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.

Your fraudulent gospels, JeZeus does not discern the difference between “praying”–Tehillem from davening–“Torah blessings”. The Talmud of ברכות instructs that a “blessing” exists as an extension of swearing a Torah oath. A Torah oath, defines the k’vanna of the oath sworn בריתות sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov by which the Avot cut a brit with HaShem to eternally create the chosen Cohen People from nothing by means of Av tohor time-oriented commandments.

Therefore a blessing requires the kabbalah abstract wisdom known as שם ומלך. The gospel fraud never once brought the שם השם לשמה anywhere in the NT. The first Sinai commandment the greatest of all Torah commandments NOT love – as the false messiah JeZeus taught. Why? Does a Jew do mitzvot לשמה או לא לשמה? This basic question defines how the first Sinai commandment, a commandment at all. The Talmud refers to this fundamental basis of this 1st Sinai commandment – applicable to all the other Torah commandments; explained through the משל metaphor, as expressed though the metaphor of: A Mountain hanging by a Hair.

The JeZeus fraud false messiah did not grasp, that Tefillah as a Torah, that this mitzva requires the dedication of the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the Heart. Rabbi Yechuda interpreted בכל לבבך within the language of tefillah דאורייתא – meaning the kre’a shma – as the avoda which discerns between the opposing spirits of Yatzir Ha’tov vs. Yatzir Ha’rah within the heart. He based this Mishnaic ruling upon the opening word of Torah בראשית, based upon the פרדס – רמז of ב’ רשאת, which translates as two beginnings. The aggadic story of the creation has two creation stories. These stories introduce the first cause of g’lut-exile as the inherit (think of Yaacov and Esau wrestling within the womb of Rivka) struggle between the Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. the Yatzir Ha’Raw within the “womb” of the heart. Hence the Talmud acknowledges that Tefillah a matter of the heart.

Whereas JeZeus prayed to some Father in Heaven. The term מלכותkingship: a metaphor wherein the משל king/מלך guides and directions the direction wherein the nation walks. The נמשל logical inference made upon this משל, the Oral Torah middot revealed to Moshe at Horev on Yom Kippur, these tohor middot – they define the drive or spirit which breathes life from within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart! This crucial error definitively proves the NT a Roman Protocols of Zion forgery.

Currently its the month of Elul. A Chassidic saying at this time: The King is in the field. The נמשל for this משל, Jews attempt to “remember” (ר”ה נקרא יום הזכרון) how the Sin of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב-assimilated Jews attempted to impose a substitute replacement theology wherein they referred to the revelation of the 1st Sinai commandment by the word אלהים. The avoda zarah gospel book John 1:1 declares the Word as god. Both substitution theologies define the sin of the Golden Calf; wherein HaShem threatened to make from the seed of Moshe the chosen Cohen people.

The Torah teaches that following the rebuke of the prophet HaShem made t’shuva and “remembered” the oaths sworn to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. Hence the opening blessing of tefillah writes: אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב. HaShem made t’shuva. A completely different verb from the Xtian idea known as repentance. The Torah precedents for t’shuva: the father can annul a vow made by his minor daughter and the husband can annul a vow made by his wife. Hence a fundamental מאי נפקא מינא distinction made between t’shuva and repentance.

The Yom Tov of ר”ה revolves around the central axis of blowing the shofar. Tefillah, as a tohor time oriented commandment requires k’vanna. To blow a shofar require the exertion of air blown from the lungs. But to dedicate a blessing/oath of tefillah requires a dedication of the tohor middot (מלכות) of the Yatzir Ha’tov within the heart. Another huge מאי נפקא מינא fundamental distinction of k’vanna. Torah its deep. The two-dimensional NT Roman Protocols of the Elders of Zion counterfeit fraud, an utter abomination.

The Torah vision of Moshiach – a tohor time oriented commandment like and similar too shabbat – a tohor time oriented commandment. As the latter applies equally to all Jews in every generation to observe and keep so too and how much more so the former! The NT messiah fraud assumes that a lone individual can keep the mitzva of Moshiach. This flagrantly violates the revelation of the Torah at Sinai wherein all generations of the Jewish people accept the Torah.

Torah as common law stands upon the יסוד of precedents. Rabbi Yishmael explained the concept of precedent through calling them בנין אב in his 13 middot explanation of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס kabbalah of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. During the entire month of Elul Jews daven a prayer known as Slichot, wherein we open the doors revealing the Sefer Torah and repeatedly cry out unto the 13 Oral Torah revelation of the 13 middot: ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון וכו.

Its rather interesting the רמז – which includes Gematria numerical values, 3 + 13 + 3 blessings defines the Order of the Shemone Esrei. This Order interpreted by the Rambam as 613. He learned 613 commandments from the Written Torah. The B’HaG rejected this simplistic reading of a רמז. He discerned that the opening book of בראשית, introduced the Av tohor mitzvot known as time oriented commandments. The next three books of the Torah שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר introduced the secondary “precedent” positive and negative commandments which do not require k’vanna. And the last book of the Torah introduced the judicial mandate of the Sanhedrin common law lateral courtrooms, known as משנה תורה. Hence the revelation of the Torah at Sinai inclusive of all the Halachic mitzvot elevated through Aggada drosh of prophetic mussar unto Torah Av tohor time oriented commandments! Rabbi Yechuda the Nassi named his Six orders of Sanhedrin judicial rulings as משנה. The latter interpreted the intent of the Book of דברים as the mandate for common law Torah and Talmudic law.

מלאכתך closer to the word מלאך rather than עבודה which refers to “work” מלאכתך. Therefore the idea of the mitzva of shabbat to cease to create life rather than “work”. Granted that a man needs to work, from the sweat of his brow in order to live, as the Torah refers to Adam after HaShem expelled Adam from the Garden of Eden. Therefore the mitzva of shabbat, a person does this ‘time oriented mitzva’ (which requires k’vanna) Jews who keep shabbat, they develop the conscious k’vanna not to create מלאכים\life, like as did Yaacov who sent a מלאך to his brother Esau who came to meet him surrounded with an Army lead by 400 Officers, according to Targum Uziel, in order to kill Yaacov and his entire family.

The Torah states that Esau greeted Yaacov with a kiss. But Rashi teaches that he wanted to bite his brother’s neck. Akin to Bil’aam who intended to curse Israel but HaShem sent a מלאך and Bil’aam blessed Israel to the horror of the king of Moav. Swearing a Torah oath requires שם ומלכות dedications of the שם השם blown from the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart, as opposed to blow air from the lungs when pronouncing words framed from the lips, tongue, and teeth. The mitzva of shabbat absolutely requires that bnai brit Israel make this fundamental discernment which separates k’vanna from empty rote ritualism. The spiritual concept that Torah oaths can create life as in מלאכים tohor spirits achieved through the dedication of מלכות, a term that makes a רמז to מלאכה. Specifically a person can dedicate tohor Spirits revealed first to Moshe at Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf: ‘אל רחום וחנון וכו. Hence the time oriented mitzva of Shabbat reveals the holy dedication of פרדס thirteen Oral Torah middot.

Therefore, the substance crux of shabbat observance distinguishes between cessation of the creation of life rather than the false focus of not doing work. HaShem informed g’lut Adam that he must work to live. Prioritizing shabbat as not doing work misses the point of Shabbat observance which separates the holiness of LIFE over the g’lut need for working in order to live. A key but subtle distinction that avoda zara religion totally miss all together. Life prioritized over g’lut “work”, defines the k’vanna of shabbat observance throughout the generations.

The style of the Gemara – difficulty answer. Why? Mishnah as blueprint, Gemara as rotation of facets. My father, to whom I referred to as a boy of 5 years of age as “Wild Bill Kerr”, based upon the TV series: “The Adventures of Wild Bill Hickok”. An American Western television series that aired from April 15, 1951, to September 24, 1958. Wild Bill Hickok, a legendary lawman and gunfighter known for his bravery and quick draw. Jingles P. Jones, Hickok’s comedic sidekick, providing humor throughout their adventures. Framed as set in the 1870s, focusing on the escapades of Hickok and Jingles as they fought outlaws and maintained law and order primarily around Fort Larabee.

My father taught me that a skilled lawyer does not really master his trade unless he can argue persuasively both sides: Prosecution and Defense. Up to this point in this commentary, made upon the opening sugya of קידושין, have framed myself as accepting the yoke of בית שמאי, the Sanhedrin Court prosecuting attorney. Having accused the רישונים חכמים of their intentional guilt, specifically their Av tuma avoda zara; which promotes Jewish assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The consequence of this fundamental lack of יראת שמים, this Reshonim ערב רב caused the Torah curse of Amalek/anti-semitism\ to plague the generations of the Jewish people like as did the plagues afflicted Par’o and Egypt during the days of Moshe and Aaron and Miriam.

Shall now likewise accept the yoke of בית הילל, the Defense attorney of the Sanhedrin Court and defend both רמב”ם וכסף משנה. The classic Pairs define Talmudic judicial common law. Absolutely essential that my commentary actively attempts a fair defense of the chief רשע – Rambam. “The act of codification in exile – pikuach nefesh for Torah, not rebellion — a suspension of precedent to preserve the covenantal body until the judicial soul of mass aliyah to the reconquered homeland restored.”

Lacking a strong defense for this Av tuma רשע, this commentary on the Av Mishna of קידושין compares to only one hand clapping; the Salem Witch Trials! This said, its essential to lay out the most obvious flaw of the Rambam code; the failure of that רשע to follow the common law Halachic codes made by the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh, and most especially by the Baali Tosafot who ruled Rambam guilty and placed him into the din of נידוי in 1232.

The Baali Tosafot criticized Rashi’s commentary as functioning primarily as a dictionary rather than a common law commentary which interprets the multiple facet perspectives which defines both T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. Only twice in the whole of the Sha’s Bavli did the Baali Tosafot make mention of the Rambam, and in both those cases they challenged and disputed his posok halacha.

But a minority of Baali Tosafot scholars approved and supported the Rambam perversion of Talmudic common law – to assimilated Greek/Roman statute law – cult of personality dictates. (Ask a religious Jew why he keeps the halacha? His standard answer: Because its written in the Shulkan Aruch.) The SMaG, (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol), authored by Rabbi Moshe ben Asher in the 13th century. This Baali Tosafot halachic code organized it’s posok halachic rulings, based upon the rules established by Reshonim conventions. Imposed due to the harsh reality of the collapse of the Roman road system and armed Robin Hood robbers. The tumultuous political and social landscape prompted scholars to consolidate halachic knowledge and attempt to establish a reliable source of Jewish law. He organized his halachic code around the frozen/static 613 Rambam (rigid egg-crate literal orthodox Xtian reading of the language of their bible Creation story). His codification of Reshonim opinions served as the model whereby the Tur based and organized his own statute law code.

Due to the simple fact that the king of France, together with the Pope – catholic church, publicly burned all the Talmudic manuscripts in Paris 1242. In 1290 the Jews of England expelled; 1306, King Philip IV of France, also known as Philip the Fair, ordered the expulsion of all Jews from his realm. These two Tsunami-like Earthquakes utterly obliterated and destroyed the French common law Rashi/Tosafot sh’itta which studied the kabbalah of Rabbis Akiva, Yishmael, and Yosi HaGalili middot. From the Paris burnings to the Khmelnytsky massacres to the Shoah, Amalek reappeared in each generation — the penalty for assimilation and the forgetting the Sinai oath brit alliance.

The latter Tanna, his 32 rules expand rabbinic middot legal scholarship; they amplifies rabbi Yishmael’s 13 rules wherein the Holy Writing serve to amplify differing perspectives made to interpret the Books of the NaCH. The realtionship of the Gemara to the Mishna models itself after how the Holy Writings interpret the NaCH Prophets.

Here’s a brief list and explanation of this famous Tanna’s 32 middot. 1 Kal V’Chomer. A form of argument from minor to major. 2 Gzerah Shavah. A principle that draws parallels between similar terms or phrases in different contexts. 3. Binyan Av. The common law principle of precedents. The anchor of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. 4. Shenei Ketuvim. Resolving contradictions between two biblical verses. 5. Tzarich L’Chatech. Requires clarification within a specific context. 6. Masar LaChaver. Transmitting a rule or principle to others. 7. Danny D’Rabi. Interpret a phrase based on rabbinical authority. 8. Chalom. A principle that allows interpretation based on dreams or visions. 9. Mikra. The textual basis for legal conclusions. 10. Davar SheBikdushah. A legal concept pertaining to sacred contexts. 11. Hekesh. A type of comparison that links two similar cases together. 12. Sefarim. Reference to books or scriptures that provide guidance. 13. Kavachomer from Torah. A derived legal principle that compares laws from the Torah to other laws. 14. Hekesh d’Rabbanan. A rabbinical comparison of legal interpretations. 15. Shema. Deriving laws that are evident in rules and practices. 16. Ribui U’Mi’ut. One of rabbi Akiva’s principles apart from rabbi Yishmael; inclusivity and exclusivity in legal terms. 17. Memashim. Interpreting terms based on similarity in context. 18. D’varim. Specific discussions within the context of Mitzvot. 19. Tanaim. Recognition of pluralism in opinions. 20. Ma’aseh. Examples that guide understanding or application of a principle. 21. Tuvaot. Philosophical principles based on faith or belief. 22. Kedushah. Principles pertaining to holiness and sacredness. 23. Chiddush. A new interpretation or novel legal ruling. 24. Omak. The principle of measuring depth or intensity in legal interpretations. 25. G’vul. Boundaries concerning laws. 26. Takanah Legal improvements made for community welfare. 27. Harsha. Interpretative techniques that adjust meanings based on context. 28. Shavah. A principle of equivalence or balance in law. 29. Edut. Laws based on testimonies and witnesses. 30. Mitzvot. Observance or fulfillment of commandments within Jewish law. 31. Machloket. The principles governing disputes and disagreements in interpretations of law. 32. Tamim. The concept of integrity and moral character in the practice of law.

My commentary relies extensively upon the rules established by Rabbi Yosi HaGalili. Yet no rabbi, other than Rav Nemuraskii – but of course – ever took the time to emphasize the absolute need to study and comprehend these 32 middot!

The supporters of the Rambam today negate not only the נידוי דין made by the court of Rabbeinu Yonah. But they, to my knowledge, due to the massive anarchy and chaos – resultant of this Civil War – which produced forced mass population transfers which effectively did not terminate till the Church three Century ghetto gulag decree. Which triggered the another tragic forced population transfer of Jews fleeing Western European church unjust tyranny to Eastern Europe. This mass population transfer contributed to the pogroms of 1648.

The 1648 Cossack Revolt, also known as the Khmelnytsky Uprising, led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Marked a pivotal moment in Ukrainian history and had enduring consequences for the region. Violent tensions boiled & brewed between the Polish nobility and the peasant Cossack feudal serfs. The latter, faced social and religious oppression, as the Polish nobility pitted aristocratic Catholics, opposed by peasant/serf Cossacks – Orthodox Christians. Peasant communist revolts against the land holding aristocrats, pretty much defines the history of Dark Ages, church oppression and slavery.

Bohdan Khmelnytsky, a prominent Cossack leader and military strategist, Khmelnytsky united various Cossack factions and sought to challenge Polish rule. This peasant/slave revolt began in the spring of 1648. Khmelnytsky attacked Polish forces and saw initial successes, capturing several key towns. This early victory, history remembers as the Battle of Zhovti Vody (May 1648), bolstered Cossack morale and led to further recruitment to his revolt. Another decisive victory the Cossacks enjoyed, which solidified Khmelnytsky’s power and territory, the Battle of Pyliavtsi (September 1648).

The uprising resulted in the Treaty of Zboriv (1649) between the Cossacks and the Commonwealth, granting significant autonomy to the Cossacks and recognition of Khmelnytsky’s leadership. The revolt led to increased Cossack autonomy and eventually contributed to the creation of the Cossack Hetmanate, a semi-autonomous region under Cossack control with considerable independence from Polish authority. The revolt, often seen as a cornerstone in the development of Ukrainian national identity – commemorated in Ukrainian history as a fight for independence and self-determination.

Not till the post WWII Catholic Pius XII inspired rat-lines which openly assisted Nazi war-criminals to escape standing trial, did the utter and complete barbarity of Church Nazi race-based guilt become so blatantly obvious. The Nazis proved that Xtian Europe eternally bears the mark of Cain. Post Shoah, no get out of jail free for Xtianity as a religion; nor for Islam who openly & publicly made open alliance to achieve the goals of Hitler – in both the 1948 and ’67 Israeli Independence Wars.

The opening defence of the רשע Rambam, based upon the 1232 נידוי ruled by French/Baali Tosafot rabbis in Paris. Outside the Land, Divine justice does not manifest through Sanhedrin jurisprudence — for HaShem Elohei Yisrael – bound by brit to the soil of the oath sworn lands. Having accused the Rambam as ha-rasha ha-gadol in Beit Shammai’s charge sheet, the Beit Hillel defense now must redeem him on grounds of intent (kavanah). Alas, this defense immediately collapses due to the Rambam’s bi-polar Sefer Ha’Mitzvot which totally ignores tohor time oriented commandments which absolutely both define and hence require — k’vanna. None the less, the essence of Gemara — that justice lives not in verdict but in the capacity to argue both sides with equal passion.

The obligation of Beit Hillel defense requires in-depth examination of the Rambam’s halachic rulings. The Rambam (1138–1204) lived through the Almohad persecutions in Spain and Morocco, when Torah academies were burned and communities forced to convert or die. In such times, the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah was not an act of rebellion but of triage — a desperate effort to preserve the body of law until neshamah chadashah could restore its soul. His code did not deny Torah shebe’al peh; it froze its surface in order to prevent total loss.

The Kesef Mishneh (R. Yosef Karo) later wrote: “He wrote a code not to uproot the Gemara, but to protect it, lest the generations forget even its bones.” The prosecution identifies codification with Avoda Zara, arguing that it transforms the living word into a fixed idol. Yet idolatry in Torah law is defined not by the form of worship but by intention — kavanah. The Rambam’s intention, as proven in his Introduction to Mishneh Torah, was not to replace the Oral Law but to “gather what is scattered” (le’asof hanidachim). Alas the Rambam replaced dynamic פרדס inductive logic with Greek syllogism deductive logic.

In his Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot he writes: “I did not intend that one abandon the Talmud, for the Talmud is the root of all decisions.” Thus, the form of his writing — systematic, Greek-like — cannot be construed as Avoda Zara unless the intent actually qualifies as alien worship which the prosecution maintains. The burden of proof for idolatrous intent cannot stand in din Torah without testimony and motive. The prosecution claims that Rambam’s move from common law to statute code, violated the dynamic precedent system (binyan av). Yet Ezra HaSofer and the Men of the Great Assembly themselves wrote down the Tanakhic canon to preserve it post-exile. Codification – in crisis – perhaps qualifies precedent, & not rebellion.

R. Yosef Karo’s Kesef Mishneh perhaps understood not as blind allegiance but as judicial commentary — a defense brief of its own. He accepts Rambam’s framework but reopens the dialectic: where ever Rambam seems to rule against the Gemara, the Kesef Mishneh restores the dialogue of possible Gemara sources, but fails to bring the language of the Mishna as does the common law codes of the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh. Does the Kesef Mishneh replicate what Beit Hillel does to Beit Shammai — not to overturn, but to temper judgment viewed from an entirely different perspective? Most definitely no.

The prosecution links Rambam’s rationalism to assimilation. Yet history shows that rationalism, in Rambam’s hands, perhaps served the opposite purpose: to rescue Judaism from the Aristotelian cults of barbaric Islam and Xtian Av tuma avoda zarah. In Guide for the Perplexed, Rambam dismantled the Greek metaphysical “gods” and reframed Torah theology in the language of the nations, to prevent the youth of his generation from apostasy. Is this לא תעשון כן לה’ אלהיכם in reverse — cleansing foreign ideas for Avodat Hashem? Again clearly No. The Rambam defense admits that he erred. However, his error limited only to method, to faith; in precision – not to loyalty, requires an עיון that this introduction can only suggest at this early stage of the trial.

The Ba’alei Tosafot indeed criticized his halachic method — a legal dispute within the precedent of the B’HaG, Rif codes? No the Rambam clearly favored systematic ease over common law judicial discipline. The Rambam’s מציאות השם radically differs from the Talmudic masoret which teaches that only the 12 Tribes of the Chosen Cohen people accepted the revelation at Sinai: the brit to continuously create the seed of the Avot through tohor time oriented Av commandments, starkly different from the Rambam opinion, embraced by the vast majority of assimilated Jews who themselves stood in absolute terror from Xtian & Islamic Av tuma avoda zarah Creed beliefs in some Universal God. G’lut Jewry endured a nightmare, an absolute panic of dread & fear. Therefore they abandoned the Sinai revelation limited to a Tribal local god.

The Cherem against the Rambam in Montpellier arose not from halachic analysis but from this precise horror experienced by the assimilated Jews of Spain. Their crude knowledge of Torah faith as common law judicial justice, utterly overwhelmed by their absolute dread of philosophy’s encroachment on the purity of common law judicial faith; that seals the focus of the oath alliance upon the Sinai brit that touches the eternal creation of the Chosen seed of the Avot through time oriented tohor commandments.

Clearly the Rambam’s vision of what defines the foundation of prophecy, stands fundamentally apart from the Talmudic definition which understands prophets as persons who command mussar to all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Its this prophetic mussar which the Aggada of the Talmud defines the k’vanna of rabbinic halachot throughout the Talmud employs to plant mussar seeds within the Yatzir Ha’Tov; elevates positive rabbinic commandments to Av tohor time oriented commandments based upon the Oral Torah 13 middot revealed at Horev; the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive dynamic reasoning akin to the variables of Calculus. The priority of pursuit of judicial common law justice vs. theological belief in a Universal omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence God — starkly different than outside of the land of Israel there exists no God. The restrictions on the Sanhedrin courtrooms obeys the model of Tribal HaShem as God of the Chosen land.

The Talmud fundamentally rejects speculation attempts to grasp the nature of the Gods as “better such person never born”. Greek philosophy’s influence upon Spanish Jewry had clearly overshadowed the shade cast by the Tree of Life. Jewish philosophers, without shame, debated the nature of God’s existence, on par with Xtian and Muslim avoda zarah believers. The Zohar’s kabbalistic mysticism promoted the large and small face of God Av tuma narishkeit.

Avoda zarah’s metziut of God as experienced through the absolute prioritization of faith in some theological belief system – artificial creed, spiritual practices, and personal encounters with the Divine. Miracles and divine providence play a significant role in affirming the existence of a Universal rather than a small tribal god. Descriptions of God mirror the sin of the Golden Calf word translations for שם השם. Rambam’s metziut of God encompasses a complex assimilation of philosophical inquiry, theological discourse, and personal experience. Understanding God’s existence requires engaging with both rational arguments and the richness of spiritual and communal experiences.

In his Introduction to the Yad Rambam writes: “My purpose is to gather the scattered, that the weary may find rest in one accessible structure.” None the less Yosef Karo failed to grasp that the sugyot of the Talmud a) require respect in and of themselves; b) serve as common law precedents to re-interpret the original language of both the Gemara sugya itself, together with the Mishnaic language – viewed from a completely different facet perspective.

Some argue that R. Yosef Karo’s Kesef Mishneh transforms the Rambam Yad from idol-statute into case law in exile — a portable court for a dispersed people. In the early 2000 sat with 70 other anointed judges in an attempt to restore Sanhedrin courts. Alas the vast majority of my peers perceived the Rambam Yad served as the ideal model by which we could re-establish Sanhedrin common law courtrooms! Does the Kesef Mishneh stands as the Rambam’s second breath — the return of neshamah chadashah into the vessel that had been frozen by necessity? Clearly no.

Rambam’s Guide dismantled the idolatries of his age — Aristotelian eternity of the Earth, Islamic predestination, and Xtian incarnation — translating Torah theology into the language consoled Goyim hostility, so that Jewish youth might survive their Christ-killer slanders. Assimilated Spanish Jewry had long ago actually embraced the concept of avoda zara altered and restricted/limited to the Goyim concept of actual physical or historical idol worship. Aristotle’s philosophy posited an eternal universe, implying that the world has no beginning or end. For Rambam, this notion contradicted the creation narrative in the Torah, where God creates the world at a specific point in time. But he failed to grasp the essence of בראשית as the introduction of tohor time oriented Av commandments vs the תולדות מצוות which do not require k’vanna.

In certain Islamic philosophies, there is a strong emphasis on predestination, where God’s will determine all events. This concept raises questions about free will. Assimilated Rambam confused the Centuries later Protestant – Calvin’s ‘free will’ – with the Talmud’s ירידות הדורות domino/ripple effect. The Rambam failed to grasp that Islam’s strict Monotheism Universal God theology uproots the 2nd Sinai commandment. Hence the Guide actually embraces the error of monotheism as the nature of God; a direct violation of the Mishna which warns man not to contemplate upon that which exists above, below, or behind the humanity of Man. Converting Greek philosophy re-labelled as Jewish philosophy, serves only as revisionist history – holocaust denial – on par with the modern-day UN declarations of a genocide in Gaza.

On the opening sugya of this the first published commentary upon this specific Mesechta; in this opening public learning of the Talmud, my opening thesis stands and accuses the ראשונים חכמים of the Capital Crime דיני נפשות crime of עבודה זרה – the 2nd Sinai commandment. Based upon גט גירושין, an Av time-oriented mitzva from the Torah. Therefore (this word employs a רמז of swearing a Torah oath), denigrating an Av tohor time oriented Torah commandment prostituted to a rabbinic positive commandment which does not require k’vanna (קידושין the דיוק of גט גירושין), the av tumah perversion of T’NaCH/Talmudic משנה תורה\common law unto Greek/Roman statute halachic law. Avoda zarah statute law determines the posok halacha, based upon cults of personality, like as represented in the statute Tur and Shulkan Aruch codes, rather than Gemara halachic בניני אבות\precedents which serve to make a different perspective reading of the language of this the Av Mishna of קידושין. This sh’itta of Reshonim g’lut scholarship merits a direct Torah curse rather than a blessing. Therefore, this Talmudic commentary calls for a Sanhedrin common law court to judge this dispute made against Reshonim Talmudic scholarship upon the both the T’NaCH & the Talmud – accused of the At tuma דיני נפשות crime of avoda zarah — enforced by NaCH prophetic mussar prophets/police of Sanhedrin Court Torah mandated Constitutional authority to enforce judicial rulings made by the Federal Sanhedrin Courtrooms.

Obviously, to publicly call for the restoration of common law/Legislative Review of Reshonim statute halachic law openly blesses the Zionist success who rose our people out of the European ashes of Shoah, after that Wilderness generations Orthodox rabbinic spies melted the heart of that generations which resulted in the Torah plague curse, known as Chamberlain’s White Paper public betrayal of the Balfour Declaration. That this false oath, comparable to the floods which destroyed the generation of Noach, obliterated and caused the Sun to permanently set upon the British empire. That dead empire gone the way of the dead Assyrian, Babylonian, Roman, Islamic, Mongrel, Ottoman, Austria-Hungarian, Japanese, 3rd Reich, French, British, and USSR, defunct empires that together with the Roman Protocols of the Elders of Zionism NT forgery as dead as the trinity God created through the Nicene Council dogma decree of statute law, together with the Av tuma avoda zarah Allah Golden Calf God which translates the שם השם First Commandment Spirit Name unto the degraded אלהים word translation of Allah. Therefore, the Siddur openly instructs the mussar that Torah oaths can Create יש מאין, תמיד מעשה בראשית מלאכים. Av tuma avoda zarah profanes with the lie that theology and creeds can create Gods either through council or by way of Angels! The latter a perversion equal to profaning Av tohor time oriented Torah commandments unto positive rabbinic mitzvot which do not require k’vanna.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
התם דבמלחמה קאי דדרכו של איש לעשות מלחמה, ואין דרכה של אשה לעשות מלחמה. כתב לה בלשון זכר מתני’ אהדדי. לא קשיין. הכא דלגבי אשה קאי קתני לה בלשון נקבה. התם דלגבי איש קאי דדרכו של איש ליבדק ואין דרכה של אשה ליבדק.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
No. Its the duty upon the woman to check that she has 11 tohor days without spots before going to the mikveh. Therefore its the דרכה של אשה ליבדק. In Jewish law, particularly in Hilchot Nida, women required to check for eleven clean days (tohor) free of any spotting before they can immerse in the mikveh. This is indeed considered part of דרכה של אשה ליבדק. Essential to clarify that women bear the primary responsibility for their own nida status. While men may guide or remind, the act of checking and counting the clean days is inherently the duty of the woman.

This distinction emphasizes the importance of personal responsibility in the observance of family purity laws. Women, not Men, bear this primary Torah responsibility.
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
דהא אשה נמי באונס מיטמאה. תני לשון זכר מ”ט? תני שלש משום דרכים ניתני דברים. וניתני שלשה משום דקבעי למיתני ביאה. וביאה דרך.
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________

Unintentional Tumah – The mention of אשה נמי באונס מיטמאה refers to the concept that a woman, alas often also become tamai unintentionally. This highlights that women, like men, are subject to the laws of tohor and tuma, particularly regarding the status of nida, which has specific ramifications in Jewish common law.

Masculine Grammar (לשון זכר) – The phrase תני לשון זכר מ”ט? raises the question of why the laws are expressed in masculine form. This can lead to a discussion on the implications of language in halachic texts, which often use masculine wording even when referring to obligations that apply to both genders.

Three Reasons (שלש משום דרכים) – The response תני שלש משום דרכים ניתני דברים indicates that the discussion might categorize the concepts into three paths or aspects. This serves to clarify that laws can apply in different contexts or scenarios; complexities around halachic language, obligations of both genders, and nuances in the application of purity laws. . The section ושלשה משום דקבעי למיתני ביאה links these implications to the concept of ביאה (intimacy), indicating that discussion about the laws also has to do with the connections and relations between men and women.

Different Contexts – The laws in question may apply differently depending on the circumstances. For example, the same law might have various implications when applied to men versus women or within different relationships. Complexities of Language – The language used in Halacha can sometimes be nuanced, requiring careful interpretation to understand the intended meaning and application. Obligations of Genders – Certain laws may impose different obligations on men and women, which needs to be acknowledged in discussions of Halacha. Tohor laws: (The most complicated subject in the entire Sha’s according to my Rav Aaron Nemuraskii. Tohor vs. tuma delves into the different “spirits” which dominate the opposing Yatzirot within the heart! The sworn oath brit of Gilgal – the basis of the order of Rabbeinu Tam tefillen – the chosen Cohen people cut a sworn oath brit alliance only to do avodat HaShem dedicating Yatzar Ha’Tov tohor middot holy to HaShem לשמה.) These laws can change based on circumstances, such as the level of ritual purity required for different people or situations.

The mitzva דאורייתא של קידושין לשמה – obey the brit between the pieces oath that the seed of Avram shall number as the stars of the sky. The Avot the fathers of the chosen Cohen people. This unique people, created through observance of time oriented Av Torah commandments places the primary burden to educate the Cohen children born through this marital union to learn and understand the obligation sworn at Gilgal, the Rabbeinu Tam tefillen k’vanna, to do Avodat HaShem service only through the dedication of Yatzir HaTov tohor spirits from within our hearts לשמה.

Hence the laws of קידושין exclude Goyim by definition. 1. Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; both the New Testament Protocols of the Elders of Zionism forgery and the Koran dictated by the מלאך גבריאל – جبرائيل (Jibril) to Muhammad exactly/perfectly duplicate the sin of the Golden Calf Av definition of tuma avoda zarah. The Torah directly condemns all word translations which pervert the Divine Presence Spirit Name unto word translations for God. Nothing in the Heavens, Earth, or Seas comparable to the revelation of the Divine Spirit Name commanded לשמה at Sinai.

This passage exemplifies the structured way halacha discusses purity—acknowledging that both men and women have responsibilities while using language that could be historically skewed towards men. Our Gemara addresses complexities around halachic language, obligations of both genders, and nuances in the application of tohor laws. תני שלש משום דרכים ניתני דברים because 3 qualifies as a חזקה.

What distinguishes a אב משנה from all other Mishnaot which the Gemara comments upon through bringing similar common law precedents from other Gemarot? The Siddur, specifically the kabbalah behind the Shemone Esrei places a “stamp” of Order upon the Talmud. As the opening blessing of Shemone Esrei contains a blessing of שם ומלכות. The Shemone Esrei, like the קריא שמע וברכת כהנים lacks שם ומלכות. The classic rabbinic blessing with שם ומלכות: ברוך אתה ה’ אלהינו מלך העולם. Av time oriented commandments absolutely unquestionably and definitely require k’vanna. The k’vanna required – the intent to swear a Torah oath brit alliance through swearing a תולדה of an oath. Yom Kippur definitively proves the power of swearing a Torah oath! Even HaShem had to make t’shuva and annul his vow to make of Moshe Rabbeinu’s seed the chosen Cohen people instead of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.

Acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven – תפילה דאורייתא קריא שמע – acceptance within the Yatzir HaTov within the heart to breath life into the soul of the Chosen Cohen People through the sanctification of Av tohor time-oriented commandments which fundamentally require this יסודי כוונה. The Torah, Nach, Holy Writings/T’NaCH, the Talmud & Midrashim, and patently but of course the Siddur – doing any and all time oriented commandment requires the יסודי כוונה of breathing חיים into the soul of the generations of the Chosen Cohen to חיי מדור לדור the oath brit cut at the brit between the pieces which Creates the Chosen Cohen people through the קידושה of Av tohor time oriented commandments. The language תמיד מעשה בראשית twice repeated in the opening “blessing” which surrounds tefillah דאורייתא קריא שמע, this language serves as a פרדס רמז to time oriented Av Torah commandments.

Tefillah דרבנן, the Shemone Esrei lacks שם ומלכות, which the opening first blessing absolutely requires! Hence translating שם ומלכות, misses the point and idea of this סוד Torah concept of swearing an oath brit alliance. Translating שם ומלכות like a screen door on a submarine. Common law does not “learn” through translations but rather only through making פרדס inductive reasoning comparison of similar precedent Cases. The T’NaCH makes its precedent Case comparison through similar sugyot containing a fixed sh’itta of counting the שם השם לשם מידות י”ג revealed to Moshe at Horev on Yom Kippur. The kabbalah of rabbis Akiva’s פרדס, Yishmael 13 rules of logical comparison methodologies which apply directed to the Holy Writings of the NaCH functioning as a Gemara to the, so to speak, Mishna Books of the prophets.

The Talmud directly resembles a loom with its warp/weft opposing threads; Talmud has its aggadah and halacha opposing threads which in scholars in each and every generation determine the Way, Path, Truth that the culture and customs of the Chosen Cohen people walk therein: Walk before Me and be holy. Av tohor time oriented commandments define the Chosen Cohen Walk before HaShem.

Since ק”ש, ברכת כהנים, ותפילה – אין להם שם ומלכות, as clear as the Sun in the heavens on a cloudless Summer day Name and Kingship translations do not amount to squat in defining the כוונה של שם ומלכות. Only Torah בניני אבות-precedents can possibly grasps the intent of the meaning of שם ומלכות. The Torah instructs that the Cohen HaGadol pronounces the שם השם לשמנ on Yom Kippur. Mesechta ר”ה introduces blowing the shofar. Blowing a horn requires air pressure from the lungs. But tefillah a matter of the heart.

Therefore a person when blowing the Shofar on ר”ה must discern the כוונה between blowing air from his lung from blowing the Neshama soul dedicated on ר”ה to remember the Torah rebuke אל, the opening branch Spirit revealed at Horev following the repetition of the שם השם לשמה\שמע. The concept of שם, its not a word translation like as made at the Sin of the Golden Calf by the ערב רב שאין להם יראת אלהים. The word translation of אלהים, JeZeus, or Allah not “ONE” with the Spirit Divine Presence first Sinai commandment revelation – the greatest Torah commandment: תעשה מצוות לשמה.

Hence מלכות similar to מלאך. את הרוחות של י”ג מידות מן התורה – these Divine Spirits, like the שם השם. The breath Creation into other spirits called מלאכים by means of swearing a Torah oath through שם ומלכות. Herein explains the סוד kabbalah of the mitzva of tefillah, as opposing to saying the praises contained in Tehillem. The latter serves as a Gemara which explains the k’vanna of the prophetic mussar expounded by the NaCH prophets.

Reshonim commentaries on the Talmud Midrashim T’NaCH and – but of course – Av Siddur – failed to teach this kabbalah יסודי. Learning Talmud actively entails that the down stream generations make their פרדס דרוש pursuit of בניני אבות precedents expressed through the Holy Writings to the NaCH prophets etc. The 13 rules of rabbi Yishmael best serve the Holy Writings “Gemara” commentary made upon the NaCH Prophets “Mishna”. These diverse texts, on the surface so completely different and unalike — all stand upon the kabbala יסוד של משנה תורה. Talmudic common law not learned by reading Dof Yomi. Nor the Hebrew T’NaCH its mussar even remotely understood by reading the T’NaCH on par with a Harry Potter fiction story of a replacement Messiah for the witching world – for he whose name forbidden to pronounce. As if that name compared to the שם השם לשמה. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
גופא: אי הכי קשו קראי אהדדי, וקשיא נמי מתני’ אהדדי קראי אהדדי. לא קשין. הכא דבתורה קאי, ותורה איקרי לשון נקבה; דכתיב (תהילים יט) תורת ה’ תמימה משיבת נפש; עדות ה’ נאמנה מחכימת פתיה. כתב לה בלשון נקבה. התם דבמלחמה קאי דדרכו של איש לעשות מלחמה, ואין דרכה של אשה לעשות מלחמה כתב לה בלשון זכר.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

Kiddushin 2b, כי יקח איש אשה, and the gendered verb “יקח” — “take.” The Gemara explores why Torah uses masculine forms in some contexts and feminine in others. This verse, used as the proof-text that Torah often grammatically feminine, since תורת ה׳ תמימה uses the feminine form. The masculine usage is justified through verses like: דברים כ”ד:ה – כי יקח איש אשה חדשה… לא יצא בצבא ולא יעבור עליו לכל דבר; נקי יהיה לביתו שנה אחת ושמח את אשתו אשר לקח. Another example: דברים כ:א – כי תצא למלחמה על אויביך. Precedents: שמות רבה ל”ג:א, ויקרא רבה ל״ה:א Torah common law employs Midrash as a Reverence Book, as opposed to just another novel.

בדרך אחד יצאו אליך” — masculine. ובשבעה דרכים ינוסו לפניך” — also masculine. But “תורת ה׳ תמימה משיבת נפש” is feminine. When the verse speaks of Torah, “דרך” takes feminine form (“תורה” = נקבה). When it speaks of warfare, “דרך” takes masculine, since “דרכו של איש לעשות מלחמה.

רבנו בחיי בן אשר, the other son of the Rosh. His brother, Rabbi Jacob ben Asher, commonly known as author of the Tur. The Tur, the first to make a colage of Reshonim opinions upon statute law deductive reasoning which attempts to make a shallow reactionary flat reading of halachot which originate from the Talmud, but whose most essential connection to their Mishnaic language, completely and totally ignored by these statute law heretics.

His infamous work on Jewish law, the Arba’ah Turim, dishonored the Rosh, who rejected the Rambam’s statute halachic law perversion. Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel (the Rosh), a prominent harsh critic of the Rambam, known for his works on Jewish common law, opposed the Rambam’s statute law code. Rabbeinu Bachya, the son of the Rosh and brother of Asher, the heretic, supported the Rambam premise that its permitted to distort Talmudic common law unto Roman statute law; just as Aristotle’s deductive syllogism – the Rambam revisionist history – replaced rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning of kabbalah, which defines the k’vanna of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev – with Aristotle’s Tzeddukim supported deductive syllogism. So too and how much more so the false messiah of JeZeus does not replace the Torah obligation upon the Moshiach to rule the land with righteous Judicial justice. Unlike how king David court treated the Baal of Bat Sheva.

The contrast between Talmudic precedent-based reasoning and codificatory statute models influenced by philosophical and bureaucratic systems like those of Rome or Aristotle. The Rosh argued that reducing halakhah to a statute book severs it from Gemara reasoning and precedent. In his introduction to Piskei ha-Rosh, (The Rosh lived during the 14th century in Spain and later in Germany. The work summarizes and clarifies Jewish law (Halakha) based on earlier sources, particularly the Talmud. It serves as a guide for practical law, helping to resolve legal disputes and questions. Piskei ha-Rosh, organized by topics and often mirrors the structure of the Talmud, making it easier for scholars and students to navigate the material.), he writes explicitly that halakhic clarity comes only through reasoning from Talmudic sugya, not through memorizing codified rules…לא מפני שסומך אני על דברי, אלא מפני שראיתי עיקר הדין מן הגמרא. Dof Yomi by stark contrast totally uproots sugya integrity like as did the Rambam’s code uprooted Gemara precedents to understand the k’vanna of their Mishna – viewed from different precedent perspectives, multiple and diverse viewpoints.

The כסף משנה, Karo’s commentary attempted to correct the central flaw in the Rambam perversion of halacha unto assimilated Roman statute law-cult of personality decrees. Yet his כסף משנה failed to link the sources for the Rambam halachot to similar halachot poskined by the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh common law halachic commentaries. The purpose of halachot located within Gemara sugyot – similar Case/Rule precedents which permits down-stream generations to view the language of both the sugya itself and משנה תורה – the language of the Mishna itself viewed from a completely different perspective. Clearly the Rambam failed to grasp that משנה תורה means “Common Law”, ruled through Torah mandated Court-rooms; rather than, as he held, religious ritual observances kept by religious “Orthodox” Jews. Prophets enforced judicial rulings, they served as the policemen of the Sanhedrin Federal Court system.

Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (the Tur), his Arba’ah Turim systematized halacha into egg crate like categories (Orach Chayim, Yoreh De‘ah, Even ha-Ezer, Choshen Mishpat). Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher, his hermeneutic system integrates Rambam’s Ta’amei ha-Mitzvot (reasons for the commandments) rationalism with kabbalistic and midrashic allegory. He frequently uses Aristotelian categories (e.g., form/matter) alongside Zoharic metaphors — bridging rationalist and mystical traditions. But unlike his brother the Tur, his work employs Midrash as a resource of symbolic precedent which aligns more with פרדס-type reasoning than statute law. So while Rabbeinu Bachya absorbed elements of Rambam’s philosophy, his method remains aggadic–hermeneutic, not a legislative distortion. He didn’t codify halakhah; rather, he made his priority placed upon exegetical synthesis.

The shift away from T’NaCH/Talmudic common law unto Aristotelian deduction, which post the Rambam civil war, supplanted the judicial court-room law, replaced with substituted simplified religious ritual observances! The Tur and Rambam codified halakhah into a system resembling Roman statutory jurisprudence. Rabbeinu Bachya, though a spiritual exegete (focused on their spiritual significance and deeper meanings rather than merely their literal or historical context). alas, philosophically he too legitimized this ירידות הדורות shift, by reconciling Torah hermeneutics with Aristotelian logic — thus laying a metaphysical foundation for halacha’s rationalization.

Midrash serves as A) the primary commentary to Talmudic aggada. B) an important tool for resolving language dikduk/grammar and meaning for how the Talmudic aggadic passages interpret NaCH prophetic mussar.

The Midrash Rabbah and its sister collections (Tanchuma, Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifrei) form the foundational commentary corpus for understanding aggadic material in the Bavli and Yerushalmi. R. Sherira Gaon (Iggeret, 10th c., also known as an epistle or letter), describes Midrash as the source pool (me’kor) from which the aggadot of the Talmud drew prophetic T’NaCH mussar interpretations. The academies, he writes, transmitted both halakhah and aggadah, with the latter preserved in Midrashic anthologies.

Rashi and Tosafot frequently cite Midrash Rabbah or Tanchuma to explain difficult aggadot in the Gemara — treating Midrash as its commentarial background. For example: Rashi on 61b בכל לבבך of mesechta ברכות. quotes Devarim Rabbah to clarify aggadic context. The Maharal of Prague explicitly argues that to understand Aggadah of the Talmud, one must read Midrash Rabbah, for the language of Aggadah – symbolic, and “דרש אחד מאיר פני דרש אחר.” Hence Midrash compares to the different layers of a cake by which succeeding generations learn and interpret aggadic prophetic mussar, which defines the k’vanna of halachot throughout the Shas Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi.

The RambaN in his introduction to his commentary on the Chumash states that Midrashic Aggadot are “מאמרי חז״ל הנאמנים” transmitted with the same authority as halakhic traditions, though intended to elucidate revelation and prophecy through metaphor and סוד. Impossible to learn Midrash divorced from פרדס logic. Hence the Rambam wrote no commentary upon Midrash because he abandoned פרדס inductive logic for the simpler syllogism deductive reasoning developed by Plato and Aristotle, which the Tzeddukim supported in the Hanukkah Civil War.

Midrash operates as a linguistic–juridical tool, dissecting the nuances of Hebrew syntax and morphology to extract halakhic or moral implications. This – precisely how derash differs from peshat — דרוש a method of interpretive jurisprudence, not “homily.” (a religious discourse or sermon that provides interpretation and application of scriptural texts, typically delivered during a religious service.) Sifra (Torat Kohanim) and Sifrei built entirely on dikkdukic precision. “ריבה הכתוב” (inclusion/exclusion logic); “יתור לשון” (extra word usage); ההידיע, את, גם, etc. These function as the grammar of revelation — how law and prophecy encoded through linguistic form.

Even the Rambam in his introduction to his commentary on the Mishna acknowledges Midrash’s grammatical function — distinguishing midrash halakhah (based on linguistic structure) from midrash aggadah (based on allegorical language), yet both bound by grammatical fidelity to Scripture. Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher in his introduction to the Chumash commentary explicitly says: “הלשון הקדוש… נדרשת בשבעים פנים, וכל דרש תלוי בדקדוק הלשון.” Midrash is thus the interpretive mechanism through which the prophetic mussar of Tanakh — decoded — a philological discipline, not mere storytelling.

Sherira Gaon, Rashi, Maharal — Midrash serves as the background commentary to Talmudic Aggadah, revealing its conceptual precedent and metaphoric coherence. Sifra, Sifrei, Rambam, Rabbeinu Bachya: Midrash refines language precision — using dikduk and syntax to interpret prophetic mussar and the Talmud’s use of NaCH texts.

עיין שמות רבה כ״ט:ד. משיבת נפש, עדות ה’ נאמנה מחכימת פתי. Learning requires an investment of both time and patience. A central flaw of religious books of Torah halacha, readers of these religious comic books, grow to fervently believe that they understand the depth of halachic intent based upon their reactionary shallow reading of halachic rulings ripped away from their Talmudic contexts which originally employed these halachic precedents as a chief tool to make a משנה תורה re-interpretation of both the language of the sugya of Gemara as well as the language of the Mother Mishna as well. Assimilated Roman statute law halacha directly compares to apple vinegar which lacks the essential “mother”.

Apple vinegar is produced through the fermentation of apple juice. The “mother” is a substance composed of acetic acid bacteria that forms during fermentation, which is often considered vital for quality vinegar. In this metaphor, the “mother” symbolizes the authentic, organic essence or foundational principles that give a legal system its depth, integrity, and longevity. The adoption of ritual halacha without understanding its underlying purpose and connection to a specific Mishna, leads to a dilution\perversion of their original meaning and intent.
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
מדרש רבה יתרו פרשת כט:ד — (תהלים יט) תורת ה’ תמימה משיבת נפש. א”ר לוי וכי לא היה גלוי לפני המקום שאם הוא מראה כבודו לישראל ומשמיען קולו שאינן יכולין לעמוד. אלא צפה הקב”ה שהן עתידין לעשות עבודה זרה שלא יהו אומרין אלו הראנו את כבודו ואת גדלו והשמיענו את קולו לא היינו עושים ע”ז. לכך נאמר שמעה עמי ואדברה
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Rabbi Levi expounds the p’suk תהלים י”ט תורת ה׳ תמימה, his drosh interprets Torah as the restorative path — derekh teshuvah — against the derekh ha-avodah zarah. Does restricting קידושין limited to a קום ועשה מצוה away from a tohor time oriented Av commandment qualify as avoda zarah?

Chazal repeatedly warn that reducing Torah to technical compliance while detaching it from oath brit basis borders on avodah zarah because it divorces the act from the One who commands. Sanhedrin 63b – “כל העושה מצוה שלא לשמה, כאילו עובד עבודת כוכבים.” When a mitzvah is isolated from its covenantal derekh and turned into a detached ritual or statute, the form may remain but the orientation can drift toward derekh avodah zarah. Reducing the covenant of marriage to an act of legal acquisition risks mischaracterizing its derek. If one performs קידושין purely as a formal “transaction” without its covenantal frame—the mutual oath binding within brit Torah—then functionally, yes, it parallels derekh avodah zarah: a ritual form emptied of covenantal consciousness.

Rabbi Levi’s “תורת ה׳ תמימה משיבת נפש” teaches that Torah restores the nefesh precisely because it is whole—תמימה. Fragmenting Torah into isolated קום ועשה acts without the tohor Av-command time-axis destroys that wholeness; what remains Av tumah avoda zarah. A mitzvah detached from its derek Torah orientation, simply not a neutral error—but structurally akin to avodah zarah, because it replaces divine command with human formalism. In Midrash Tanchuma Yitro ח, where the giving of Torah is described as קידושין between God and Israel—thereby showing that true קידושין must mirror תורת ה׳ תמימה rather than a transactional statute?

Midrash Tanchuma, Yitro 8:
בשעה שנתן הקדוש ברוך הוא את התורה לישראל, אמר להם:
הרי אני נותן לכם ספר הקידושין; מכאן והלאה אתם לי ואני לכם.
אמרו כל אשר דבר ה׳ נעשה ונשמע — ככלה המקבלת ספר קידושיה.
ונתן להם תורה — כספר כתובה.

Thus restricting kiddushin to a bare קום ועשה betrays its the oath brit that time oriented commandments create, in the image of HaShem the first born Chosen Cohen people in all times and generations. Midrash Tanchuma shows that kiddushin serves as a reenactment of Sinai; therefore, divorcing קידושין from its tohor Av time-oriented commandments renders the mitzva of קידושין unto but an empty form. In lateral Sanhedrin jurisprudence perverted into ritual religious orthodox observances, an empty void; structurally identical to avodah zarah: worshiping the shell rather than the living brit.

דתנן בז’ “דרכים” בודקין את הזב. ניתני ז’ משום דקא בעי למיתני “דרך” ואשכחן דרך דאיקרי לשון זכר דכתיב (דברים כה) בדרך אחד יצאו אליך ובז’ דרכים ינוסו לפניך. אי הכי קשו קראי אהדדי. (שמות יח) והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה

As the Gemara common law brought the precedent of the Mishna of זבין, so too the Torah – the basis of Sinai common law compares one verse against another. The study of both requires a כלל\פרט discipline. Both p’sukim learned within the larger context of their “containment force” sugya and then to compare that sugia through פרדס דרוש to some other similar sugia which instructs the same prophetic mussar. Its this disciplined wisdom of learning wherein the down stream generations can themselves make an aliyah from a תולדות קום ועשה מצוה לאב תהור זימן גרמא מצווה.

Common law requires down stream generations to do their own research. Torah wisdom does not compare to the Harry Potter New Testament fiction wherein Xtian read their pathetic bible translations for entertainment. The דרוש wisdom of searching the T’NaCH for precedents, specifically mussar precedents, serves that the basis יסוד of the kabbalah of פרדס. This “בראשית” of how to correctly learn the Talmud, a wisdom which requires down stream generations to learn the T’NaCH לשמה. Meaning, it requires that later generations count the שם השם in a cyclic revolving 13 middot repetition, as found throughout the literature of the T’NaCH. This pre-amble of דרוש wisdom serves as the “beginning” of Torah wisdom.

This wisdom permits the generations to compare one sugya of T’NaCH with other similar sugyot of T’NaCH based on the foundation that both sugyot share the exact same שם השם number count common denominator between one sugya compared to other precedent sugyot; having counted the שם השם systematically employing the model of the 13 middot revelation at Horev which affixes the middot of אל רחום וחנון וכו to the שם השם throughout the literature of the T’NaCH Torah and NaCH. The Holy Writings, they serve by comparison as the Gemara to the Mishna. Hence the Holy Writings rely upon the middot of rabbi Yishmael to serve as precedents which, in their turn, they interpret facet interpretations of the intent of the language of the Prophets – like the Gemara makes a משנה תורה reinterpretation by reviewing the original language of the Mishna viewed from an entirely different perspective.

Herein defines how to correctly learn and study the language of both the T’NaCH, Talmud, and Midrashim literature. Just that simple, no fancy dance’n. This sh’itta separates the Baali Tosafot commentary on the Talmud from the Rambam assimilated Xtian bible thumping Jimmy Swaggart sex whore trash. The post Rambam Civil War rabbis cannot scream “I have Sinned”. Off the path Orthodox Judaism – prior to the Shoah, slandered Zionism’s efforts to achieve Jewish self determination in Mandate Palestine. That Wilderness Generation rejected making Aliyah to the land, after the off the path Orthodox רשע spies melted the heart of their generation! A good name reputation/fear of heaven\ compares to a balloon floating over a field of cactus.

The study of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law, not like the off the path Orthodox Yeshivot who demand study this or that Reshon and slit pilpul hairs between opinions made by folks a 1000 or more years after the sealing of the Gemara by rabbis Ashi and Ravina! T’NaCH and Talmud – Common Law NOT statute law, with its cults of personalities!

פרדס inductive reasoning denounces the lie, that later generations cannot dispute opinions held by earlier generations! No one generation holds a lock & key over פרדס logic. Our Sages sealed the T’NaCH, Mishna, Gemara, and Siddur – that all generations share the same exact masoret. The Talmud codification permits the generations to study פרדס logic as expressed through every Mishna, wherein its Gemara commentary learns the k’vanna of the faceted language of each and every Mishna by way of comparative precedent cases. The genius of פרדס logic, it permits downstream generations to compare one sugya to other similar sugyot! Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. Precedents do not come from Reshonim sources as the Tur and Beit Yosef confuse. Precedents come from other Primary Sources – only. Herein defines Torah common law.

Moshe said to Yitro: יבא אלי העם לדרש אלהים. As a loom has its warp & weft threads … Talmud has its Aggadah and Halacha. דרוש ופשט affix to the Aggadic learning of the T’NaCH prophetic mussar. רמז וסוד explore the depth of halachic ritualism. These warp\weft threads weave the culture and customs, the minchagim and traditions of the chosen Cohen sons and daughters of the Avot for all generations unto eternity. The av tumah death of assimilation and intermarriage makes a כרת like as did the Wilderness generation which has no portion in the world to come. Israel only accepted the first two commandments at the Sinai revelation prior to the translation sin of the Golden Calf.

Tacharat HaBeit – Purity of the Home, commonly associated with the specific case of קידושין touching the relationship between Husband and Wife. The baal both requires and depends upon his wife to check her vaginal discharge expanded from 7 to 11 days without any spots. But this specific model equally applies to how the Courts weigh and judge Torts and Capital Crimes as well. Our Gemarah shall now bring a בנין אב from ספר דברים\משנה תורה, which can elevate a קום ועשה מצוה – שלא צריך כוונה להזמן גרמא אב מצוה שנזקוק כוונה. The House of Aaron anointed “Moshiach” by Moshe Rabbeinu on the condition that both he and his sons agree to only approach their “avodat HaShem”\public service/ in a tohor state wherein the spirits within their hearts; (Yatzir Ha’Tov dominate tohor over the spirits of their Yatzir Ha’Raw tumah).

The so called 10 Commandments, repeated twice in the Torah serves as precedents to “remember” the crushing cruel oppression of Egyptian slavery. Torah teaches common law, does not compare to the Protocols of the Elders of Zionism-New Testament substitute theology counterfeit fiction story of messiah Harry Potter.

The p’suk שמות: יח:כ contained within the larger פרק: יח:א – כז. Herein stands a פרט\כלל. Recall that Moshe Rabbeinu’s first born son Gershom worshipped avoda zarah; assimilation and intermarriage the 2nd Commandment Torah curse, applicable to all down stream generations. The rabbis of the “Golden Age” of Spain abandoned and forgot the sacred dedication of the lights of Hanukkah – to interpret the Written Torah through פרדס inductive logic בלבד. In this sense the lights of Hanukkah compares to Islam’s strict Tawhid monotheism; no other logic system permitted to interpret the כוונה of the Written Torah other than פרדס inductive reasoning. Rambam’s reliance upon Greek syllogism deductive logic directly compares to the confession made by preacher Swaggart after caught with a whore in a hotel room — the buckets of tears of Tammy Faye Bakker. A fraud false דרך, once exposed – Baal believed no more.

An exact דברים בנין אב for (שמות יח) והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה … and that’s – משנה תורה כא:י כג: ג. Israel came out of Egypt with the explicit purpose to conquer the lands of Canaan. Zionism stands on the foundation: Jews have equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. In 1948 and again in 1967 all Arab countries, no different from the kingdoms of Canaan, who stood united in their opposition for the 12 Tribes of Israel war aims to achieve national self-determination and Independence. The UN fraud of “Land for Peace” or the European divide and conquer imperialism “Two State Solution”, no different than the counterfeit Protocols of the Elders of Zionism New Testament false messiah Roman forgery.

Baptizing the Rambam’s assimilated/perverted statute law code – this directly compares to the din of בן סורר ומורה איננו שמע בקול אביו ובקול אמו. The Book of D’varim conclusively states that Torah common law not Greek/Roman statute law. Converting Torah common law to Roman statute law utterly dishonors our fore-fathers. Despite the need of scattered Jewish g’lut communities for a simplified version of halachic observances, the Rambam breach the faith of the B’HaG and Rif common law codifications. He failed to provide his Gemara sources for his טיפש פשט simplification of halacha. The Rambam translation of halachic language does not in any way, shape, fashion, or form, assist down stream generations to learn Talmudic common law. In point of fact, he declared that his code had effectively replaced the Talmud altogether.

Rambam’s arguments concerning the Talmud being archaic after publication of his work serves as a ‘predicate-anidate’ to similar arguments made much later by Reform rabbis. The Reform movement hopped onto the Rambam band-wagon, they sought to align Jewish practice with contemporary society e.g. assimilation and inter-marriage, no different than the curse of Spanish Jewry. Both perspectives advocate for a thoughtful approach to tradition, emphasizing the need for relevance in changing contexts. The rediscovery of the concealed ancient Greek philosophies discovered consequent to the Arab invasion of Spain, the Spanish rabbinic leadership blew out the Hanukkah lights. Herein explains why a majority of the rabbis in France, specifically in Paris, n 1232 declared a נידוי ban upon the Rambam, in agreement with the Spanish Court of Rabbeinu Yonah.

Rambam supporters prevailed, and thereafter imposed revisionist history which sought to limit the dispute between the Rambam and the Rabbeinu Yona. Yeshivot do not instruct concerning the conflict over common law vs statute law. Instead post the Rambam Civil War rabbinic authorities whitewash the “dispute” by not encouraging students to study philosophy. Rabbinic studies of T’NaCH limit research strictly and only to פשט. The study of the Talmud branches either into pilpul studies which examine minute distinctions between different commentaries. Yeshiva students taught basically to read the Talmud, dof Yomi for example, and study the halachic codes to learn a more in-depth analysis of halacha. This modern style of education, it resembles to a Man who sleeps with multiple mistresses, which he conceals from his wife! That’s the Torah mitzva of קידושין?

Safer D’varim directly addresses unethical conduct in marital relations. It’s mussar defines the path walk wherein the Torah understands the mitzva דאורייתא of קידושין. Yet the commentary addicted Yeshivot, beyond worshipping words, fail to grasp the prophetic mussar of the Torah mitzva of קידושין. It takes work to “love” a woman whose stories you have already heard a thousand times before. When a rancher brings a bull to a cow in heat, he does not repeat the breeding over and again with the same cow. קידושין all about raising bnai brit children and educating those children in the tenets of the oath brit faith. קידושין does not in any way compare to breeding cows or goats. A man should he lose the trust of his wife, a balloon once popped very hard to blow up again.

The sugiah which contains דברים כה:יח, contains the prophetic mussar touching Amalek. Why does antisemitism explode upon very generation of Jews who have ever lived? The answer to this riddle rests not upon Goyim who hate Jews. Rather Jews who hate Jews. יראת אלהים not a spirit nor a wisdom that a man can acquire through rote learning. How many men pursue their goals and dreams utterly oblivious to their good name reputations? The curse of Amalek antisemitism afflicts all generations of Israel because we worship other Gods. When the chosen Cohen people have no more knowledge of the culture and customs which define the unique Cohen identity of self; when Jews pursue the customs and practices of Goyim societies – none of which ever accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai touching the Chosen Cohen People; clearly such av tumah Jews cause the Torah curse of Amalek to plague our people like as did the hard heart of Par’o responsible for the 10 plagues. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.