Eisengesis vs. Exegesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The concept of Ancient Consciousness Engineering involves understanding how ancient cultures perceived and interacted with the divine, particularly through the art of building and construction. This perspective often highlights the spiritual and symbolic dimensions of architecture, emphasizing how structures reflect the consciousness and beliefs of the societies that created them.

Buildings often incorporated symbols that represented gods, myths, or cosmological theories. For instance, Egyptian temples were aligned with celestial bodies, reflecting the connection between the divine and the cosmic order. Structures like temples or pyramids were often seen as physical manifestations of divine plans, mirroring cosmic structures. The layout of cities and monuments was frequently designed to reflect mythological tales or the lives of deities.

The scale, orientation, and materials used in construction often reflected social hierarchies and religious beliefs. Larger, grander structures typically represented higher spiritual significance or authority. Temples like the Parthenon were dedicated to specific deities and were built to embody their attributes and myths, serving as a focal point for worship and community.

Shlomo’s reign occurred during a time of extensive interaction with neighboring cultures (the Goyim), whose worship practices involved building grand temples dedicated to their gods. This context shaped Solomon’s approach to architecture and spirituality. Shlomo deluged with foreign wives, starting with the daughter of Par’o. Many ancient cultures valued grand temple architecture as a reflection of their gods’ majesty. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Mesopotamians built magnificent structures to honor their deities.

His construction of the Temple was a pivotal ירידות הדורות moment for Judaism. The בית שני Talmud response to king Shlomo’s avoda zara which so dominated later generations, beginning with Ezra’s rebuilding of a 2nd Temple avoda zara abomination. The Talmud Bavli prioritized the בית המקדש not as a building of wood and stone. It interpreted the Torah construction of the Mishkan as only a משל.

The anointing of the house of David as Moshiach likewise a משל through which the prophet Shmuel interpreted its נמשל response to the rebellion of Israel against the Torah, the anointing first Shaul and later David as Moshiach! Based upon the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan תוחקה mussar rebuke which he instructed both David and Shlomo. Natan saved Shlomo and his mother in the opening Book of Kings. רחבעם ignored the advise given by the elder advisors of Shlomo just as Shlomo did the exact same with the תוחקה mussar rebuke wherewith the prophet Natan commanded Shlomo not to build the בית המקדש but rather prioritize building the establishment of a Federal Sanhedrin common law court system; based upon the p’suk: צדק צדק תרדוף.

The Talmud comments on the consequences of avoda zara associated with Shlomo and later generations, emphasizing the need for prioritizing Courtroom common law justice over Pie in the Sky theological beliefs in Gods, associated with Shlomo and all later ירידות הדורות generations. Prophets like Natan admonished Shlomo regarding his actions, instructing him to focus on establishing a system of justice (Federal Sanhedrin) rather than solely on temple construction.

The anointing of David and later Shlomo as Moshiach reflects a broader narrative regarding leadership and adherence to Torah centered upon the pursuit of judicial justice based upon the memory of judicial injustice before the Court of Par’o and the מוסר תוחקה which Yitro rebuked Moshe immediately after Israel gained our National freedom from Par’o and Egypt. Israel came out of Egypt in accordance with the oath brit sworn to the Avot concerning the eternal inheritance of this land. HaShem brought Israel out of Egypt with the k’vanna that Israel would rule the land with righteous judicial justice – fair restitution of damages inflicted.

Xtianity and Islam, their av tuma avoda zarah prioritizes belief in God – just as does assimilated Rambam’s 13 essential beliefs! In point of fact, the Torah commands no belief in God or Gods. Its this distinction which separates the revelation of the Torah at Sinai from belief in av tuma avoda zara Gods – based upon Creeds, theologies or Angelic revelations! Therefore Prophets like Natan and all other prophets thereafter admonished Shlomo and all the kings of Yechuda and Israel – regarding their failure to prioritize judicial justice through common law courtrooms. The mussar תוחקה of all NaCH prophets therefore instructs both Shlomo and all generations of our Cohen people thereafter, to focus upon ruling the oath sworn lands of the chosen Cohen people with justice – Federal Sanhedrin – common law justice.

The prophetic mussar rebuke of Cain & Abel serves as the יסוד upon which stands the Torah revelation of the Mishkan with its required korbanot dedications. The central Torah theme: Who merits as the Chosen Cohen, initiated through the murder of Abel by his older brother following the korban dedications made by both sons of Adam HaReshon. Cain offered as his korban – a barbeque unto Heaven. Abel dedicated his korban to אל מלך נאמן – God the faithful King … Faith understood as meaning fair judicial justice. Hence the prophet Shmuel interpreted the נמשל mitzva of Moshiach based upon the משל mussar taught through the commandment of the Mishkan together with korbanot.

Moshe, the greatest of all Torah prophets commands prophetic mussar. Hence all other NaCH prophets – they too command mussar rebukes. Mussar defines all prophetic revelations recorded in the literature of the T’NaCH. Witchcraft and/or Goyim prophets like Bil’aam – their av tuma avoda zara predicts the future. The NT framers, they depicted their imaginary false messiah JeZeus as a person/God who fulfilled the words of the prophets. Hence the NT framers redefined T’NaCH prophets including Moshe Rabbeinu as witches because witches foretell the future.

C. S. Lewis, the moral coward, never denounced the church guilt for the Shoah. Lucy Maud Montgomery, was a Canadian author best known for her classic novel Anne of Green Gables, published in 1908. L.M. Montgomery passed away on April 24, 1942. Church’s silence during the Holocaust (Shoah), coupled with the Catholic Rat Lines that assisted Nazi War criminals to flee justice by hiding in S. American countries and the post WWII Polish pogroms! This has led to discussions about the responsibilities of faith leaders and the impact of moral cowardice in the face of atrocity. Lewis and Tolstoy both failed to address the war crimes committed by their people in their life times. Tolstoy failed to condemn the Czarist Pogroms of the 1880s and the secret police forgery: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

L.M. Montgomery, while primarily focused on themes of childhood and community in her novels, lived during a time that contained its own set of moral struggles, including the events of World War II. She never publicly condemned the 1938 pogrom: Night of Shattered Glass. The failure of figures like Lewis and Tolstoy to address grave injustices raises questions about moral courage and the obligations of public intellectuals. The Church’s silence and the concealment of war criminals spotlight the responsibilities of faith leaders in the face of atrocities.

C.S. Lewis labeled a “moral coward” for his silence regarding the Church’s role during the Holocaust. The lack of denunciation of institutional wrongs at a time when moral clarity was crucial exposed the truth of his moral spinelessness. Similarly, Leo Tolstoy’s inaction regarding the Czarist pogroms and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion reflects a pattern of moral evasion. L.M. Montgomery’s literary focus on childhood and personal growth didn’t typically address societal issues.

The silence of various Christian denominations during the Holocaust, specifically the Lutheran support for Hitler’s Nazism, coupled with actions like the Catholic Rat Lines, raises critical questions. The failure to confront and condemn atrocities reflects a broader moral cowardice among faith leaders. The concealment of Nazi war criminals illustrates a deep conflict between moral teachings and institutional actions. Pope Pius XII permitted the Nazis to murder the Jews of Rome. What is the responsibility of public intellectuals in speaking out against injustice? Should their focus include social or political obligations? How should churches and faith institutions hold themselves accountable for past inactions?

Authors and intellectuals are often perceived not just as commentators but as moral agents who can influence public opinion and action. Navigating the balance between personal beliefs and public responsibility poses complex ethical questions, particularly during times of upheaval. Religious and social institutions need to confront their past in order to guide future actions and regain credibility. Institutions must not only teach values of justice and ethics but also demonstrate commitment through action, particularly in contexts of societal injustice. These reflections challenge both individuals and organizations to consider the implications of their actions (or inactions) in the face of moral crises.

Did not write a commentary on the political content of the Obliviousness article. Rather my commentary transposes the structure of Obliviousness into a Torah-based, oath brit, judicial reading. The relationship works on the level of intent, not topic. As an Israeli my world completely different than an American perspective. The American society ruled by Power rather than justice. The Courts – utterly and totally corrupt. The contrast of Trump out of power and Trump as President – Night and Day different. The two assassination attempts and the political assassination of Charlie Kirk define the deep fractures of American political insanity.

Obliviousness — Society is falling apart because institutions have abandoned accountability.
Power replaces justice. Systems that should deliver fairness instead deliver corruption, secrecy, and self-serving elites. The public is deceived by structures that look like order (government, churches, media) but conceal rot. The consequences are systemic: shutdown, corruption, violence, failed leadership, manipulation of justice, tribalism. America exists as a nation on the verge of anarchy and collapse because justice – an utter joke. Obama Clinton and the Intelligence Agency heads have yet to stand trial for treason. Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Waters likewise have never stood trial for the charge of treason.

The Israeli Torah perspective: ancient kings abandoning צדק צדק תרדוף and falling into avoda zara. Oblivious shows what happens when a society replaces justice with spectacle, belief systems, and personality cults. While Justice Pursue argues that this likewise occurred under king Shlomo and Yeridas HaDorot of g’lut rabbinic Judaism which assimilated to Roman statute law and abandoned Torah as judicial common law. The Temple becomes a theological object (avoda zara) rather than a metaphor for judicial structures. Belief replaces courtroom justice. Theology replaces the oath alliance expressed through judicial common law. Power (kingship) replaces federal Sanhedrin.

My comment reads Oblivious as a modern example of the ancient pattern of civilizational decline caused by abandoning common-law justice. Elite corruption & hidden crimes (Epstein / Obama, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Waters, CIA, FBI, NSA Heads). Shlomo’s foreign alliances, wives, temple grandeur → political rot → prophetic rebuke; Justice Pursue interprets this modern collapse as the same pattern the prophets condemned.

Citizens suffer because leaders reject accountability — Prophetic critique: kings of Yehuda rejected תוחקה and צדק. Just as Oblivious describes democratic institutions failing their people; Justice Pursue argues that ancient Israel fell for the same reason. Party loyalty and personality cults replace honest governance. Avoda zara: divine right of kings replaces common-law rank-and-file judicial authority – the foundation upon which the American Republic stands. Oblivious sees American politics becoming a cult of personality. Justice Pursue says: this is literally the biblical definition of avoda zara.

Collapse of public trust; no one believes institutions anymore. Natan the Prophet’s warnings: society cannot survive without justice. All NaCH prophets’ focus prioritized not theology/Democracy, but legal structure. The article Obliviousness – The same spiritual mistake that the Torah warns about. A society becomes idolatrous when it substitutes belief, symbols, or buildings for courtroom justice. America today Washington has replaced Justice. Oblivious replaces justice with conspiracy narratives, personality cults, theocratic rhetoric, media mythologies, spectacle politics.

Ancient Israel did the same when it replaced the federal Sanhedrin, mussar rebuke, case law with statute law, Temple fixations, kings, theological dogmas, Greek-style creed systems (Par’o, later Rambam’s 13 ikarim). There is no civilization without צדק צדק תרדוף. Therefore my commentary functions as the נמשל to Oblivious as the משל. All civilizations collapse when they abandon common-law justice for belief systems (avoda zara). Justice Pursue reveals the ancient consciousness engineering behind the pattern of national decline.

Everything you observe in modern America – the Oblivious Article – the same pattern that destroyed ancient Israel and every empire thereafter. It is the structural sin of replacing justice with belief, power, and symbols. Torah and prophecy diagnose the disease at its root.

The Talmud rejects the Xtian simplistic reading of the Jewish Torah. Israel only accepted the opening first two commandments until Moshe came down from Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf avoda zarah wherein the ערב רב שאין יראת שמים translated the Spirit Name to a profane word “אלהים”.

Why the repetition of the so called 10 commandments in the Books of Sh’mot and D’varim? Torah a common law legal system. Paul’s declaration: “Goyim you are not under the Law” morphed Jewish common law with Roman statute law. Wrong – big error of Xtian theological propaganda. Common law stands upon the foundation of precedents. The repetition of the so called 10 commandments emphasizes through this central repetition the remembrance of coming out of Egyptian slavery as commanded in the acceptance of the Yoke of Heaven commandment known as kre’a shma. שמע ישראל ה’ אלהינו ה’ אחד.

Churchianity reads this as Monotheism. Again dead as a doornail – Wrong. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. If only One God then no need to forbid the worship of other Gods. The entire Torah revelation hinges upon these opening first two commandments, which Israel accepted before the sin of the Golden calf word translation av tuma avoda zara.

The bible translation ignores the first commandment. The translation of the 1st commandment Spirit Name to a word defines the sin of the Golden Calf … the 2nd Sinai commandment. Just that simple, no fancy dance’n.

Notice that the שמע employs 3 Divine Names. Only the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev does another verse ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון וכו — the revelation of the Oral Torah 13 tohor middot — like the שמע, this verse too employs 3 Divine Names in succession. Within the entire literature of the T’NaCH, these two verse stand totally unique.

This has nothing what so ever to do with the Nicene Creed theology of 325 hocus pocus father, son & holy ghost pie in the sky creation of Gods through theology. The Book of בראשית where the 3 Avot swore an oath brit alliance concerning the future born birth of the chosen Cohen people. This first Torah Book introduces “how” this brit sworn to the Avot achieved.

Acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven requires that ALL down stream generations remember the oaths which the Avot swore to cut a brit alliance with HaShem – upon their World to Come/Olam Ha’Bah souls – the birth in all future born generations of the chosen Cohen people. Created not through sex but rather through observance of tohor time oriented commandments. The Book of בראשית introduces this unique type of Torah commandment.

The Nazis av tuma accused Jews of being a “race”. The Book of בראשית teaches otherwise. The Cohen people live from generation to generation through Jewish observance of time oriented commandments … קריא שמע an example of time oriented commandments which the Book of בראשית introduces with the משל of the Creation of the Universe in 6 days.

Torah instructs through משל\נמשל. Torah does not define faith as belief in this Trinity God or that strict Monotheism Allah God; it does not link faith to belief in the Greek Gods of Mt. Olympus or the multitude of Hindu Gods etc. The arrogance of Monotheism presumes that believers in Allah as the only God can negate the peoples of Asia and their belief systems!

The precedent of Moshe standing before the Court of Par’o on the matter of the Egyptian overlords beating the Israelite slaves, over their failure to meet our quota of brick production when Par’o withheld the required straw … coupled with Yetro, Moshe’s father in law, who rebuked Moshe over his failure to establish courts of law; upon these two essential Torah precedents of common law, stands the commandment – according to all the prophets of the NaCH – for Israel to invade and conquer Canaan. Specifically: To rule the conquered land with courtroom judicial justice as the Torah act of Sinai faith. Justice where the common law court dedicate to make fair restoration of damages inflicted upon others. That’s the entire Torah NaCH Mishna Gemara Talmud Midrashim and Siddur – just that simple. No fancy dance’n.

An introduction to the Vilna Sha’s Bavli. This edition has two primary Reshonim commentators Rashi and the Baali Tosafot. Rashi functions as the dictionary. The grand-children of Rashi introduce Talmudic common law. The latter commentators decreed a נידוי ban upon the Rambam in 1232. Spinoza influenced by possibly either by Greek Stoicism philosophers like Heraclitus and Plotinus. Some pre-socratic philosophers, such as Anaximander, likewise expressed ideas akin to pantheism.

The Jewish community in Amsterdam made the decision to impose a cherem decree upon Benedict de Spinoza in 1656. Rationalist philosophy, developed by both Maimonides (Rambam, 1135-1204) and Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) utilized Greek philosophical concepts to shape their theological and philosophical views. The Rambam’s embraced the Muslim concept of a Universal God and rejected that only the 12 Tribes of Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai. This key Talmudic concept therefore understands HaShem as a local Tribal God. Spinoza, perhaps influenced by Hinduism – specifically Brahman – both express the view that God and Nature – Deus sive Natura. A Latin phrase that translates as “God or Nature.” Rambam’s emphasis on the unity of God paved the way for Spinoza’s conviction that the divine lives in all aspects of the universe, leading to his famous statement that “God or Nature” (Deus sive Natura).

The Talmud emphasizes that God’s essence simply beyond human understanding or comprehension. Akin to asking a frog to explain a word definition found in Webster’s dictionary. Speculating about God’s nature across the board, viewed as presumptuous or inappropriate – better that such a person – never even born.

Hence the Talmud interprets the language of the Torah: צדק צדק תרדוף as a limitation of faith restricted on the obligation of common law courts to impose fair compensation of damages. Prophets functioned as the police enforcers of Sanhedrin courtroom rulings which established Jewish common law within the borders of the oath sworn lands. By stark contrast Av tuma avoda zara employs rational theology as its fulcrum wherein it defines the nature of the Gods. The Nicene Council declared Trinity whereas Muhammad declared a strict Monotheism. Both this and that failed to comprehend that time oriented oath sworn commandment create מלאכים יש מאין תמיד מעשה בראשית.

גופא: The Vilna Shas, as expressed in the opening thesis statement establishes Rashi as a Webster’s dictionary and the Talmud as a common law commentary which interprets any given sugya of Gemara often through similar Case/Rule precedents located in other Gemara mesechtot. משנה תורה means “Common Law”. The Rambam did not know this basic fundamental. Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi named his Mishna based upon the second Name given to the Book of דברים; the Mishna teaches common law judicial rulings made by Sanhedrin courtrooms. Statute law originates from authority figures; law imposed or decreed by some Legislature, Congress, or Parliaments qualify as statute law. Rambam’s code of halacha – statute law.

Its this fundamental distinction which forever separates Shabbat from Chol, common law from statute law. Hence in 1232 the rabbis of Paris agreed with the court of Rabbeinu Yonah in Spain to impose the ban of נידוי upon the person of Rambam. Nothing can altar the simple fact that Rambam’s halachic posok reflects statute law rather than common law. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.

As a two-dimensional painting cannot accurately depict three dimensional life, so too and how much more so statute law cannot replace judicial common law rulings which strive to make fair restitution of damages inflicted. Statute law by stark contrast prioritizes religious ritual observances which requires no k’vanna. The restriction of Torah and Talmud to קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות directly compares to a person who publicly profanes Shabbat in front of ten Torah observant men. Both time oriented commandments שבת וקידושין actively require a minyan; based upon the false oath sworn by the 10 spies which duplicated the floods which destroyed the generations of Noach and the Orthodox rabbis refusal to make aliyah to the Zionist Palestine British mandate in the 20s and 30s which thereafter witnessed the Shoah.

Cutting a Torah brit alliance – requires swearing a Torah oath, just as does observance of both Shabbat and קידושין. This basic fundamental, Orthodox Judaism today just as ignorant as Rambam’s failure to grasp the meaning of משנה תורה.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
כי יקחאיש אישה. ולא כתב (דברים כב) כי תקח אשה לאיש. מפני שדרכו של איש לחזר על אשה ואין דרכה של אשה לחזר על איש. משל לאדם שאבדה לו אבידה. מי חוזר על מי? בעל אבידה מחזר על אבידתו
Disciplined Talmudic scholarship requires making a precedent search for both the p’suk as well as the language of a גזרה שווה which links our Gemara to :נדה לא. Its these *asterisks, which quietly instruct how to learn a dof of Gemara practicing the Torah wisdom of common law. Notice, if you will the frequency that the Baali Tosafot likewise examine a sugya of Gemara by comparing it to these identical outside source precedents. Common law learns by means of making precedent study analysis. The Bavli employs these *astericks to other sugyot in the Sha’s Bavli. But once a person discerns the exact phrase of the Mishna which that sugya addresses, then likewise possible to make a Yerushalmi search. The two opposing Gemara frequently instruct conflicting ideas on the exact same subject. To make a Yerushalmi depth analysis, hands down far superior than relying merely upon Reshonim commentaries.

Rav Nemuraskii ז”ל he repeatedly emphasized to me the central importance of sugya integrity. He explained that each sugya of Gemara resembles to the structure of a sonnet or a thesis statement. This permits a scholar, for example – when the Baali Tosafot jump off the Dof, to establish a syllogism of fixed rigid logic: Opening vs Closing thesis statement and one din adjacent to the off the dof Baali Tosafot גזרה שווה precedent. The objective of this type of discipline in learning, to view the same identical idea from a completely different Mishna/Gemara perspective. Based upon the logical syllogism premise: if A & B accurate therefore the concluding proposition equally accurate. Standard syllogism deductive reasoning.

Rav Nemuraskii’s sh’itta of Talmudic learning easier to learn in practice than to describe it in theory. The יסוד of this Talmudic kabbala, sugya integrity across the Shas. This fixed point in all Talmudic literature permits down stream generations to learn any off the Dof sugya based upon the established principals that a syllogism comprised of three parts.

The statute law halachic codifications obliterated, in their pursuit of fixed religious ritual practices so as to simply Judaism’s faith in God – Talmudic sugya integrity. Furthermore, no judge in any Sanhedrin courtroom ever tried a case where “belief in God” shaped the outcome of the judgment! To permit personal beliefs in theology to determine the rule of law defines the לא תעשה מצוו not to accept a bribe. Justice addresses the issue of damages inflicted NOT a persons’ personal theological belief system.

The wisdom necessary to compare one Gemara sugya with a similar but different mesechta Gemara sugya distinguishes רמז\סוד logical diagonal which separates פרדס fluid inductive logic from syllogism rigid deductive logic; like the difference between Calculus variables vs. plane geometry proofs and algebraic equations. Dynamic vs. static mathematical reasoning.

The latter error compares to the Middle Ages wherein catholic/protestant priests or pastors would invade synagogues across Europe every Shabbat and force Jews to listen to their utterly despised and abhorred preaching attempts to convert us to convert and embrace their murderous Av tuma avoda zara religion(s). The church(s) imposed their evil ghetto gulags for 3 Centuries as a despicable expression of their perverted notions of justice. Post Shoah, NEVER AGAIN — Jews have sworn a solemn oath that Goyim shall not judge Jews in their corrupt courtrooms ever again — starting with the UN/ICJ or ICC/Rome treaty. Both institutions post Oct 7th 2023 have utterly destroyed their good name reputations.

The g’lut Yeshiva education system, even in ארץ ישראל, has yet to cast off the tuma klippa shells. In Kabbalistic mysticism, particularly as articulated by the Ari (Rabbi Isaac Luria), the concept of klippot representative of the “shells” or “husks” that envelop and conceal the divine light. These shells are often associated with forces of evil and obstruction to spiritual elevation. Klippot are viewed as barriers that hinder spiritual enlightenment and individual connection to the divine. Just as a fruit’s shell may protect and hide its nourishment, klippot obscure the underlying divine light.

In Kabbalistic thought, the interplay between holiness and klippot illustrates the duality within creation. Klippot embody chaotic, destructive forces that can lead individuals away from divine consciousness and fulfillment. Encountering klippot understood as part of a spiritual journey. Overcoming these shells allows individuals to reclaim the divine light veiled within our Yatzir Ha’Tov; transforming tuma middot spirits from within our Yatzir Ha’Raw by remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot wherein their oath brit first created the chosen Cohen people.

Lurianic Kabbalah often categorizes klippot into different levels or types. The ‘Ten Klippot’ parallel the Sefirot (divine attributes), as taught through the kabbalah of the Zohar; a profound Reshon midrashic commentary to the Chumash. Published after the Pope and king of France publicly burned all the Talmudic hand written manuscripts in France in 1242. The ‘Ten Klippot’, according to the Talmud – they represent the mussar דרוש\פשט which remember the ten times the generation of the Wilderness, under the leadership of Moshe, Aaron and Mariam, denied our oath Sinai brit alliance.

This idea supports the משל, that each klippa serves to conceal the light associated with each corresponding Sefira. T’shuva does not spin around the central axis of regret, like it does in the religions of avoda zara. Rather, t’shuva – based upon Moshe reminding HaShem of the oath sworn to the Avot – spins around remembering the 3 oaths sworn by the Avot wherein each cut an oath brit alliance concerning the eternal life of the chosen Cohen people.

Just as the klippot conceal the divine light, statute law conceals the living precedent of the Oral Torah. Restoring sugya integrity – an act of tikkun—the peeling away of the husk to reveal the oath brit within common law itself.

The precedent for the 10 Sefirot, the עשרת הדבורות מסיני. The Reshon Zohor midrashic commentary, obviously influenced by the alien 10 commandment reading of the Xtian bible. The Talmud instructs that Israel only accepted the first two Sinai commandments prior to Israel demanding that Moshe rise up and receive the rest. Israel did not receive the rest of the Written and Oral Torah revelation until after Yom Kippur 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf translation of the שם השם סיני רוח הקודש to the av tuma avoda zara word אלהים.

Limiting the initial revelation of Sinai restricted to only the first two commandments — utterly repudiates the av tuma avoda zara of both Xtianity and Islam. Neither ever once bring the שם השם first commandment Name. Islam’s strict monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment; if only one God lives then no need for this commandment. Alas the false prophet Muhammad ignored all the NaCH prophets whose mussar condemned the worship of avoda zara by Israel – starting with Egypt under Par’o. The idea of some ONE Universal God, an avoda zara which defines the error of the Rambam’s statute law assimilation, completely denies that only Israel accepted the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven at Sinai; that only through observance of tohor time oriented commandments, which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna, does the Torah brit continuously creates the chosen Cohen people יש מאין.

Shall follow the Order of precedents based upon our Gemara “outline”. Statute law reads the Gemara as a finished product. A fundamental error; a building – no matter how tall, regardless of the Rambam Yad or Karo בית יוסף – with a cracked foundation, must come down. The Tur collage of Reshonim opinions fails to discern between common law from statute law. The sloppy scholarship made by assimilated Reshonim produced the fruits of ירידות הדורות, no different than did king Shlomo’s Temple which replaced the establishment of Sanhedrin Federal common law courtrooms – based upon the din of the two prostitutes who compare to Moshe standing before the court of Par’o.

The Talmud serves merely as a outline which requires down stream generations to make a פרדס logic analysis. Each down stream scholar can logically compare the Talmudic outlined Case to his own theory of ideal precedents! The Vilna Shas is not a book but a courthouse. Rashi provides the language of testimony; Tosafot the case precedents; and the Gemara, the living motion of common law. Against this stands Rambam’s Yad — the first codified statute law to replace the covenantal courtroom with bureaucratic religious decree. The founding fathers of the American Republic separated Church from State in the first Amendment to their Constitution.

Talmudic analysis requires gopher work. דברים כב:יג located within the larger sugya כלל: כב:יג-יט. This sugya contains no שם השם מידה. Hence, by the way Rav Aaron taught me, the sugya כלל: כב:ה-יט. The opening sugya introduces: ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה כי תועבת. Our Gemara likewise makes distinctions between Men and women. The next sugya addresses the obligation to respect even the dignity of animals. The next sugya addresses the dignity of the land itself. The next sugya forbids working animals possessing different innate strengths together; this equally applies to fabrics from plant vs animal sources. The mitzva of tzitzit serves to confine the purpose of Torah commandments to protection of dignity and value.

Par’o crushed the dignity and value of g’lut Jewry stateless refugees, as did both the Church and Islam. Now within this context the intent of כי יקח איש אשה ובא אליה ושנאה ושם לה עלילת דברים והוצא עליה שם רע. Learning a Torah p’suk requires the discipline of reviewing that specific פרט as it understands the sugya כלל לשמה. The Chumash addresses how a fool can permanently destroy his good name reputation. Herein the Torah addresses the concept of יראת שמים.

Compare the mussar from בראשית ד:א והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו ותהר ותלד את קין ותאמר קניתי איש את השם. Why did HaShem reject the korban dedicated by Cain? Cain offered a barbeque unto Heaven. His brother, the chosen Cohen first born, dedicated יראת שמים as the k’vanna of his korban. A time oriented commandment, greater than a positive commandment. Upon this distinction did HaShem chose who qualified as the first born son of Adam. Fear of Heaven, it does not compare to the famous reflex impulse commercial: “Gee I could have had a V-8”. דכתיב: וינחם ה’ כי עשה את האדם בארץ ויתעצב אל לבו. Still another example of bruised dignity: ותאמר שרי אל אברם חמסי עליך אנכי נתתי שפחתי בחיקך ותרא כי הרתה ואקל בעיניה ישפט ה’ ביני וביניך. The mitzva of קידושין rests squarely upon a man building the dignity of his house. This applies to both wife and children. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.

Weigh the kabbalah of שמואל א יד:א-ה. Jonathan developed a tuma midda of undermining the authority of his father. In the end, Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, his loyalty to David became suspicious following the Av Shalom revolt. Later, Solomon weighed the complexities, & remembered Jonathan’s love for David. He preserved Mephibosheth’s inheritance. This decision highlighted the importance of loyalty over-cast by suspicion, in a times of political anarchy and chaos.

The dynamics between King Shlomo, Mephibosheth, Ziba, (Mephibosheth’s servant), who undermined his master by claiming that Mephibosheth sought to take advantage of David’s troubles and aligned himself with Absalom; and Shimei, (Shlomo’s Talmudic instructor), illustrate the complexities of loyalty, authority, and familial relationships which prophetic mussar frames. It appears to me that our Gemara likewise addresses marital family relationships based upon similar complexities.

This type of in-depth analysis the statute law codes, and Reshonim commentaries simply do not address. Utterly absurd to make a study of the Talmud, divorced from the Primary Sources of the T’NaCH literature. Midrash functions “the” commentary of Talmudic Aggadic sources throughout the Sha’s. This basic fundamental the Yeshiva world today totally ignores.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
דתנן: המפלת ליום מ’ אינה חוששת לולד … וחכ”א אחד בריית הזכר ואחד בריית הנקבה — זה וזה מ”א. גמ. מסתברא טעמא דרבי ישמעאל דקמסייע ליה קראי קמ”ל. דרש רבי שמלאי למה הולד דומה במעי אמו לפנקס שמקופל ומונח ידיו על שתי צדעיו שתי אציליו על ב’ ארכובותיו וב’ עקביו על ב’ עגבוריו וראשו מונח לו בין ברכיו ופיו סתום וטבורו פתוח ואוכל ממה שאמו אוכלת ושותה ממה שאמו שותה
ואינו מוציא רעי שמא יהרוג את אמו
“As we have learned: A woman who gives birth on the fortieth day is not concerned about the fetus… And the sages say, whether it is a male infant or a female infant — both are significant.

Gemara: The reasoning of Rabbi Ishmael is evident, as it is supported by verses. Rabbi Shemalai interpreted: Why is the fetus in its mother’s womb compared to a folded notebook with its hands on both of its cheeks, its elbows on both of its knees, and its heels on both of its ankles? Its head is positioned between its knees, its mouth is sealed, and its navel is open. It eats from what its mother eats and drinks from what its mother drinks, and it does not release any waste, for fear that it might harm its mother.”

Clearly in matters of healing, the Talmud authority being Ages past time and Human knowledge have undermined. None the less, the issue raised by the Gemara runs parallel to the Book of Shmuel quoted previously. Learning T’NaCH precedents serve as the basis by which later generations understand the framers of the Talmud.

The second leg of our sugya syllogism: ומפני מה איש פניו למטה ואשה פניה למעלה כלפי האיש? זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת. ופני מה האיש מקבל פיוס ואין אשה מקבלת פיוס. דכתיב: משלי יד:א–חכמות נשים בנתה ביתה ואולת בידיה תהרסנו. No one force king Shlomo to marry all his foreign wives! He alone bears full responsibility for his avoda zara עון. Its this pre-condition wherein he agreed to cut alliances with other goyim kingdoms, starting with Egypt. The wisdom of that alliance did not prevent king Shishak for conquering Jerusalem!

These two points establish the sh’itta line of learning this sugya. שאלו תלמידיו את רבי דוסתאי ברבי ינאי: מפני מה איש מחזר על אשה ואין אשה מחזרת על אש? משל לאדם שאבד לו אבידה. מי מחזר על מי? בעל אבידה מחזיר על אבידתו

These precedents weigh the dignity and worth of Man and woman as equal – straight from their inception and birth. Each exorcises different skill sets. But life depends equally upon the other. Therefore the idea of child rape as kosher – utterly repugnant. How did the Baali Tosafot address this question?
אי תנא קונה ה”א בע”כ. ואע”ג דתני האיש מקדש דמשמע בע”כ, היינו משום דכבר אשמועינו הכא דבע”כ לא יהא דקתני היבמה נקנית ולא קתני היבם קונה בע”כ. איידי דקתני האשה נקנית תני נמי סיפא, היבמה נקנית דנקנית משמע מדעתה

Therefore the Tosafot disputes the posok halacha made by the Rambam quoted earlier. Obviously this one case does not systematically refute statute halachic law straight across the board as treif. But king Shlomo forced his teacher to live within the borders of Jerusalem, and when he pursued to recover his lost ass, king Shlomo put him to death in accordance with his fathers’ wishes. Its absolutely essential to stand the Talmud upon the foundations of the T’NaCH literature. The g’lut Yeshiva education system today does not learn in this manner. Talmudic scholarship which fails to delve into prophetic mussar makes itself blind to the k’vanna of time oriented Torah commandments. Clearly, it seems to me, that a man pursues קידושין in order to build the dignity of his wife and family.