of Monotheism.

The Divine Presence Name does not assert any singular God but rather a small tribal god of the 12 Tribes of Israel. The 10 plagues of Egypt judged the Gods worshipped by Par’o and the Egyptians. The theology of monotheism ignores both this clear fact as well as the prophetic struggle with avoda zara throughout the later NaCH literature. Israel came out of Egypt to rule Canaan with justice. Israel did not come out of Egypt to impose its court system of justice upon Goyim nations. רוח הקודש טהור strictly and only refers to the 13 middot of the Oral Torah which Moshe “smelled”, something like different flowers in bloom, at Horev. Just as words fail to accurately describe shades of colors, how much more so words totally collapse to describe Divine Spirits such as אל רחום וחנון etc.

Goyim worship their Monotheistic God theology creeds as they so see fit – gezunte heit, may it bring them health, happiness, and success. But to mix and confuse Torah judicial faith with Goyim Monotheism – this compares to how the Creator mixed and confused all the languages spoken by Man. Which forced Mankind from building their Tower of Babel.

The revelation of the Torah at Sinai does not condemn how other how religious identities become established, formed through their unique language, history, and cultural exchange. The Koran declares that prophets sent to warn all nations; that these prophets spoke the language of the people these prophets sent to warn. This notion directly compares to the absurdity of the Nicene Creed Trinity belief system; only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai – prophets sent only to Israel not to other nations. Prophets command mussar.

Yonah sent to Assyria not to address the king of Assyria but to cause all future born generations of Israel to remember\t’shuva the judicial injustice practiced by the kings of Israel throughout their reigns over Samaria. The king of Assyria took the 10 tribes out of Samaria and scattered them across vast range expanse of that empire.

Both religions reframe the “Promised Land”. The Torah sworn oath brit alliance wherein the people of Israel as opposed to the avoda zarah Trinity Gods of Xtianity or the strict Universal monotheistic God Allah, taught throughout the Koran, never once refers to the oath sworn to the Avot concerning them being the fathers of the Chosen Cohen People. The Koran replaces Yishmael for Yitzak at the Akadah. The NT Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery (Roman fraud) in point of fact substitutes JeZeus and replaces both the Avot as the fathers of the Chosen Cohen people as it likewise does the brit faith of ruling the “Promised Land, sworn only to the Cohen seed of the Avot”, which by definition excludes both Yishmael and Esau as inheritors of the “Promised Land”.

The cultural differences between Europeans and Arab/Muslim Islamic societies radically different from the cultures and customs which define the chosen Cohen people. These cultural differences and priorities can produce a Terminological overload without hierarchy! Subjects like: Promised Land; Chosen Cohen people; NT forgery;Avoda zarah; Sanhedrin judicial review; Moshiach; Shabbat; Galut; Toldot mitzvot; Middot systems; Pauline theology; Nicene creed can quite easily spin the heads of a general reading audience much like a top!

My emotional outbursts post Shoah slaughter of 75% of Western European Jewry likewise has critical flaws. Phrases like: “NT Protocols of the Elders of Zion”; “Roman forgery fraud”; “JeZeus”; “rifle scope” clearly modeled after the colorful language of General Patton rather than the pius language of Orthodox “off the דרך” Judaism. My argument that g’lut Jews cannot do mitzvot לשמה perhaps as offensive as “Protocols of the Elders of Zion NT forgery! However post the Rambam Civil War switch N bait – to the model of Greek/Roman statute law and the absolute absence of any criticism of Reshonim fundamental errors, specifically the effort to explain the T’NaCH and Talmud limited only to פשט in modern Yeshiva education – utterly galls me; comparable to stuffing down large amounts of raw horse-radish as if running a 40 yard sprint.

The addiction to rabbinic box thinking which limits the Torah to religious ritual law while totally oblivious to the opposite viewpoint which views the Torah revelation as most essentially oaths expressed through av tohor time oriented Torah commandments. The Temple משל understood through the lense of Sanhedrin common law courtrooms נמשל – as wide a gap as JeZeus as a false messiah to Goyim religious audiences. The box thinking which limits the 2nd Sinai commandments to Catholic statute saints – again simply טיפש פשט narishkeit. Av tuma 2nd Sinai commandment avoda zara, most essentially defined through בניני אבות negative commandment precedents which prohibit Jewish assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim.

The cultural gulf between Cultural Zionist Jews like myself from Hertzl’s political Zionism also presents a wide chasm of thought. Unlike deductive reasoning פרדס inductive logic, as a rule compares two or more completely different cases which requires the reader to make synaptic jump. Dynamic logic more complex than static deductive logic.

To do this all at once … clearly difficult for the general reading audience to swallow. The introduction of the Oral Torah Mitzva of Moshiach so radically strange to European Goyim forever addicted to the dogmatism of waiting for the second coming of JeZeus. The idea that the mitzva of Moshiach absolutely no different from observance of any other Torah commandment – likewise a shock to the system. The Oral Torah Mitzva of Moshiach understood as the dedication to pursue righteous judicial justice within the sworn borders of conquered Canaan, especially religious off the דרך Orthodox Jews have never heard about, much less considered. On par with the Written Torah as the Constitution of the Israeli Republic of restored 12 Tribes!

Xtians and Arab/Muslims fed the propaganda that their religions exist as the daughter religions of Judaism but now hearing that this particular Cultural Zionist Jew as av tuma avoda zara on par with the worship of Baal, will not these post Shoah foreign alien outsiders not justifiably declare my ideas as a “substitute oath” viewed from a narrow Jewish perspective? The god of Israel a local tribal god competing with other Gods to rule the Yatzirot opposing spirits within the heart; rather than some grand vision promoted Xtianity and Islam’s Universal Monotheism God which Goyim declares lives in the Heavens above. Such drastic differences like faith defined as the righteous pursuit of judicial court-room justice rather than belief in this or that or some other theology belief system God!

General Patton always insulted the enemy. Post Shoah British/French, & Arab adamant perfidy where Arab\Muslims demand that post Shoah Jews exist as dhimmi second class people; their Three No’s steadfast refusal to recognize Herzl’s Balfour Declaration/League of Nations Palestine mandate to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine; equally matched by the UN perfidy which refuses to recognize Israel as an independent nation in the Middle East; and pretends that Israel exists in the shadow of Palestine when the League of Nations mandate/UN Protectorate totally ceased to exist in 1948. Where a hostile UN coalition of States assume that they have the right to declare Palestine an Independent nation but condemn Israel’s recognition of Horn of Africa Somaliland as an Independent State.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________

Juridical vs. Hermeneutic – the Torah category of the chosen Cohen people defines the k’vanna of the entire Torah story of Israel. Torah, constituted by the wisdom of time-oriented commandments with require k’vanna, not NT nor Koran narratives. The Torah category of Am Yisrael as a chosen Cohan people determines the k’vanna of the entire Torah corpus of these Av tohor commandments. Torah simply not some Gospel or Koran story, that generates meaning after the fact.

Torah exists as a juridical constitutional mandate for the authority of Sanhedrin lateral common law courts to rule the land of Canaan. The Torah oath entails that Israel cut the Torah brit by means of this sworn oath of נעשה ונשמע, (Remembering the oath which the Avot swore to originally cut the brit which creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing.), which compares to the post Shoah oath of “Never Again”. This Torah oath binds Israel to establish common law courtrooms across the land of Canaan. The brit mandates courts, not creeds. Establishment of lateral Sanhedrin common-law (צדק צדק תרדוף) the k’vanna of נעשה ונשבע and not construction of some grand Solomon Temple or JeZeus false messiah substitute theology.

The latter utterly false because the mitzva of Moshiach like the mitzva of Shabbat equally applies to all Jews in all generations. The Mitzva of Moshiach – the dedication to pursue righteous judicial justice within the borders of the oath sworn lands; based upon the remembrance of Moshe standing before the court of Par’o over the failure to meet a quota of bricks and Yitro’s rebuke to Moshe to establish Sanhedrin courts. This revelation of judicial Legislative Review Sanhedrin Courtroom dominance over statute laws passed by any king or legislature. The Torah vision viewed as the Constitution of the Republic. Herein defines doing mitzvot לשמה within the land of Canaan.

G’lut/exile – in effect Jews return to the slavery of Egypt. Meaning Jews in g’lut cannot do this time-oriented commandment לשמה. “Time” understood as wisdom of מלאכה based upon the mitzva of Shabbat. Because the first Sinai commandment defines the revelation of HaShem as having taken Israel out of Egypt. Hence g’lut Jews cannot ever do mitzvot לשמה according to the terms of the 1st Sinai commandment.

Secondary toldot commandments function as legal Torah precedents which aid in understanding deeper prophetic mussar in both the Torah and NaCH Books. Toldot mitzvot as legal common law judicial precedents (not moral stories); Aggadic stories never confused with Halachic mitzvot despite the perversion of the Rambam’s 7 mitzvot bnai noach. Torah common law stands upon precedents rather than decrees. The Torah views Goyim living in the land as either Gere Toshav residents or Canaani Shomronim counterfeit Jews — refugee populations who have no judicial rights within the borders of Judea.

The Talmud employs different sets of warp-weft middot. The Aggada employs the 13 middot Order which Moshe heard at Horev; whereas the Halachic portions employ the middot established by the 10 middot of rabbi Akiva, the 13 middot of rabbi Yishmael and the 32 middot of rabbi Yossi Ha’Galilee as the basic fundamental tools to understand and interpret the kabbalah of how פרדס exists as the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf.

Israel left Egypt to conquer Canaan. To rule this land with righteous Sanhedrin common law courtroom justice with the Torah mandated power of legislative review affixed and assigned to the Sanhedrin courts; to over-watch any and all statute laws imposed by Jewish governments. The Sanhedrin peoples’ Courts obligated with over-view powers. Authorized to even re-write any and all statute laws passed by the rule of elite kings or rich and powerful Legislatures within the borders of the Republic. A Torah sage 1:10,000. Whereas all Israel worthy of sanctifying the mitzva of Moshiach!

The difference between judicial peoples’ common law vs government “arristocratic” elite “dynasties” statute law, compares to the warp/weft threads of a loom. Within and throughout the T’NaCH & Talmud, these two sets of “threads” — expressed through the contrast between halacha from aggadah.

The elite statute government decree-law, it determines the תולדות secondary formal ritual actions placed upon the people-halacha. While the latter – commn law peoples’ courts – determines the wisdom-intent of prophetic T’NaCH אב מצוות זמן גרמא מלאכה mussar; the primary role or function as the determinant of the k’vanna wherein the chosen Cohen people dedicate the Yatzir Ha’Tov within our hearts לשמה; as long as the blessing of living within the borders of the Promised land shines like the Sun. Both the rote ritual and the זמן גרמא כוונה – directly applicable to both the T’NaCH and the Talmud.

The Sanhedrin common law legal system a lateral or non governmental peoples’ lateral common law – like plowing a field. Whereas Government arristocratic elite statute law – a vertical legal system, where the government imposes law from the Top down upon the people – like salaries paid by the State to Judges and prosecuting attorneys. Hence the vision of the primary loom metaphor and the strictly ordered legal language of both the halacha and aggada, which defines the Talmud.

The “Promised Land” the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen people alone because only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai. The av tuma avoda zarah theologies of both Xtianity and Islam – an absolute Torah abomination on par with the worship of Baal. Name names to their new Gods but never once even refer to the 1st Sinai commandment. The NT Protocols of the Elders of Zion Roman forgery depicts Jews as direct participants in the teachings and events surrounding JeZeus. For instance, gospel parables often include Jewish figures, and also Canaani Shomron Samarians (e.g., the Good Samaritan). Reference to the Pharisees and Sadducees rejection of JeZeus as the messiah savior of all mankind, marks Jewish Oral Torah tradition as “the hostile Christ killer enemy”.

The inclusion of Pharisee “failures” serves something like sights or a scope on a rifle, thereafter throughout the Ages of Jewish g’lut. The NT aims to appeal directly to Goyim reading audiences rather than understand Oral Torah common law. But the facts remain unchanged to this day, Goyim reject the revelation of the Written and Oral Torah and strive to replace it with their own theologically concocted theology and creeds, which require belief in Universal Monotheistic Gods.

The Talmud teaches that not only did the Goyim reject the revelation of the Torah but that the god of Israel a local tribal god. The Torah describes court justices who hear a Case before their Court, having predetermined “beliefs” as a corrupt bride judge. The Talmud abhors the coward justices who failed to impose the death penalty upon Herod due to their dread fear of the רשע.

The NT does not view faith as judicial righteousness but rather as belief in the Nicene Creed theological Trinity belief system. Paul’s letters serve as excellent examples of substitute theology; fall of Man vs. the central Torah blessing/curse theme of g’lut-exile. However the much later written Gospels, promotes as its central theme that Jewish leaders reject JeZeus as messiah. This results in the establishment of a new covenant through JeZeus.

_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

In conclusion: Torah defines Israel as a covenantal–juridical people constituted by a sworn oath (brit), whose purpose is to establish land-based common-law courts; Christianity and Islam dissolve this oath into narrative belief and universal theology, thereby committing avodah zarah at the level of “covenantal” structure. Brit does not correctly translate as “covenant”.

Perhaps as mentioned above my mockery of Goyim “daughter religions” muddles the waters of my arguments. I do not know, the reading audience themselves must decide. This paper argues 5 basic “Chumash” points: A) brit sworn oaths prioritized above secondary narratives based upon Halacha & Aggada which shape the Talmud. In point of fact both necessary and critical. B) land = judicial independence rather than theological belief systems which thrive Universally in all lands and countries. C) Common law Courts – not theological Creeds. D) Aggada-Halacha = the warp/weft loom wherein woven the culture and customs of the chosen Cohen people. E) Theological Creed belief dictates/dogmatism substitute and replace the obligation of the mitzva of Moshiach to pursue righteous judicial justice within the borders of the oath sworn land “contract” with the chosen Cohen people; consequently substitute theology/revisionist history amounts to av tuma avoda zara.

The complexity of inter-cultural traditions among peoples compares to viewing a slide of bacteria culture under a microscope. Avot vs. Ishmael; Trinity vs. tawhid vs. local god; Rambam vs. Tosafists;

Sanhedrin vs. statute law; Shoah trauma; UN perfidy; Pauline theology & Nicene creed;

Herzl vs. Cultural Zionism etc etc directly compares to the description of the Creation of chaos and anarchy!

The polemical language undermines juridical standing; but am willing to accept this because this paper addresses general theme topics rather than specific T’NaCH Talmudic textual analysis. For 2000+ years Goyim demanded Jews debate them with our hands tied behind our backs! Post Shoah both Xtianity and Islam rot in the pig-stye of exile; Xtianity a dead religion in Europe and Islam moans under the yoke of now being dhimmi despised refugee populations who have little or no rights.

Furthermore, this paper qualifies only as a something like the 1898 Émile Zola “J’Accuse” rather than a juridical critique. Courts do not argue by mockery, but political satire does. This broad-page does not entertain any pretension that its compares to a judge who hears a case before his court while holding prior animus.

G’lut Jews cannot do mitzva לשמה, the RambaN in his commentary to the Chumash makes this argument! The blessings and curses of the Torah serve as metaphors to the ruling the land with justice vs existing in g’lut slavery. The failure of the pre-Shoah rabbis to encourage European Jewry to make Aliya exploded in their faces with the 1939 White Paper and FDR follow-up which sealed the borders of the Golden Medina to Jews seeking to flee from the Nazi barbarians. The rebuke of rabbi Akiva toward the din of the Wilderness generation seems applicable!

The object of this paper to express an emotional catharsis over the Shoah obliteration of my people. But it condemns both Jews and Goyim across the board for this destruction of a Good name reputation for Orthodox Judaism, Xtianity and Islam. Post the Oct7th 2023 Abomination War, the Israeli two year victory and Bibi’s recognition of Somaliland at the chagrin of Turkey, Europe and almost all the UN nations who condemned Israel for genocide — an absolute g’shmeyach. Impossible to truly feel this g’shmeyach oblivious of Jewish anger against a biased UN and ICC prigs.

Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Hence the false fable of some Universal Monotheistic God as expressed through both the Nicene Creed and Islam’s strict declaration of Allah as the only God — both theological creed belief systems totally reject the Talmudic teaching that only Israel, both Esau and Ishmael, rejected to accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The NT declares prophesy as witchcraft making predictions of future events.

The Koran fraud declares that all prophets come to warn their people by speaking in the language of each and every people. This declaration ignores the Talmudic mussar which teaches that both Esau and Ishmael/Xtianity & Islam fail to validate the revelation of the שם השם as revealed in the first Sinai commandment and therefore violate the 2nd Sinai commandment and worship other Gods. Prior to the Roman NT forgery (Protocols of the Elders of Zion) no person ever perceived the God of Israel as Jesus. The same equally applies to Muhammad’s Allah Universal God.

(Matthew 2:15) “Out of Egypt I called my son”. This NT verse has no connection whatsoever with the Hebrew T’NaCH. Why? Because the term “Son” refers not to a physical son but rather to the Chosen Cohen people beginning with HaShem’s rejection of the korban dedicated to heaven by Cain! Yom Kippur serves as a strong precedent proof. Rosh HaShanah-called יום הזכרון. This and that Chag serve as book-ends.

The t’shuva of ר”ה remembers the sin of the Golden Calf wherein Moshe reminded HaShem of the sworn oath made unto the three Avot that they would father the chosen Cohen people and not Moshe. Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make of the seed of Moshe the chosen Cohen people. The NT Protocols of the Elders of Zion fraud attempts to substitute JeZeus in the stead of the oath brit cut with the nation of Israel – as the chosen Cohen people, taken out of Egyptian judicial oppression to rule the land of Canaan with righteous judicial common-law courtroom justice which dedicates to make fair compensation of damages the רשע inflicts or imposes upon the innocent.

The central Torah theme of the first born son being the “Cohen” until the sin of the Golden Calf wherein Levi Moshe Rabbeinu replaced as the instructors of the schools of the prophets – the police enforcers of the Sanhedrin courtroom rulings. Prior to the sin of the Golden Calf the firstborn Ishmael rejected as the chosen Cohen. The same applicable to the conflict between Esau and Yaacov and Reuven and Yosef. The attempt by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion New Testament forgery slander fraud to link the Harry Potter imaginary fictional character JeZeus to Hosea 11:1 exceptionally obtuse.

Herod’s Massacre (Verses 16-18), a perverse obtuse comparison of Moshe as a child. Return to Nazareth (Verses 19-23), a perverse obtuse comparison to Moshe at the burning bush. The NT propaganda directly compares to counterfeit money.

mosckerr

January 4 Matthew 2:13-23

Proverbs 24:12 compares to Ezekiel 18:30-32, where Moshe calls the people to t’shuva and emphasizes the importance of returning to righteousness. Deuteronomy 28 compares to Jeremiah 17:5-8. and Psalms 1.

Exodus 21, which outlines various laws and obligations regarding personal rights and responsibilities, can be compared to specific precedents found in different parts of the T’NaCH. Both Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy contain laws aimed at creating a fair and just society, emphasizing community responsibility. Amos 5:7-12, n this passage, the prophet Amos admonishes Israel for their injustices and highlights the importance of righteousness. Exodus 21 emphasizes obligations to ensure justice, while Amos condemns the failure to uphold those laws, linking legal obligations to prophetic mussar. Micah 6:8, this verse speaks to the requirement of acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with HaShem; humility understood as the dominance of dedicated tohor middot over tuma middot within the opposing Yatzirot within the heart. The essence of legal obligations in Exodus 21 – echoed here, as the Micah דיוק makes a succinct summarization of the prophetic mussar rebuke imperatives that underpin the Torah oath brit common judicial laws which highlight personal responsibility for justice in the oath sworn chosen Cohen lands. Each of these texts reflects these Torah mussar themes of justice, responsibility, and community – a mussar articulated in Exodus 21.

The Torah concepts of responsibility and Torah obligations share absolutely no common denominator-ground with Luke 12:47. Luke 12:47 states, “And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not prepare himself or do according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes.” This nonsense phony declaration has no precedent in T’NaCH literature.

Proverbs 24:12 and Ezekiel 18:30-32 center on the importance of awareness and accountability regarding one’s actions. Both passages urge individuals to recognize their transgressions and remember the oaths sworn by the Avot and consequently return to righteous behavior. Illustrating the fundamental need to remember prophetic mussar rebukes in order to due t’shuva based upon the Torah blessing/curse concerning inheriting the oath sworn lands as the chosen Cohen people who keep and observe their own unique cultures and customs which separate Torah wisdom from Goyim wisdom.

Luke 12:47 does not even imply the need to due t’shuva consequent to hearing prophetic mussar rebukes. Jeremiah warns against reliance on flawed Goyim alien wisdom, instead urging faith in judicial common law courtroom justice. Jeremiah accurately reflect the prophetic mussar theme found in Deuteronomy 28 about the relationship between consequences to the oath brit blessing/curse obligations of life or death which Moshe Rabbeinue cut with the Chosen Cohen people alone. Psalms 1 complements this by expounding on the blessings of living in accordance with Torah Sanhedrin ‘Temple’ courtroom judicial justice-legislative review of all government statute laws.

Exodus 21 outlines specific laws regarding judicial common law justice and personal obligations. The idea of ‘rights’ of citizens, more a 18th Century American and French revolution political idea. Torah faith as the righteous pursuit of justice among our conflicting peoples, resonates throughout T’NaCH texts, such as Amos 5:7-12, where Amos critiques judicial injustices in society and emphasizes the importance of righteous judicial courtroom justice which sanctifies making a fair restoration of damages inflicted by a רשע upon the innocent.

Micah 6:8, summarizing the Torah ideal for its judicial common-law domination over governmental statute laws. Its calls for judicial justice, mercy, and humility, reinforces the priority obligations presented in Exodus 21. The 4th Oral Torah middah רחום learns from Torah תורה בניני אבות of the commandment to uproot the nations of Canaan from the land, the stubborn and rebellious son, the eternal war against Amalek consequent to Jewish avoda zara where Jews lack fear of Elohim consequent to their cultural assimilation to foreign peoples’ customs and cultures and intermarriage with these alien foreign people to reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The middah of רחום completely apart and different from pity. The life/death oath brit flips to Torah curses if Israel behaves like the Canaanite nations or the stubborn and rebellious child or the assimilated ערב רב that came out of Egypt and had no fear of Elohim. Torah curses compare to the guillotine blade that cut off the heads of king Louis XV and Marie Antoinette.

Proverbs 24:12 – t’shuva & accountability, awareness leads to a return to the path of the pursuit of righteous judicial justice among and between the Jewish people. Deuteronomy 28 – Actions of injustice leads to Torah curses raining down upon Israel, comparable to the plagues which afflicted Par’o and Egypt in the days of Moshe and Aaron. Ezekiel 18:30-32 – this prophetic mussar rebukes all generations of Israel – to forever strive to pursue righteous judicial justice – fair compensation of damages – to our people.

Jeremiah 17:5-8, this prophetic mussar provokes Israel to remember the brit of Life or Death as our fear of heaven. Do not rely upon the strength of the Horse to bring salvation. But rather fair judicial courtroom justice among our people – this מלאכה זמן גרמא מצוה creates the guardian תמיד מעשה בראשית – מלאכים which cause Israel to prevail over our enemies during times of war – as the wisdom of the Torah; Goyim wisdom relies primarily upon innovations in warfare. Psalms 1 supports the consequence of righteous judicial justice within the lands of the chosen Cohen peoples’ Republic. The prophetic mussar of Amos 5:7-12 threatens the rebuke of Torah curses of death and g’lut/exile. Whereas Micah 6:8 serves as the prophetic mussar דיוק/inference upon Amos 5:7-12.

Luke 12:47, this: the Protocols of the Elders of Zion Roman forgery, totally and completely alien to prophet T’NaCH mussar. It reflects a different context of responsibility that emphasizes only knowledge dread of the direct consequences of a hierarchical, servant-master relationship. Israel Torah wisdom freed from Egyptian slave bondage, NOT to change one Slave Master for another Slave Master!

mosckerr

When You Know What to Do But Don’t Do It

The circumstances surrounding the mythical birth JeZeus where the Father Zeus transformed a bastard child into the only begotten Son of God; the Torah commandment against adultery overshadowed by the birth of the only begotten son of Father Zeus. This mythical revisionist history work of pure Harry Potter fiction depicted as actual physical history qualifies as gross revisionist history and denial of T’NaCH prophetic mussar which does NOT teach history. Why? Because history a study of the past whereas prophetic mussar the application of prophetic rebuke within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the hearts of Jews living today.

Prophetic mussar compares to seeds sown into the Earth to produce a crop. Mussar growth grows at its own pace & time inside the hearts of each and every individual Jew throughout the generations. History studies only impact knowledge held within the brain whereas prophetic mussar directly impacts the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart.

The camouflage fiction story of Mary’s conception of JeZeus by the Holy Spirit – Av tuma theological avoda zarah. Holy Spirit a direct reference to the Spirit Name revealed in 1st Sinai commandment which the NT totally ignores and perverts in the Name of JeZeus.

The birth of Hercules emphasizes Zeus’s authority and capability to transcend natural order, asserting his role as a god in human affairs. The JeZeus story actively depends upon the writings of the Apostle Paul whose letters preceded the publication of the much later Gospel works of fiction. The framers of the NT Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery inverted the sequential Order; they introduce the Gospels – written after the letters of Paul! The Apostle Paul’s narrative of the “Fall of Adam and his banishment from the Garden of Eden serves as the first introduction of Fire and Brimstone, Mankind condemned to eternal hellfire and damnation till the birth of JeZeus who saves!

This demigod JeZeus messiah savior, the hero of NT mythology. Xtian theology steals and borrows much of its theological premises from the Ancient Greek Hero literature. The Torah’s commandment against adultery goes hand in glove with the Torah mitzva of kiddushin. The stark ignorance of the NT fraud forgery of these critical positive and negative Torah commandment definitively proves this Rome NT forgery as a functioning Protocols of the Elders of Zion Czar secret police fraud slander.

Torah common law instructs judicial courtroom jurisprudence – as expressed through the Talmud. The Church abomination publicly burned the Talmud because the Talmud categorically rejections Greek/Roman philosophy employed to shape and determine theological rhetoric propaganda narratives. The NT Harry Potter messiah story appeals to irrational emotions gut felt emotions rather than cold Talmudic inductive reasoning which compares a judicial case to other prior judicial case Courtroom ruling based upon the strict struction of inductive reasoning. The latter ordered Case/Rule comparison compared to similar but different Case/Rule judicial rulings directly compares to the strict structure that a sonnet requires. Obviously not in a literal 13 line since but rather as a משל\נמשל Par’o dreams and Yosef’s interpretations sense.

mosckerr

January 2 Matthew 1:18-25

The Codex Sinaiticus is significant in biblical scholarship, but it does not explicitly include the Nicene Creed itself. However, its contents reflect early Christian theology, which aligns with the Nicene understanding of the Trinity. The Nicene Creed was formulated in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea to address debates over the nature of Christ and the Trinity. It affirms the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The text within Codex Sinaiticus, including various New Testament writings (like Philippians), supports the core concepts of the Trinity as expressed in the Nicene Creed. Passages affirming the divinity and humanity of Christ—such as Philippians 2:5-11—align with Nicene teachings. The theological sentiments present in the manuscript reflect a developing understanding of beliefs that would be formalized in creeds like the Nicene.

Philippians 2:5-11 aligns with Nicene teachings which violate the First and Second Commandments of Sinai – a complex theological assertion. First Commandment: I am HaShem who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. The Nicene Creed makes absolutely no reference to the revelation of this first Commandment Divine Name. Translating the Divine Name into other words duplicates the Sin of the Golden calf wherein the mixed multitudes, which the Torah describes as people who had no fear of “Elohim”.

Why did the Torah refer to the very error of the mixed multitudes who translated the Spirit Name revelation – first Sinai commandment with the word “Elohim”. The Torah directly commands not to compare the revelation of the Spirit Name not to anything in the Earth, Heavens, or Seas –yet would permit word translations which ignore the revelation of the Sinai Divine Spirit which so horrified Israel that they thought they would die after hearing only the first two commandments; therefore Israel demanded from Moshe that he rise up upon Sinai and receive the rest of the Torah!

The Second Commandment does not say You shall not make for yourself an idol; as if avoda zarah – the Av tuma negative commandment of Sinai – limit itself to physical graven images. The T’NaCH defines the intent of the 2nd Sinai commandment to A) Do not follow the cultures and customs/practices of peoples who rejected the revelation at Sinai. B) Do not marry any man or woman of these alien foreign peoples who rejected the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Both the New Testament and Koran – no different than the worship of Baal. Only the 12 Tribes of Israel accepted the Sinai revelation. The revelation of this local god differs totally and completely from the Monotheistic theological creed creation of new Gods as expressed by both the authors of the New Testament and Koran.

Furthermore Philippians 2:5-11 likewise perverts the Torah mitzva of Moshiach unto some “Savior of death”, in accordance with the Apostle Paul’s perversion of the exile of Adam from the Garden (A major Torah theme likewise expressed in the stories of Noach, Israel in Egypt, and the 40 years in the Wilderness.), as the fall of all Man Kind condemned to eternal death till the NT theology of messiah created a new Universal God which defeats Satan and frees Man kind from the prison of Hell.

The theology of Monotheism, this creed subverts the revelation of the Divine Spirit Presence revealed in the First Sinai commandment. This Spirit not a word which Human lips can pronounce. Hence the theology of monotheism utterly and totally rejects the revelation of the Divine Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. Furthermore, the theology creeds which pervert the 2nd Sinai commandment limited strictly and only to physical idols (a fundamental dispute which separates Catholic and Protestant theology to this very day), utterly ignores the Torah commandment as interpreted by the stories of King Shlomo’s foreign wives and Ezra’s commandment for Israel to divorce their foreign wives.

The First Commandment states, “I am HaShem your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” It focuses on HaShem’s identity and His relationship with Israel, rather than explicitly declaring monotheism as understood in later avoda zarah theological frameworks. HaShem judging the Egyptian gods implies that the existence of other deities reject the avoda zarah simplistic theology as defined by the established creeds of both religious belief systems. Torah defines the pursuit of judicial justice as FAITH, not believe in some Trinity or Allah as faith. This distinction highlights a relationship based on an oath brit alliance rather than a theological religious “covenant”. The Hebrew term brit does not correctly translate as “covenant”.

Implications for Worship: known as the mitzva of Avodat HaShem refers to doing time oriented commandments during the 6 days of the week and ceasing to do time oriented commandments on the day of Shabbat. Based upon the creation story of בראשית/Genesis. Neither the NT nor Koran accepted the revelation of the first two Sinai commandments; therefore both fraudulent religions reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

The Xtian creed of Holy Spirit has no connection what so ever with the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. The koran replacement theology of Allah no different than the error of the Nicene creed Holy Spirit. Only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai, HaShem by definition a local tribal god and not some grand Universal Monotheistic God as both Xtianity and Islam dictates. Peoples around the world throughout the span of Human history worship and believe in other Gods. To negate the existence of other Gods therefore constitutes as revisionist history.

Time oriented commandments express a Torah wisdom not bound by some child-like rote understanding which limits “time” as some linear event. Torah wisdom, such as required to build the Mishkan, herein serves as the strongest Torah common law precedent wherein the Torah itself defines time oriented commandments. Neither the NT nor Koran have the least bit of a clue concerning Torah wisdom as the definition of all time oriented Torah commandments. Therefore neither the NT nor Koran qualify as valid continuation of the Divine Revelation at Sinai which only Israel accepts to this very day.

Torah common law shares no common ground with av tuma NT & Koran theology/creed belief systems. A judge who hears a case before his court having strong “beliefs” pro or con concerning the details of the case argued before his court – righteousness demands that he recuse and excuse himself as a judge in that current case debated by both prosecutor and defense justices of the 3 man Torts common law court.

mosckerr

Codex Sinaiticus

The study of the Talmud requires a basic understanding of Tannaim logical middot. Clearly the most famous and well known, the middot of rabbi Yishmael
י״ג מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן – רבי ישמעאל

ודבר הלמד מסופו

בקל וחומר

גזרה שוה

בנין אב מכתוב אחד

בנין אב משני כתובים

כלל ופרט

פרט וכלל

כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט

כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא ללמד על הכלל כולו יצא

כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לטעון טענה אחרת יצא להקל ולא להחמיר

כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לטעון טענה אחרת לא להקל ולא להחמיר אלא להשוות

כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לידון בדבר החדש אי אתה יכול להחזירו לכלל עד שיחזירנו הכתוב לכלל בפירוש

דבר הלמד מענינו

Rabbi Akiva received the tradition of PaRDeS as a revelation of Oral Torah at Horev — not as a method of textual exposition, but as a living legal system, in which every letter, inclusion and exclusion, silence and repetition, functions as a carrier of halakhic meaning. The Torah is not a “closed text” but an inductive system for building law from concrete empirical particulars.

Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot serve as a secondary, so to speak, “commentary” to how to correctly understand rabbi Akiva’s warp/weft דרוש\פשט … רמז\סוד פרדס sh’itta of inductive reasoning. The two main threads of the Talmudic loom which weaves the culture and customs practiced by the chosen Cohen people. Rabbi Yishmael did not introduce his middot explicitly as a “commentary” on Akiva; they function in parallel, coexisting methodologies.

The midda Kal va-chomer serves as a formal rule which permits comparing one sealed masoret Talmudic source to another “related” sealed Talmudic Gemara source. Rashi teaches that following the sealing of the Bavil in about 450 CE that post Talmudic scholarship only requires this, so to speak, “most essential midda”; not to exclude the other 12 middot. That’s a טיפש פשט Bullwinkle error — Karaite narishkeit — which defines the Rambam and his Snidely Whiplash supporters who re-defined (substitute theology Xtian and Muslim av tuma avoda zarah) the Talmud as statute religious law rather than Sanhedrin judicial common law.

The Karaites rejected the Oral Torah. The 13 middot work within the פרדס description of Oral Torah. Rambam’s Yad Chazakah does not qualify as Oral Torah. Therefore, Rambam compares to the Karaites who rejected the Oral Torah. Rambam’s system can be functionally compared to Karaites in this sense, because the 13 middot cannot operate fully in a strictly codified system; the generative inductive process is curtailed. Hence students of the Talmud cannot turn to the statute law religious codifications as tools to learn the Talmud.

Rambam, no rabbinic authority, other than myself – but who am I, ever accused him of being a Karaite, because outwardly he accepted the Talmud whereas the Karaites rejected the Talmud. But his statute law code emphatically embraced the culture and customs of Roman statute egg-crate Sefer Ha’Mitzvot law, and rejected T’NaCH Talmudic Sanhedrin common law. The Rambam had no concept of time-oriented Av Torah commandments. Consequently the Rambam did, in point of fact, reject the Oral Torah as a common law judicial legal system. His code conceptually & metaphorically reduces the functionality of the 13 middot, no different from the Karaites. Rambam’s codification limits the living inductive reasoning logic-function of the Oral Torah.

The Talmud defines the 2nd Sinai Commandment not to worship other Gods, based upon the Book of Kings concerning Shlomo and his foreign wives and the Book of Ezra wherein Ezra commands Israel to divorce their foreign wives, based on the story of Phinhas – killing the head of the tribe of Dan who paraded a foreign Midianite wife in front of Moshe and Aaron.

Therefore avoda zara of the 2nd Sinai commandment defined through these precedents as 1) assimilation 2) intermarriage. While the Rambam did not intermarry his statute law code introduced Roman cult of personality statute law as a replacement for T’NaCH/Talmudic judicial common law. Hazal interpret the 2nd commandment (“לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים”) as an utter rejection of the “idolatry” practiced by both Xtian\Muslim טיפש פשט literal reading – which limits foreign gods to physical idols. Historically, Rambam affirmed Talmudic authority and Oral Torah, so literally he was not a Karaite. The Bullwinkle comparison serves as a polemical critique of the effect of the Rambam codification on the living process of the Oral Torah.

The prophets of the T’NaCH mocked “idols” as a משל\נמשל mussar. The Xtian\Muslim טיפש פשט an utter perversion of the 2nd Sinai commandment. The Rambam based his code as a concrete-literal translation of the Talmudic halachic rulings which he translated into pure Hebrew, comparable to the language of the Mishna. His code expunged the language of Aramaic, as employed throughout the Gemara & T’NaCH Book of Daniel.

Rambam affirmed Talmudic authority and Oral Torah. He did not reject the Talmud or Oral law. None the less, his Reformed Judaism curtailed the functionality of inductive methods like the 13 middot; in effect he limited the Oral Torah’s living legal process no different that modern Reform Judaism. Rambam’s codification limits the generative, inductive, precedent-driven system of the Talmud, to a function which resembles Karaite and Reform heresies which restrict Tannaim interpretive methods. The 2nd commandment (avoda zara = assimilation/intermarriage) sums up both the societies of Karaite and Reform Jewry. It illustrates how Oral Torah is , The Rambam’s codification abstracts Oral Torah as a living, concrete judicial common law system; the Rambam-Karaite comparison serves as a metaphorical, rhetorical, and polemical exclamation point rather than literal historical fact.

The sages sealed the T’NaCH, Talmud, and Siddur to pass a determined “fixed” inheritance of Torah traditions to all generations. No one generation owns a monopoly lock upon logic. The purpose of sealing “Primary Sources” of scholarship, that all generations thereafter share a common “base” foundation by which to interpret and understand the Torah. The Torah commands prophetic T’NaCH based mussar, it does not exist as a history book and therefore empirical history not learned from the pages of the T’NaCH.

Understanding how these essential middot “understand” the kabbalah of פרדס Oral Torah, an obligation known as עול מלכות שמים. This concept rabbinic tradition affixes to תפילה דאורייתא — קריא שמע, which entails a sworn oath through tefillen to remember the three oaths sworn by the Avot together with the Torah obligation to accept the Sinai & Horev revelations of the Torah. Common law functions by means of precedents – בניני אבות. All of rabbi Yishmael’s middot serve as tools to compare and contrast Sanhedrin case/law rulings to other Sanhedrin case/law rulings.

Hazal describes the kabbalah of פרדס as הלכה למשה מסיני. Torah as a jurisprudential system, not a closed code like the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch statute law perversions. Rabbi Yishmael’s middot serve as a secondary commentary to understand Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS. The relationship between the two rabbis compares to the אב\תולדות relationship which defines בראשית to שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר. The warp/weft משל implies the Halacha/Aggada נמשל.

Rabbi Yishmael’s tactical middot do not serve as a commentary to rabbi Akiva’s strategic פרדס understanding of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev/Sinai. Rabbi Yishmael compares to a Colonel or General under the supreme command of rabbi Akiva.

The Baali Tosafists opposed the טיפש פשט reading of Rashi who limited the 13 middot strictly to Kal va-chomer. If all the Tannaim and Amoraim scholars relied upon middot to understand the kabbala of פרדס inductive logic, post sealing of the Sha’s Bavli Rashi could not negate this without becoming a karaite heretic. Rashi himself employs the gezera shava midda in his T’NaCH commentary! Hence the Baali Tosafot emphasize that the other 12 middot function as the seal Sha’s Bavli received and sealed masoret. Rabbi Yishmael did not introduce his 13 middot as a competitive counter to Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס, but rather as salt & pepper to the פרדס steak.

Now compare the 10 middot developed by rabbi Akiva:
דרוש ופשט משולבים: Derash/Peshat integration – interpreting words contextually and in parallel with homiletical meaning.

רמז בכל מילה ואות: Remez (hint/implication) – every word, letter, or phrase can carry a hidden, legal or moral implication. For example: בראשית – ברית אש, ראש בית, ב’ ראשית. Rabbi Yechuda interpreted בכל לבבך as implying two opposing Yatzirot within the heart, based upon the Torah רמז: ב’ ראשית; Yaacov and Esau wrestled within the womb of Rivka.

סוד עמוק ומוסרי: Sod (mystical/deep meaning) – Kabbalah insightgs which elevate secondary halachot to Primary time-oriented commandments. Remez and Sod function hand-in-glove together.

תשומת לב לאותיות וצורות המילים: Attention to letters and word forms – e.g., doubling letters, unusual spellings, extra/missing words.

שתיקה והחסרות במשמעות: Silences and omissions – the Torah’s omissions are as meaningful as its inclusions. The RambaN’s introduction to his commentary to the Chumash describes this midda as Black Fire on White Fire. Something like how a silk screen works to make a multi-colored image on canvass.

השוואת מקרים מקבילים: Comparison of parallel cases – drawing general prophetic mussar rebukes through making a דרוש\פשט comparison between both Torah and NaCH & Aggada and Midrashic inductive reasoning to interpret prophetic mussar expressed throughout the T’NaCH literature.

רגישות לברית ולחובותיה: Remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot: interpreting the Torah as a system of legal and moral obligations tied to the brit which eternally creates the Chosen Cohen people.

בניית הלכה מתוך פרטים מוחשיים: Empirical particularism – law is built from concrete halachic particulars & prophetic mussar rather than abstract av tuma theology and creed belief systems.

שילוב הוליסטי של הלכה ואגדה: Holistic textual weaving – integrating Halacha and Aggada, law and T’NaCH mussar instruction.

יצירתיות והפקת מקרים חדשים: Generativity – the Torah’s structure allows new cases to be derived in a living system, rather than frozen in a codified statute. The 10th middah — יצירתיות והפקת מקרים חדשים (Generativity) — properly refers to the Torah’s ability to produce new halachic cases within the inductive logic system, excluding later codified assimilated Greek deductive frameworks as exemplified by Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch statute law codifications. The Torah directly forbids duplicating how Goyim worship their Gods by embracing the cultures, customs, and manners by which Goyim, who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, worship their Gods.

Monotheism by definition assumes that the Goyim worship the one and same God as do the Jewish people. Yet neither the Protocols of the Elders of Zion fraudulent Books New Testament & Koran never once call unto the Name revealed inside the first Sinai commandment. Hence, by default: both Xtianity and Islam worship “other Gods”. The statute law codes denounced they embrace Greek\Roman statute law culture and customs! This makes their codes of halacha – avoda zarah.

Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer and Midrash ha‑Gadol includes the 32 middot of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose ha‑Gelili (often identified with the son of Rabbi Yossi HaGalilee) as likewise included in the back of the mesechta of ברכות.

בריבוי – where something occurs multiple times. The focus rests on repetition as a signal: the Torah repeats certain words, phrases, or themes to teach a specific legal, moral, or interpretive principle. It signals the interpreter to examine patterns across repetitions, seeking consistency, emphasis, or subtle distinctions. The most obvious example being the repetition of the so called “10 commandments”. If a law appears multiple times in the Torah, one can infer its broader applicability or derive a specific kal va-chomer comparison.

The Torah directly commands “remember the redemption of Egypt”, as expressed through the mitzva of קריא שמע. Torah commands prophetic mussar, it does not teach history. Therefore, this בריבוי emphasizes remembering the 10 plagues wherein the Gods of Egypt judged, and the court of Par’o found utterly corrupt and unjust. Israel came out of Egypt to conquer Canaan – to rule this land with righteous judicial common law justice; which makes fair restitution of damages inflicted by one Jew upon another Jew.

The midda of בריבוי functions in conjunction with other middot. It assists the interpreter to build inductive legal reasoning. It works in conjunction and together with other middot. Torah common law stands on the יסוד of בניני אבות.

במיעוט – We have previously addressed this in Shabbat as a “במיעוט” to the days of the week רבוי, as Shabbat defines the mitzva of עבודת השם to dedicate the days of the week to do av tohor time-oriented commandments known as מלאכה; and the Talmudic language of קמ”ל as a מיעוט. The opening sugya of קידושין limits האשה נקנית unto a girl who understands the mitzva of קידושין.

The Written Torah has central themes. The first and most obvious being the curse of g’lut initially introduced with the expulsion of Adam from the Garden and Cain murdering his brother. The Pauline avoda zara behaves like the Rambam avoda zara. It switched through substitution theology the narrative away from the Torah curse of g’lut and replaced it with the need of Man for the Jesus messiah to save Man from eternal Hell death.

Avoda zara theology switches the narrative. Muhammad in his Koran declared that prophets sent to all people/nations. The Arabs the last people to receive their “warning prophet”. Hence Muhammad the last of the prophets! This switched the narrative away from the New Testament – prophets foretell future events; and also from the T’NaCH – prophets command mussar rebukes to all generations of the people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev.

ריבוי אחר ריבוי – both T’NaCH and Talmud/Midrashim employ this inductive legal method. ריבוי אחר ריבוי → מיעוט: דברים יד:כב – עשר תעשר את כל תבואת זרעך. ריבוי אחר ריבוי — אינו אלא מיעוט. The repetition forces the court to define boundaries – not everything is included. Ma‘aser applies only to produce that grows annually. Wild growth, ownerless produce, non-food agricultural outputs – all excluded from the mitzva of ma’aser. This midda, for example, explicitly stated in Kiddushin 21b and Yevamot 7a. Specific example: the language יפת תאר this language restricts the case.

Greek syllogism logic interprets repetition deductively rather than inductively or judicially. Greek syllogism logic interprets repetition deductively rather than inductively or judicially. Deductive conclusions drawn from general premises. This method does not inherently incorporate the inductive or judicial reasoning approaches often associated with other systems, such as those found in rabbinic interpretations of Jewish law. Syllogism focuses on establishing clear, logical connections between premises to reach a conclusion rather than generating broader legal or practical principles from specific examples.

The Torah teaches through judicial restraint. Repeated commandments create legal pressure. This legal pressure forces precedent construction which stands upon the בניני אבות יסוד. Shabbat vs Six days serves to define the k’vanna of עבודת השם מלאכה as time-oriented commandments which create מלאכים שנברא יש מאין.

מיעוט אחר מיעוט — אינו אלא ריבוי another judicial–inductive midda. This is the mirror image of ריבוי אחר ריבוי → מיעוט. Example: שמות כא:כג–כה…עין תחת עין, שן תחת שן. The sages interpret this as monetary compensation for damages; it utterly rejects the טיפש פשט literal reading of the printed words.

רפא ירפא (שמות כא:יט): the obligation of someone who has caused physical harm to another to compensate for the time lost during recovery. מיעוט: “עין תחת עין” (seems to exclude monetary compensation), מיעוט שני: explicit obligation of payment (רפא ירפא).

ויקרא כא:יז – איש מזרעך… אשר יהיה בו מום לא יקרב … אך אל הפרוכת לא יבוא ואל המזבח לא יגש. Therefore, these two restrictions result in the din that permits\ריבוי: he may eat kodashim. There exist many examples of this midda across the T’NaCH and Talmud. Hence Torah common law the Courts must weigh each case based upon precedents. Courtroom law simply does not compare to religious theological one size fits all creeds.

בקל וחומר מפורש— not an inferred kal va-chomer, but one explicitly stated in the text itself, where the Torah or Chazal spell out the comparison and its force. במדבר יב:יד — מרים: ויאמר ה’ אל משה: ואביה ירק ירק בפניה, הלא תכלם שבעת ימים. If a daughter disgraced by her father how much more so the disgrace if it comes from HaShem from within her Yatzir Ha’Tov. עיין דברים לא:כז, שמואלא כג:ג. An example from the Talmud: פסחים סו: ומה פסח שאין ענוש כרת — דוחה שבת, מילה שענוש כרת — אינו דין שתדחה שבת?

The Talmud – rabbi Akiva’s home waters, not Aristotle’s. The statute law assimilated codes merely records conclusions—but erases the courtroom argument that gave them authority to re-interpret the language of the Mishna by means of משנה תורה. The קל וחומר מפורש midda, its dependent upon בניני אבות. Statute law utterly rejects the rule of law determined through precedents.

בקל וחומר סתום — an implicit, unstated kal va-chomer, neither the Torah or Chazal do not spell out the comparison, yet the legal/moral force compels the court to supply it. A purely inductive, judicial middah not at all relevant to religious Orthodox halachic observances. Hence the Yeshiva which produces “suits as rabbis” ignores Oral Torah learning by means of tohor middot.

This midda brings a small minor case with a known decision but leaves the weightier significant case uncommented upon. Permitting the court judges to draw their own conclusions. Basically required training for courtroom judges.

שמות כב:טו: וכי יפתה איש בתולה אשר לא ארשה…כסף ישקל כמהר הבתולת. This Torah introduces the minor דני ממון case of seduction and permits the Capital Crimes case of rape — open for the court justices to derive their own conclusions. עיין ויקרא יט:לב. Within the Talmud – ברכות יט: — כבוד הבריות — גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה לא תעשה שבתורה. If human dignity overrides rabbinic prohibitions → how much more so certain Torah prohibitions in limited cases. Again many examples of this midda developed and matured throughout the Sha’s Bavli.

Justice requires judicial reasoning. Common law simply not understood by reading statute law codifications. Codifications kills this midda. A silent kal va-chomer cannot survive statute law codes.

This later codification of inductive reasoning logical middot duplicates the Primary set of Oral Torah middot. בדרך קצרה — קל וחומר סתום (implicit): The Torah legislates minimally, trusting the court to complete the common law. The Torah states only the lighter / narrower case and intentionally omits the heavier / broader one — because the law must be derived. This represents judicial restraint — not textual economy. Basically Oral Torah logic teaches, if you understand law, you don’t need me to say it. The Talmud refers to this as the short/long path.

The Talmud codified during g’lut poverty wherein Jews feared Goyim censorship. The Romans tortured then murdered rabbi Akiva. Talmud Oral Torah common law resembles Japanese and Chinese healing through needles. One pressure point generates chains of בניני אבות. As mentioned above, seduction vs. rape – דני ממון כנגד דני נפשות – If consensual wrongdoing requires restitution, violent coercion certainly does.

Greek syllogism deductive logic silence amounts to an absence of data. פרדס inductive logic silence induces legal pressure. The RambaN’s kabbala Chumash introduction of Black fire on white fire directly infers the requirement to make logical דיוקים inferences. Statute religions law simply cannot transmit קל וחומר סתום because the law no longer emerges — it is retrieved. The Baali Tosafot commentary preserves this common law logic expressed by T’NaCH & Talmudic common law. The assimilated statute halachic codifications universally flatten like a pancake this midda. Therefore, בדרך קצרה is the Torah’s method of legislating through minimal expression, compelling courts to complete the law via silent kal va-chomer, preserving a living inductive common-law system.

מדבר שהוא שנוי as a jurisprudential middah – A matter that is already stated (or taught elsewhere). When the Torah (or Hazal) repeats a legal matter that is already known, the repetition is never redundant — it signals a new limitation, expansion, distinction, or legal pressure point. אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו — אבל אינו חוזר לחינם — unless it intends to restrict, differentiate, reframe, relocate jurisdiction, or create a precedent fork. Repetition forces interpretation, as expressed through ריבוי / מיעוט, ריבוי אחר ריבוי, קל וחומר סתום, and בנין אב.

Greek logic, as mentioned above, employs repetition as both emphasis and rhetorical; a persuasive technique, where repeated statements aim to influence beliefs or opinions, often associated with the employment of propaganda. Torah inductive Oral Torah logic relies upon the technique of repetition to introduce a new legal function. Whereas statute law by stark contrast fossilizes “the law” into codified dogmatism.

The Torah repeats three times לא תבשל גדי בחלה אמו. The rabbis in the Gemara of Chullen, the 8th פרק went to town over this repetition. Personally, do not consider chicken as meat, but then again – I still have to live with my wife who rules the kitchen has her dictatorship. Shabbat, the Creation story, Manna, the decalogue as mentioned above, and the Mishkan repeated over and again. As Shabbat establishes “domains” so too does “repetition”!

זכר ליציאת מצרים — For me, this refers to remembering when Moshe stood before the corrupt courtroom of Par’o. As mentioned above, Israel came out of Egypt to conquer Canaan and rule our people with fair courtroom judicial justice. Just that simple, no fancy dance’n. Torah teaches mussar and law, not history nor religion. Consider myself as an atheist “praise God”, based upon the rule: Never take yourself too seriously.

Repetition here creates limitation, not license. The Torah singles out יפת תואר… מפני שהוא מדבר שהוא שנוי…its restricted, surrounded by procedural barriers, and morally discouraged through the story of the בּן סורר ומורה. This subject flows straight into the repetition of עריות. The mitzva of ק”ש repeated across three Books of the Torah to teach: עול מלכות שמים as זכרון יציאת מצרים … זכרון אבות … זכרון תורה שבכתב ובעל פה This midda flows like water into ריבוי אחר ריבוי → מיעוט, מיעוט אחר מיעוט → ריבוי, קל וחומר סתום, and בנין אב. This midda, it rings alarm bells which shout – Stop. This verse – doing major new work – a judicial signal that repetition of an already-established law demands reinterpretation, producing new legal structure through inductive precedent.

מסידור שנחלק as a jurisprudential middah: When the Torah presents a structured list, system, or סדר, and then deliberately splits or rearranges its elements across different contexts, the division itself carries legal meaning. The most obvious example – when NaCH or Talmudic sources inverse the order of רחום וחנון with חנון ורחום.

The Torah’s order is never accidental – אין סדר התורה מקרי. So breaking established order compares to God vs. Dog. The break in order forces interpretation. This midda often works together with מדבר שהוא שנוי, ריבוי, בנין אב, דרך קצרה. Torah common law spins around the Central axis that the Written Torah serves as the Constitution of the bnai brit Cohen People’s Republic. As mentioned before, domains in shabbat not exclusive to this one mitzva. The shabbat commandment which forbids actions of מלאכה establishes a jurisprudential axis across the so called תרי”ג מצוות. The מוספ עמידה why does it inverse the order of the א”ב upon its head? קידושין splits acquisition to כסף שטר וביאה. In ק”ש the Torah employs ציצית as a סוד to remember the t’shuva made by HaShem when HaShem threatened to treat the oaths sworn to the Avot as a vow that can be annulled!

מסידור שנחלק the expression of a inductive legal principle whereby the Torah’s deliberate division of an established structure signals multiple legal domains, obligating the court to derive distinct functions from each fragment.

This learning gets quite involved. Recommend if your interested to make your own research. You can start with the Jewish encyclopaedia. But if requested I shall continue this long list of how Torah common law logic rationally functions and shapes inductive logic. I have stopped at the 11th midda.

Understanding the basics of Oral Torah a fundamentally required absolute. Wrote of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט compared to rabbi Yishmael’s כלל – פרט, פרט – כלל middot by which both men interpreted through different sh’ittot the kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic reasoning. Clearly neither Boris Badenov, nor his boot licking sidekick Natasha Fatale (Rambam & Yosef Karo) understood the distinctions which separate Torah common law from Roman statute law.

ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק”ו. למעוטי מאי? למעוטי חליפין. ס”ד אמינא הואיל וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון, מה שדה מקניא בחליפין, אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין. קמ”ל. This “משל” term “קמ”ל”, what defines its נמשל interpretation? The Gemara asks: למעוטי מאי? Hence, our Gemara contrasts rabbi Yishmael’s midda of ק”ו against rabbi Akiva’s midda of רבוי מיעט. When ever encountering a קמ”ל, this משל teaches the נמשל of either a רבוי מיעט. A fundamental chiddush, how to correctly read the Talmud with an understanding discerning eye – comparable to the tongue of a wine bibber. The Talmud defines understanding as: discernment like from like.

The פרט of בראשית כד:ב requires research. Let’s open by making a מדרש רבה analysis. Midrash functions as a reference resource for Talmudic study. The flat assimilated Yeshiva education system totally ignores learning Talmud together with Midrash, a clumsy yet cunning schemer basic Snidely Whiplash error. Which utterly backfires in a pathetic shallow addiction to the Rambam error of literal word translation Orthodox Judaism religious stupidity.

בראשית רבה נט:ח – Midrash Rabbah connects this verse through the midda of גזירה שוה to כי יקח איש אשה. Avraham & servant Eliezer cut an oath alliance Torah common law legal precedent prototype. The hand-under-thigh Torah language refers to an oath sworn obligation through which the גזירה שוה equally applies to the קידושין oath brit obligation which obligates a Man to give a get to his ex-wife if he divorces her. What does the mitzva of קידושין acquire? The Nefesh O’lam Ha’Ba of the woman’s soul! Specifically learned from the Torah precedent בכל נפשך repeated twice in the opening first two paragraphs of the ק”ש. Bereishit Rabbah learns this critical גזרה שוה, as a critical proto–common law precedent; a foundational legal principles or decisions that define the development of Oral Torah common law as we know it today.

The רבוי מיעט – The acquired “wife” does not lose her independent da’at. Kiddushin-betrothal does not confer ownership over the woman, her various aspect: such as her body, labor or personhood. She exits marital status through get, not resale. Never does she qualify as ממון: money, valuable possessions, and property. Herein interprets the k’vanna of the language of our Av Mishna, which does not say: האשה נקנית לאיש, but האשה נקנית בשלש דרכים — the mitzva of קידושין separates this woman from all other women. Herein understand how the gospel Av tuma avoda zara touching the vile story of virgin birth follows Greek mythology of Hercules rather than Oral Torah common law.

The precedent of Avraham and his servant sworn oath, this Torah brit alliance obligates. Hence this Torah precedent critical in understanding the mitzva of קידושין as an oath alliance brit obligation which obligates both Man and Woman equally. קידושין acquires exclusive – מיעט – over the woman’s nefesh-standing vis-à-vis other men. Herein explains why adultery qualifies as a Capital Crime case which only a Sanhedrin court can adjudicate. Hence no Goyim court qualifies as having authority to issue a divorce. This fundamental recognition that only Torah courts shall determine “the Jewish Problem”, as expressed through the post Shoah oath: NEVER AGAIN.

Oral Torah does not function as a תולדות commentary on the Written Torah —Oral Torah common law derived from precedent תולדות positive and negative Torah commandments. קידושין acquires a brit-level oath obligation as a Av Torah time-oriented commandment. This oath alliance obligation establishes enforceable duties such as כתובה, גט, & fidelity. This mitzva does not treat the acquisition of a wife comparable to how a man acquires ownership of a עבד כנעני; the concept of “soul” understood as title acquired to all future born children fathered consequent to this קידושין. This Torah mitzva serves to amplify the k’vanna of swearing an oath alliance לשמה – the first Sinai commandment; the greatest commandment in the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק״ו

למעוטי מאי

למעוטי חליפין

This question cannot be asked within Rabbi Yishmael’s כלל–פרט system alone, because: A pure ק״ו would expand; a pure גזירה שוה from שדה עפרון would import all kinyanim. Hence the danger: ס״ד אמינא:

הואיל וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון

מה שדה מקניא בחליפין

אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין

This while logically correct under Rabbi Yishmael’s sh’itta. But rabbi Akiva’s קמ״ל = רבוי מיעט, not כלל–פרט. So קמ״ל here teaches the negative boundary of the רבוי, just as it likewise understands the relationship between Shabbat to Chol! A very important precedent since the mitzva of shabbat critically defines: HOLY; just as korbanot dedications define the kingship mitzva of Moshiach. Moshe anointed the House of Aaron to dedicate the nation to pursue righteous judicial justice. The prophet Natan cursed the House of David with eternal Civil War after he failed to rule with justice in the matter of the baal of Bat Sheva. Just as Aaron did not offer up barbeques to Heaven through korbanot, so to the Moshiach does not rule as king if he fails to establish righteous common law Federal Sanhedrin courts!

Acquisition to the “title” Nefesh O’lam Ha’ba of the woman’s soul does not compare to buying or selling chattel. Reading the Talmud as if it compares to the novel of a Harry Potter NT false messiah – Protocols of the Elders of Zion fraud-literalism, destroys and uproots precedent-based Oral Torah common law/משנה תורה. Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic, ancient Greek syllogism deductive logic simply does not work any more than does the Yad, Tur, or Shulkan Aruch assists students to correctly understand how to study and learn the Talmud. Hence the sages codified in the Talmud referred to as “Oral Torah”, whereas the Rambam Yad in no way, shape, manner, or form qualifies as Oral Torah. The two systems compare to the Planets of Mars and Venus.

The קמ”ל always signals רבוי–מיעט. In this particular case: it excludes chalipin, despite the valid ק״ו logic. Because the acquired object – a brit obligation over the “nefesh” soul. Which likewise the Oral Torah differs from the Yad, Tur, Shulkan Aruch counterfeits, the acquisition of “nefesh” simply not ממון, but rather the future born children – the definition of the first Torah commandment: be fruitful and multiply. The רבוי מיעט of the קידושין acquisition of “soul”, separates Goyim from the chosen מיעט Cohen people created through the Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandment of קידושין. Which aligns perfectly with Bereishit Rabbah’s oath-alliance precedent.

The concluding statement of מדרש רבה נט:ח — א”ר יצחק חטיא דקרתך זונין זרע מנהון. Rabbi Yitzhak stated: ‘The wrongdoing of your actions prevents their sustenance from coming;’ restated: “produces continuity only when obligation is preserved.” This closing statement of Midrash Rabbah נט:ח functions as a juridical boundary marker – informing how legal drosh “borders”; the Tosafists reasoning perhaps qualifies it as הלכה למעשה. My sh’itta of inductive reasoning argues the comparison between the case of our Gemara — to the case introduced by Midrash Rabba (the definition of inductive vs deductive reasoning) – do not interpret the קידושין oath brit alliance as the acquisition of an object but rather as the very definition of creating the chosen cohen people through tohor time-oriented commandments.

Torah common law draws category boundaries, such as Sanhedrin courts only have legal jurisdiction within the borders of Judea. Or prophets serve as the police enforcers of judicial common law legal rulings; if no Sanhedrin courts then likewise no prophets. Despite the koran narishkeit which declares that prophets sent to all peoples across the Planet and the Arabs the last people on Earth to receive their “chosen” prophet; hence their absurd declaration that Muhammad was the last of the prophets!

חליפין has the legal meaning which presumes חפץ – a thing. ‘Fungible goods items’ qualify as horse-trading, interchangeable goods. Fungibility facilitates easy transactions and exchanges. Representative by contrast refers to something or someone who stands in for or symbolizes someone or something else. Like Representatives voted into the Federal Congress, they serve as proxies for the voting electorate within any given US State. In basic horse-trading, money functions as a representative of legal trade instead of barter. A common custom practiced by Goyim societies: wife swapping.

Torah law never universalizes categories without jurisdiction. This fundamental מאי נפקא מינא – רב חסד middah forever separates Torah common law from Islamic (and Christian) universal-prophetic claims, which erase jurisdictional boundaries entirely.

Kiddushin cannot tolerate representation … wife swapping. A nefesh cannot be substituted; brit cannot be “grafted” to Goyim who do not and never have accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Fidelity cannot be symbolically reassigned; the Torah oath brit which creates the chosen Cohen people defined to Talmudic established culture and customs, personal, exclusive, & non-fungible. The Torah phrase “והיו לבשר אחד” — not metaphysics — rather anti-fungibility common law. Therefore חליפין utterly treif in the matter of קידושין because it baptizes brit into a substitute theology exchange which replaces the pursuit of justice as faith for belief in some theologically created new God as faith.

The mitzva of קידושין rejects the Goyim custom which perceives marital bonds as transferable; persons as interchangeable units; relationships as revocable exchanges which defines the legal concept of fungibility in human marital relations. Therefore our Gemara blocks that endpoint at the root by excluding חליפין. Herein our Gemara separate kiddushin from market place logic of acquisition of goods and property.

Therefore, קמ״ל in Kiddushin functions as a רבוי–מיעט marker: it affirms that Kiddushin functions as a true kinyan, while excluding any kinyan whose logic presumes fungible object-ownership; therefore חליפין – excluded because brit over nefesh cannot be represented, substituted, or exchanged.