__________________________________________________

Intentional Faith·pastorhogg.net

Resting in Reverence

As the day ends, Psalm 2:10–11 reminds us to serve the Lord with reverence, acknowledging His holiness and unshakable rule. This evening is an opportunity to…..
__________________________________________________
Interpreting Tehillem ב. Man struggles with tumah middot within his Yatzir Ha’Raw. This struggle – Universal within all Mankind. If National rulers struggle with their tumah Yatzir how much more so the common man on the street. What does “kingship in Zion” refer to? As a physical king gives direction to the nation so too and how much more so the struggling Yatzirot within the heart. Who wears the crown of the king? The tohor Yatzir Ha’Tov or the tumah Yatzir Ha’Raw?

Israel’s acceptance of the oath brit at Sinai done לשמה או לא לשמה? Clearly the Wilderness generation who accepted the Torah at Sinai did so לא לשמה. Forty days following the Torah revelation the ערב רב שאין לכם יראת שמים imposed a substitute theology of the WORD אלהים which replaced the first Sinai Torah acceptance – שם השם לשמה. Had the Wilderness generation accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai לשמה, they would not have given the assimilated and intermarried Israel/Egyptian ערב רב the time of day. But instead all the sages of the Great Sanhedrin, except for Aaron, MURDERED.

A blessing requires שם ומלכות. The charge of the King, to direct tohor spirits and crown the Yatzir Ha’Tov king within the heart. Superficial reading of Tehillem ב through the sophomoric moronic translation that “KING” refers to a physical/historical son of David – utterly perverts the k’vanna and mussar instructed by this Tehillem! The admonition to kings and judges which ב rebukes, directly addresses the struggle of opposing tohor vs tumah spirits within the Yatzirot within the heart.

Divine Law, not some pie in the Sky “Word of God”, but rather the pursuit of righteous judicial justice among our people. Fair compensation of damages inflicted defines Torah faith. Only through justice can an Israel trust another Israel following a fight/Civil War among ourselves. The metaphor “Kissing the son”, hence refers to the נמשל of tohor middot which the Yatzir Ha’tov breathes.

Tefillah a matter of the heart not the place or location where one prays. How much more so NOT an issue of National leaders but rather the Yatzir Tohor within our hearts! Justice can never prevail over our own interests if we do not dedicate our lives, comparable to a korban dedicated upon the altar in Jerusalem, to the righteous pursuit of justice among our people.

The concept of judicial awe as an ethical restraint is vital for legitimate jurisprudence. Instructs the mussar, that without a deep respect for remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot wherein they swore and cut an oath brit with HaShem, to create the chosen Cohen people through the performance of time oriented Torah commandments, that no generation of Israel can dominate the tumah Yatzir within all our hearts.

Tehillem ב stands upon the T’NaCH precedents of צדק צדק תרדוף and 2 Chronicles 19:6–7 (Jehoshaphat’s reforms): “Consider what you do, for you judge not for man but for HaShem… let the fear of HaShem be upon you.” Impossible to learn and interpret Tehillem without learning it back to similar Case/Rule precedents found within the T’NaCH itself. The tuma Yatzir continually seduces Man to make a shallow reactionary reading of T’NaCH verses snatched like Israeli hostages by Hamas on Oct 7th. This tumah Yatzir defines how the Roman NT gospel fraud makes a superficial and
inconsequential symbolism of p’sukim robbed and raped out of context from the Books of the Prophets and the NT framers declare that their Man/God JeZeus fulfilled the words of the prophets.

To study Talmudic common law its important to discern fundamental distinctions in scholarship down through the Ages. Perhaps the Rif halachic commentary serves as the split between two distinct bodies of law as different from the Pacific Ocean from the Atlantic Ocean.

The most essential skill required to understand how to correctly interpret Talmudic common law, the wisdom how to make the required דיוק/logical inference\. Neither T’NaCH common law nor Talmudic common law simply read as if they existed as novels pulled down from the shelf. The skill to study these Primary Sources does not turn to reading commentaries, made upon these Primary Sources which define the classic culture and customs practiced by societies of the chosen Cohen people through Av commandments known as time-oriented mitzvot.

Even the most shallow cursory translations of the Hebrew T’NaCH and Talmud; Xtianity placed their “word of God” translations upon cult of personality pedestals; they differentiate between the word of God from the words of Man – complete total religious rhetoric nonsense. Still, even a quick glance at their sophomoric “moronic” translations a person “skilled” immediately sees: absolutely no reference to tohor vs. tumah middot; the distinction made between judicial legislative review common law vs. Nicene Creed statute law dictates.

Their apostle Paul declares “the faithful” as not under the law, oblivious that civilizations without law exist in a state of confusion chaos and political anarchy. Never has any “believer” made the logical דיוק and grasped the fundamental distinctions which separate judicial common law – in possession of legislative review – Torah constitutional mandate, from statute law produced from Parliaments, Legislatures, our Councils – such as the above mentioned Nicene council.

Torah, as a Constitutional document compares to the US basic law Constitution rather than to religious belief systems. The latter makes its most fundamental appeal to powerful emotions rather than to rational logic. T’NaCH/Talmudic legal reasoning spins around the central axis of פרדס inductive logic as best understood through rabbi Ishmaels 13 methodologies how to interpret the written Jewish Primary Sources which shape and define classic culture and customs practiced by the chosen Cohen people through the k’vanna of doing tohor time-oriented commandments. Herein defines the יסוד upon which all Torah oath britot – pursuit of justice faith – stands.

Human conflict defines the nature of the opposing Yatzirot within the heart; this fundamental -understanding stands upon the בנין אב-precedent of Yaacov vs. Esau wrestling within the womb of Rivka. The sages perceive the heart as a chamber which houses the two opposing sets of tohor/tuma middot, comparable to the womb which houses developing children.

The Torah employs korbanot משל as the central (נמשל (דיוק wherein the chosen cohen people as a civilization dedicate differentiated tohor middot holy unto our God. Its the definition of tohor middot wherein the k’vanna of doing tohor time-oriented mitzvot differentiated from תולדות positive and negative Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot – which do not require כוונה.

The written Torah serves as the יסוד, the NaCH prophets and holy writings the ground floor, and the Talmud and Midrashic sources the 2nd floor of classic rabbinic Primary Sources of scholarship. Next comes the generations of scholars known as the Sovaraim Talmudic scholars 450-600 CE, they further edited the Talmudic texts sealed by Rav Ashi and Ravina. The wisdom of editing most essentially shapes and separates a good newspaper from yellow journalism rags. It seems to me that the Roman forgery new testament, compares both to yellow journalism rags and the Czarist secret police publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

This editing skill makes a fundamental דיוק which separates the priority of Cohen culture and custom from תולדות Jewish law and ethics. The latter follows the former, similar to a dog on a leash. Both T’NaCH and Talmud/Midrash stand upon the central kabbalah of פרדס and 13 middot of rabbi Yishmael’s explanation of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic sh’itta.

Fraudulent counterfeit copies of the Torah constitution, converted into religious belief system theologies; the latter directly compare to propaganda rhetoric which defined Josef Goebbels propaganda yellow journalism from 1923 to 1945. This political rhetoric stood upon sensationalist techniques used to popularize the Nazi agenda. The Roman false messiah new testament and Muhammad’s Koran poetry made their appeal to emotions rather than inductive reasoning.

The Battle of Guadalete, where the Muslim forces, led by Tariq ibn Ziyad, defeated the Visigoth king Roderic; this battle, considered the decisive moment that opened the way for the Muslim conquest of Spain. Following the victory at Guadalete, Muslim forces quickly advanced through the Iberian Peninsula. Within a few years, they captured major cities, including Toledo, Seville, and Córdoba. By the end of 711, much of the southern part of Spain dominated by Muslim culture and customs. The Umayyad Caliphate established this Spanish foothold, which endured for several centuries, leading to significant cultural, social and political changes in the region.

But conquered Spain made a lasting impact upon Muslim culture as well. The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts, which the church concealed immediately after Constantine became emperor in 306 CE. This decision by the Church, threatened by the Gods of Greece and Rome, to bury the Greek enlightenment – resulted in a period known as the Dark Ages. The Muslim re-discovery of the ancient Greek enlightenment – cast off Catholic repression, whose policies had destroyed the culture and customs practiced by the ancient Romans, in order to promote the Xtian ‘good news’ gospel. The re-discovery of Greek deductive reasoning both church and mosque now emphatically embraced. Greek deductive reasoning likewise caused the Spanish Jewish ‘Golden Age’ and the European Renaissance to flower and grow.

The 2nd Sinai Commandment, commonly referred to as the negative commandment of “avoda zarah”, the sages interpreted through the תולדות בניני אבות-precedents of 1. Do not copy Goyim cultures and customs and 2. Do not intermarry with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The definition of avoda zarah, the Av tuma spirit breathed by the Yatzir Haraw within the heart, the rediscovery of the ancient Greek enlightenment re-ignited the Civil War wounds which the lights of Hanukkah designated to remember. Alas g’lut Jewry prioritized the forms of faith rather than the substance of faith. Jews lit the Hanukkah lights as a ritual religious observance rather than as an Av tohor time-oriented commandment which requires prophetic k’vanna.

The Dark Ages witnessed the destruction of the Roman road system. Scattered Jewish communities lacked the means to communicate with one another. Questions asked to the Geonim in Iraq sometimes took a Century or more before they received a response. This reality caused the rise of the Reshonim scholars. None the less, despite the Reshon innovation, Jewish scattered communities required more immediate Talmudic guidance.

Talmudic inductive logic requires years of intense scholarship to learn and master. This reality set the stage for the classic debate between the Rabbi Isaac Alfasi, the Rif vs. the Rabbi Meir ben Baruch of Rothenburg, born in Germany, also known as the Baal Hamaor. Rashba, or Rabbi Shlomo ben Abraham ibn Aderet, a medieval rabbi from Spain, active in the late 13th and early 14th centuries. Renowned for his extensive commentaries on the Talmud and his responsa, which addressed a wide range of legal and ethical issues. Rashba, a strong defender of Maimonides’ philosophical approach to Judaism and contributed disastrously to the development of Jewish law during his time. Religious halachic code vs. the disciplined study of the Talmud through precedents, the sh’itta practiced by the Rashi/Baali Tosafot school in France. However, the relationship between the Rif and the Tosafists – more about differing approaches to Talmudic study and halachic decision-making rather than direct criticism.

The Baal Hamaor criticized the Rif’s prioritization of simple halachic codification because it failed to convey the precedent based scholarship of Talmudic common law. The Rif code did not take the halachot and make a משנה תורה reinterpretation of the language of the Mishna. Herein a succinct summation of the Baal Hamaor’s criticism of the Rif code. The Mishneh Torah by Maimonides (the Rambam) represents a significant shift in the approach to Jewish law, moving towards a more systematic and codified statute law form of halacha that a rare few scholars today argue departs from the traditional Talmudic case-based reasoning.

These Spanish ‘Golden Age’ rabbis extinguished the lights of Hanukkah. They had forbidden avoda zara “sex” with the re-discovered ancient Greek syllogism deductive reasoning. Ibn Ezra, from Spain, his son converted to Islam. Assimilation and Jewish intermarriage caused the collapse of Spanish Jewry long before the Spanish monarchy forced the mass expulsion of Jews in 1492. Av tuma avoda zara releases Torah curses upon our people similar to those experienced by Par’o in the days of Moshe and Aaron. By definition assimilated ערב רב Jews lack the knowledge and required education to keep and observe the culture and customs which the T’NaCH and Talmud establish as the society of the Cohen people.

Rabbi Mordechai ben Hillel, known for his work “Mordechai,” failed to differentiation between judicial common law and legislative statute law. In his commentaries, Rabbi Mordechai often focused on the application of Talmudic principles to practical legal situations, some interpret as a watered down form of common law. Why? His scholarship fails to emphasize פרדס inductive logic. He would derive rulings based on precedents and interpretations of the Talmud, reflecting a judicial approach that values case law and established practices. But he failed to validate in the process the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva.

His work implies a distinction between the authority of rabbinic rulings (which can evolve through judicial interpretation) and the fixed nature of certain laws derived from the Torah or established by the Sanhedrin. This ignores the halacha base Gemara משנה תורה re-interpretations made upon the language of the Mishna based upon a specific sugya of Gemara. He utterly failed to discern Av Torah time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna from secondary positive and negative commandments; or how much more so, Talmudic halachic ritual observances… all of which do not require k’vanna, comparable to positive and negative Torah commandments. This failure/collapse of Torah mitzvot scholarship ultimately caused post Rambam Civil War Jews to fail to read the written Torah as a common law legal system wherein פרדס logic compares positive and negative commandments as precedents in order to elevate a any Torah or Talmudic mitzva unto an Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandment. And likewise Bavli/Yerushalmi halachot as precedents to elevate the language of a given Mishna unto tohor time oriented commandments!

The French Tosafot school of common law, despite placing the works of the Rambam into נידוי in 1232 utterly collapsed with the public burning of the Talmud in Paris 1242. The Tosafot commentary likewise failed to link Written Torah common law learned through precedents to Talmudic common law whose halachic precedents make a re-interpretations upon the language of the Mishna. Like a blue-print front/top\side views. Precedents function as “the 70 faces to the Torah common law legal system”. This fundamental basic, the Tosafot commentary to the Talmud utterly failed to emphasize.

Common law compares to the metaphor of opposing rivers, where Statute Law exists as a completely different river from Judicial Common law Legislative Review. Therefore which early Reshonim scholars fundamentally challenged the Rif Code of Halacha for its failure to differentiate between T’NaCH/Talmudic Common law legislative review – as a Constitutional mandate from the Written Torah from Parliament/legislature statute law – which the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch codes of statute law utterly and totally undermined? The avoda zara of the latter directly compares to the sin of the Golden Calf which attempted a substitute theology wherein the cursed ערב רב attempted to replace the word אלהים for the 1st Sinai revelation Spirit Divine Presence within the tohor middot which breath life into the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the hearts of the chosen Cohen people throughout all generations.

Religious masturbation, how utterly depressing

Both Harry Potter and Weight and Gift of the Cross fail to grasp the Torah concept of Sacrifices as the medium wherein the chosen Cohen People swear a Torah oath “brit” to employ tohor middot within their Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart.

What Christianity and Potter miss – that the Torah idea of korban, simply not a magical transaction. But a legal act of swearing fidelity to the brit first established by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov which creates the Chosen Cohen people – תמיד מעשה בראשית – through the Avot commandments known as time-oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as their most essential and required k’vanna; meaning the dedication of defined Oral Torah tohor middot first revealed to Moshe 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf on Yom Kippur.

Both works of fiction and revisionist history tell a story of folks in possession of God like powers awarded and bestowed from some undefined Father who sits upon some throne in Heaven, and who bestows magical messiah-powers upon His chosen beloved. Both mythical characters of Harry Potter and JeZeus make the ultimate sacrifice, and sacrifice their lives as the pathway to achieve ”salvation”.

Both fictional narratives fail to define either how the Torah understands the meaning of terms like prophesy, love or even – and most significantly – Torah sacrifices! Even more significant both messiah novels fail to address the Torah concept of Moshiach as learned from Par’o having his “Court” inflict torture upon Hebrew slaves for their failure to meet their quota of bricks!

This story as told in the beginning of the Book of שמות, serves as the kabbalah יסוד, wherein Torah common law relies upon Torah precedents to understand the dedication of the mitzva of Moshiach, defined as the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which strives to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.

“The Weight and Gift of the Cross,” the reflection on JeZeus as the Messiah emphasizes themes of sacrifice, redemption, and the call to discipleship.

However, this narrative – critiqued for presenting a simplified view of messianic expectations, focusing on personal salvation without adequately addressing the complexities of justice and accountability.

But even more central and far greater priority, both fictional narratives utterly fail to grasp that Torah commandments apply – like as does the mitzva of Shabbat – to all Jews in all generations. The idea of some chosen messiah God figure – an utterly alien foreign abomination of Av tumah avoda zarah.

Both narratives fail to engage with the Torah’s understanding of the Messiah, rooted in concepts of justice, ethical behavior, and communal responsibility. The messianic role in Judaism – not merely about individual salvation but involves a holy dedication (directly comparable to a korban burnt upon the altar) which applies straight across the board to the entire chosen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov; that all generations – rather than some chosen specific individual – have the obligation to sanctify the mitzva of Moshiach, as a Torah commandment, to pursue and sanctify righteous judicial Sanhedrin common law courtroom justice.

Torah “Prophets”, understood as “police agents” of the Sanhedrin courts who enforce the Legislative Review judicial rulings of the lateral Sanhedrin common law courtrooms.

Torah Prophets have the Constitutional mandate to make Legislative Review of government statute laws; they can both anoint and depose kings! Police/prophets give teeth to the rulings of Sanhedrin courts. Judicial legislative review defines the name of the 5th Book of the Torah משנה תורה as well as rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi’s משנה.

Both of these non Jewish narratives, by stark contrast reflect the Goyim cultural & customs understanding of Messiah. They create fantastical worlds where mythical beings possess extraordinary powers.

In Harry Potter, together with his Cross-like scar upon his forehead, which imprisons a soul of evil, magic serves as but a metaphor for personal growth and moral choices; while the Gospels, miraculous events, often interpreted as divine intervention – like cursed trees immediately dying or herds of pigs running off of cliffs to their deaths. Such wild fictional story narratives implicitly instructs the gospel rebuke of: “By their fruits you shall know them.” Why ‘implicitly’? Because the church has ignored this gospel rebuke for 2000+ years.

These cultural stories of how Goyim perceive ancient Hebrews or modern British witch societies, they both reflect outsider cultural narratives that shape the reading of how non Jewish audiences understand – good and evil, morality, and human experiences.

These fictional narrative employ fantastical elements to convey propaganda disturbed emotional belief systems later developed into both Cannon and Creeds. Easter, known as Lent, commonly know as “Passion of Christ”, which commemorates blood libel pogroms so that Jews endure their accountability for killing God.

Both imaginary narratives fail to hold their own criminally insane and violent believers to any judicial justice of accountability. Post the Wizarding War, only a few criminally insane war-criminals sent to jail. Rather than mass public executions, Goyim courts quietly freed guilty war-criminals. The Catholic church established rat-lines to assist Nazis to flee to South America.

Never the implied gospel rebuke: “By their Fruits you shall know them” demand for accountability for crimes. Church morality limited this gospel rebuke only to the Jews.

Pope Pius XII made an open alliance with Hitler, and Martin Luther promoted not just Nazi Book burnings, but actual mass murder of Jews burned to their collective deaths inside synagogues. The Catholic public burning of the Talmud in Paris France in 1242, served as the inspiration of Nazi hate crimes.

The Harry Potter witching world directly compares to the three Century ghetto-gulags, wherein the church threw Jewish refugee populations into prisons of poverty. The concealed world of witchcraft societies likewise compares to the forced mass population transfers – similar to the 1492 Spanish expulsion of Jews. The weakness of magic in the Potter story, magic cannot produce food any more than Jews languishing in Catholic gulag ghettos.

____________________________________

Intentional Faith

Intentional Faith·pastorhogg.net·3h ago

Today’s Spiritual Disciplines

The day’s devotions emphasize walking closely with God to find true blessing, highlighted in Psalm 1:1. They reflect on His searching love in Luke 15:8-10, the…
____________________________________
The T’NaCH functions as a common law system, where the texts establish precedents through case and rule comparisons. This suggests a structured legal framework that informs Jewish law and practice. The Gemarah’s commentary on the Mishna is highlighted as a method of interpreting Jewish law through inductive reasoning, which provides a dynamic – as oppose and contrasted by Greek deductive static reasoning – multi-dimensional understanding of legal principles.

The common law of the T’NaCH prioritizes Prophetic mussar whereas the Gemara focuses upon ritual halacha as precedents. The authors of the New Testament misunderstood the nature of the T’NaCH, particularly in their claim that Jesus “fulfilled” the prophecies. This is framed as a misinterpretation of the role of Torah prophets, who were enforcers of law rather than predictors of the future.

The distinction between the roles of prophets and legal authorities in the T’NaCH is a central theme, suggesting that the prophetic function is often misrepresented by later NT framers. The consequences of this basic fundamental error: the Xtian framers intended to establish a religious belief system whereas the Framers of the T’NaCH envisioned establishment of Sanhedrin courts common law. The complexity of this latter objective, difficult for Goyim to grasp, primarily because they lack the Talmud as a point of reference – how to understand the language of the T’NaCH as the Primary Sources of Jewish law. Lacking the Aggadic narrative provided by the Talmud, Goyim simply fail to understand that the purpose of the Aggadic stories – they explore the language of Prophetic mussar to provide the “k’vanna” which defines the purpose and meaning of all Talmudic Aggadic stories.

The Talmud compares to a loom with its warp & weft threads. Weaving interpreted prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of halachic ritualism – this defines not only how to make an aliyah\elevation of rabbinic ritual mitzvot observances unto Torah commandments, but this same wisdom equally applies to elevate lower positive and negative Torah commandments to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments! Goyim have never grasped the depth & scope of Torah commandments within the Torah. They never conceived nor grasped that Moshe as the Framer of the Torah organized these 5 Books to function as the Constitution of the Republic of 12 Tribes. Torah as a Constitutional Basic Law of the Chosen Cohen Peoples’ Republic — a far different vision from the Pauline ‘Original Sin’ addiction of Man for some imaginary mythical Harry Potter God/messiah to save Humanity from their sins.

Prophetic Mussar vs. Ritual Halacha: T’NaCH interprets prophetic mussar; Gemarah interprets ritual law as the culture and customs observed by the nation of the chosen Cohen People. Avoda zarah interpreted as such to mean: 1. The Cohen people have a negative commandment NOT to follow, much more so embrace, the cultures and customs practiced by Goyim civilizations which do not accept the opening First TWO Sinai commandments.

This profound understanding of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai starkly contrasts with the Rambam’s pathetic perversion of Aggadah up-rooted totally out of context from mesechta Sanhedrin concerning the 7 mitzvot applicable to Gere Toshavim who temporarily dwell within the lands of Judea; as opposed to the despised Goyim refugee populations, who likewise temporarily reside within the borders of Judea. Mesechta Baba Kama instructs that the latter dhimmi refugee populations enjoyed no legal protections. If a Jew damaged their persons or property – these “illegal aliens” possessed no legal “Torah Constitutional” right to sue the damager Israel in any Jewish Court of Law within the borders of Judea. As a point of reference: Jews, as despised refugees in Europe and Muslim countries for 2000+ years – political exiles, dhimmi refugee populations – no Goy Court in Xtian or Muslim lands ever once held criminal war-crimes committed by the Church or Mosque priests or sheiks accountable. G’lut/exiled Jews had no legal rights to sue – NOT either Church or Mosque in any Goyim courts of law for 2000+ years of g’lut/exile.

Viewed from this basic historical context, the Talmud of mesechta Baba Kama makes complete and total sense. Hence mesechta Sanhedrin addresses the legal rights of Gere Toshav strangers to sue Jewish damagers in Jewish courts of law; whereas mesechta Baba Kama excludes dhimmi foreign alien “wet-backs” from the ”privilege” of legal judicial rights to requests from a Jewish Court to enforce fair compensation of damages they suffered from an Israel. During the Dark and Middle Ages, a similar custom practiced upon dhimmi exiled Jews; writs of privileges issued to Jews by princes and church officials. These writs of privileges directly compare to mesechta Sanhedrin’s 7 mitzvot “bnai Noach”.

The fundamental error of basic Talmudic common law scholarship made by Rambam’s decision to “convert” the Talmud into Roman statute law; this absolute error stands upon the copied-assimilated Av tumah avoda zara wherein this rabbi embraced the error followed by the Samaritans, Tzeddukim, Karaim, Reform & Conservative Judaism today. This Av tumah avoda zara generated a domino effect upon all down-stream generations of Jewry. The Talmud refers to this type of disaster as ירידות הדורות-descending generations.

Later down stream rabbinic Judaism made a error and interpreted this Talmudic concept as the inability of later generations to challenge the opinions made by earlier generations; something comparable and akin to the Catholic idea of the infallibility of the Pope — utter and total narishkeit stupidity. Pope Pius XII stands as proof witness of this absolutely worthless טיפש פשט-bird brained idea. Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash challenged the opinion made by Targum Onkelos as erroneous. How could Rashi argue against a contemporary of Rabbi Yechuda – the author of the Mishna? Answer: In matters of logic, no generation has a lock monopoly by which it can dictate its logic over later generations.

Genesis 1:1, Rashi discusses the creation narrative and contrasts his interpretation with that of Targum Onkelos. This Rashi opinion nails the Arab rejection of political Zionism’s quest to achieve Jewish self-determination within a restored Jewish State in the lands of Judea. Rashi believed that later generations could offer valid interpretations that might differ from earlier authorities, including Targum Onkelos. He emphasized that logic and understanding of the text naturally develop and evolve.

Rashi’s commentary on בראשית א:ב — והארץ היתה תהו ובהו. Targum Onkelos translates as: איר אתכללו – “it was desolate”. Rashi argues that Targum Onkelos’ interpretation does not capture the full meaning of the Hebrew terms. He explains that “תֹהוּ” refers to a state of emptiness or chaos, while “בֹהוּ” refers to a state of void or nothingness. Rashi emphasizes that the two terms convey distinct concepts that are not adequately represented in Onkelos’ translation.

Exodus 12:6: Rashi comments on the phrase regarding the timing of the Passover sacrifice. Targum Onkelos translates it in a way that Rashi finds problematic. Rashi argues that the translation does not align with the intent of the Hebrew text, suggesting that Onkelos’ interpretation – not accurate in this context. This example illustrates Rashi’s approach to engaging with earlier interpretations, including those of Targum Onkelos, and his belief that later scholars can offer valid critiques based on their logical insights. Based upon the premise that no one generation owns a lock and key monopoly of logic.
“עד יום עשותו – עד יום שיבואו ישראל לידי עשייתו, ולא עד יום שיבואו לידי אכילתו, כמו שתרגם אונקלוס: ‘עד יום שיבואו ישראל לידי אכילתו’.”

In his commentary, Rashi points out that Targum Onkelos interprets the verse as referring to the day of eating the Passover sacrifice, while Rashi understood this verse as the day of its preparation or offering. This illustrates Rashi’s critical engagement with Onkelos’ translation.

In בראשית א:ב, the phrase “והארץ היתה תהו ובהו” is translated as “איר אתכללו,” meaning “it was desolate.” This translation captures the essence of the Hebrew term “תהו ובהו,” which conveys a sense of emptiness and chaos.

In contrast, in דברים לג:ב, the phrase “מן אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” translates to “from the mountain of Seir.” Here, “אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” is derived from a different root and refers to a geographical location rather than a state of being. The context of this verse is about God’s revelation from Sinai, and the term is used to indicate a specific place, rather than a descriptive state. Rashi states that Onkelos’ translation is incorrect because it implies that the verse is referring to a physical location rather than the spiritual significance of HaShem’s revelation. Rashi emphasizes that the term “מִסֵּעִיר” should be understood in a different context, focusing on the divine aspect rather than a geographical one.

בראשית א:ב — והארץ היתה תהו ובה Targum Onkelos translates as: איר אתכללו – “it was desolate”. Whereas דברים לג:ב: ויאמר ה’ מסיני בא ושרח מסעיר למו — Targum Onkelos translates this as “מִן אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” (from the mountain of Seir)? In בראשית א:ב, the phrase “והארץ היתה תהו ובהו” is translated as “איר אתכללו,” meaning “it was desolate.” This translation captures the essence of the Hebrew term “תהו ובהו,” which conveys a sense of emptiness and chaos.

In contrast, in דברים לג:ב, the phrase “מן אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” translates to “from the mountain of Seir.” Here, “אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” is derived from a different root and refers to a geographical location rather than a state of being. The context of this verse is about God’s revelation from Sinai, and the term is used to indicate a specific place rather than a descriptive state. Thus, the variations in translation reflect the different contexts and meanings of the words used in each verse. The שרש\root – כ-ל-ל conveys meanings related to completeness or inclusion. In this context, it refers to a geographical location, specifically indicating a place from which something originates or emerges.

This contrasts with the root of “תֹהוּ” and “בֹהוּ” in Genesis 1:2, which conveys a sense of chaos and emptiness, highlighting the different contexts and meanings in Rashi’s commentary and the translations provided by Targum Onkelos. This example of Rashi’s dispute with a Tanna illistrates the classic error assimilated to ancient Greek cultures and customs the Rambam erred when he interpreted the word ONE in kre’a shma means “monotheism”. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Furthermore, mesechta Avoda Zarah opens with the understanding that prior to the generation of Noach that the Goyim had utterly rejected the oath brit alliance.

The Torah of בראשית opens with the Name אלהים (the substitute word translation of the Divine Presence Spirit word of both the שם השם עצמו as well as the Orev 13 Oral Torah middot wherein Jews to this day during the month of Elul. For example: tefillah a matter of the heart … and to make a blessing requires שם ומלכות. The Mitzva of blowing the Shofar on ר”ה make a מאי נפקא מינא הבדלה which separates and distinguishes between air blown from the lungs from tohor spirits blown from the Yatzir Ha’Tov from within the heart. דכתיב: גכל לבבך.

On Elul Jews likewise separate t’shuva from repentance. Similar words on superficial appearance, like brit and covenant. T’shuva “remembers” the Sin of the Golden Calf, like Amalek which plagues Jews in all generations with its hateful antisemitism. We remember that HaShem – measure for measure – threatened to make a substitute theology idolatry and replace the oath sworn Cohen seed of the Avot with the seed of Moshe Rabbeinu “eye for an eye” for the Israel ערב רב replacement theology with substituted אלהים “word” for the שם השם לשמה Divine Presence Spirit which quickens the Yatzir HaTov within the heart, through the dedication of tohor Oral Torah middot.

Hence a blessing requires מלכות – the dedication of korbanot middot לשמה. Herein explains why the Book of בראשית opens with the word name אלהים rather than the Spirit Name שם השם לשמה as commanded in the first commandment of the Sinai revelation; the בראשית story opens prior to the oath brit which creates continually the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot through tohor Av time-oriented commandments which require the מלכות dedication of Oral Torah spirit middot through the Yatzir Ha’Tov.

Goyim, both Xtians and Allah repentance by contrast only refers to personal regret. This interpretation goes well with the Xtian guilt trip theology of “He died for you”. In like manner, ברית refers to an oath alliance which function as the יסוד of the Republic of the 12 Tribes; wheras covenant implies some vague connection, which if “shattered” some foreign alien other God could substitute Goyim as the “New Israel” or Universal monotheistic God. The Rambam avoda zarah assimilated and embraced the Muslim idea of a universal monotheistic God. He rejected mesechta Avoda Zarah which understands the God of Sinai as a local Tribal God based upon the conclusion that the Goyim never accepted the revelation, meaning first two opening commandments of Sinai as John 1:1 proves, of the the Torah at Sinai.

_MASHIACH: The Night Watchman

ArtScroll Staff·The Official ArtScroll Blog·Aug 11, 2025

Adapted from: Yearning for Redemption by Rabbi Daniel Glatstein

The following verse (Tehillim 130:6) requires explanation: נַפְשִׁי לַה’ מִשֹּׁמְרִים לַבֹּקֶר שֹׁמְרִים לַבֹּקֶר.,
_____________________
______________________
Mitzva of Moshiach requires making הבדלה just as does shabbat observance separates מלאכה מן עבודה. Both this and that, Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments! This Av type of commandment requires k’vanna. תולדות secondary – positive and negative and halachot mitzvot – do not require k’vanna. This represents a chiddush, a huge מאי נפקא מינא. T’NaCH\Talmud common law requires precedents. Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot refers to precedents as בניני אבות. To ascertain the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments requires the wisdom how to correctly interpret prophetic mussar from the T’NaCH\Aggadah & Midrashim. The latter, specifically the T’NaCH Primary Sources, they determine the k’vanna of all Torah time-oriented commandments. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. Prophets function as the police-enforcement teeth of the Great and Small Sanhedrin common law courts, within the borders of the oath sworn Cohen lands. Sworn by an oath brit between HaShem and the Avot as the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen People.

The Yom Tov of ר”ה, יום הזכרון specifically remembers the t’shuva consequent to the Golden Calf. HaShem annulled His vow to make from Moshe’s עולם הבא children the chosen Cohen people! Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov. Hence the k’vanna of ברכת כהנים, and also likewise the k’vanna of קריא שמע תפילה דאורייתא. The last word אחד, does not refer to monotheism. Monotheism profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. The 10 plagues judged the Gods of Egypt. Therefore, the word אחד the Yidden remember the oaths sworn by the Avot themselves wherein they cut a brit alliance to create from nothing (תמיד מעשה בראשית) the chosen Cohen people through Av tohor time-oriented commandments like shabbat & Moshiach. All generations merit to sanctify tohor time-oriented commandments. The idea that Jews wait for the coming of the Moshiach – this narishkeit defines Xtianity!

9.1.25 Maimonides and Maharishi II

rabbielimallonRabbi Eli Mallon, M.Ed., LCSW

147 subscribersSubscribed

12h ago

Maharishi Mahesh YogimeditationspiritualityconsciousnessMaimonides3+

a

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Maimonides discuss the same thing —
the unchanging basis of all that exists.

Maimonides discusses this as an idea/a subject for contemplation.

Maharishi discusses the same as a personal experience in meditation.

The experience confirms the idea.
The idea clarifies the experience.
At the same time,
the experience clarifies the idea;
the idea, in its universality,
confirms the experience.

I

“1. The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought into being all existence. All the beings of the heavens, the earth, and what is between them came into existence only from the truth [i.e. reality] of His being.

2. If one would imagine that He [or: It] does not exist, no other being could possibly exist.

3. If one would imagine that none of the entities aside from Him [or: It] exist, He alone would continue to exist, and the nullification of their [existence] would not nullify His existence, because all the [other] entities require Him and He, blessed be He, does not require them nor any one of them…

4. This is implied by the prophet’s statement: ‘And God, your Lord, is true’ ¹ – i.e., He alone is true and no other entity possesses truth that compares to His truth. This is what [is meant by] the Torah’s statement: ‘There is nothing else aside from Him’ ² – i.e., aside from Him, there is no true existence like His.” ³

II

“This thing that the relative is born of (the Absolute), this is to understand what is behind the relative –changing, changing, changing. [i.e. the ‘Relative’ — always changing — is born of the ‘Absolute’ — never changing]. Now we analyze what this change is and what is the ultimate value of this change. Then we know that the change is very heavy, or very gross, very clear change on the surface.

Deep within the change is lesser change, lesser change, lesser change. At the deepest value of change there is least change. Only when we try to know what exists underneath the change, what is the reality of change, then we come to know that there is no field of change.

This is what physics does. All these molecules and then atoms and then electrons and then the subatomic particles and then very fine particles, and high energy, fine particles are high energy and then eventually ground state, least variation. Least variation means maximum order. Order increases. Disorder becomes less and less and less and less. That means activity becomes less and less and then eventually, vacuum state. This vacuum state may be said to be Absolute, non-changing, no change, nothing. And a little, little manifest value we may say, is that ground state where the things are not moving, no activity. But the ground state itself breathes life. There is something there, very fine, relative.

So, this is analysis of the relative which eventually locates the Absolute in an area where relativity is nonexistent, beyond the finest relative existence, Absolute. So, this is physical analysis or analysis of the activity.

In Indian philosophy it’s called Karma Mimamsa; Karma – action.

Mimamsa – of action, analysis of action, analysis of action. What kind of action? Gross action, subtle action, subtler action, subtlest action. Now all this on the basis of a field of life which has no activity in it, vacuum state according to physics, Absolute according to the Science of Creative Intelligence, ultimate reality.

Now it’s like the top of the mountain, very windy and as you come along the slope the wind is less and less and less and less. You come down the foot of the hill, no wind, it’s all protected. Great activity, less activity, less activity, no activity at the foot. Just like that, top of the mountain, the top. Now what is happening you’re on the top of the mountain? You are able to see vast distances. And as you come along on the slope you see less, you see less. Vision becomes restricted, vision becomes, because the height is less. You come to the foot of the mountain and you can see only this much.

Now, the reality of vision at the foot of the mountain is completely different from the reality of the vision on the middle of the mountain.

And this is completely different from the reality vision from the top of the mountain. So, when a man standing on the top of the mountain, he says, “Oh I’m seeing this much”, a man at the foot of the hill says, “I’m seeing this much”, both are correct. No one is false, correct because he sees only this much, he can only see this much and he can describe only this much. So, this is the reality of this stand. A man on the middle of the mountain, he has a different level of stand. From his level whatever he sees he describes. He is capable of describing more than the man on the foot of the mountain. But still that more is much less compared to the man on the top of the mountain.

So, it depends upon at what level of awareness one experiences the environment. In Unity one experiences the environment. One finds no differences, nothing, he has a different picture of the world. In God Consciousness, completely a different picture of the world; the world is very fascinating, it’s beautiful. In CC, it has a completely different status, it’s always changing, I’m not changing. I have great superiority over all that which…. I’m the lord of all I survey and all that… CC. In transcendence the world doesn’t exist. In waking state everything is so dear and so fine and so nice, localized values, all localized. In dream it has a different fascination. In sleep nothing exists.” ⁴

III

Both Maharishi and Maimonides are telling us that full human perception embraces both the ever-changing creation and its/our unchanging source, too. Short of that, we’re not fully developed human beings.

Is there a Biblical model for this?

Yes — the perception of Adam and Havah/Eve in the Garden of Eden. Afterwards, Torah describes those for whom this perception was a normal experience as ones who “walked with God.” Later, the prophets exemplify this. King David — writer and singer of the Psalms — represents this, too.

The promise of Torah and TaNaCh is that this will someday be the norm for all humanity, forever. As the Hasidic text “Tanya” teaches:

“This, in fact, is the whole [purpose] of man and the purpose for which he, and all the worlds, both upper and lower, were created: that G‑d should have such a dwelling place here below…” ⁵

a

See also:

5.17.15 Maimonides and Maharishi

__________________________________________________

¹ Yirmiyahu/Jeremiah 10:10

² D’varim/Deuteronomy 4:35

³ Maimonides: Mishnah Torah/Book of Knowledge 1:1-4; see also Yesodei ha-Torah 1:1

⁴ Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
La Antilla, Spain
March 3, 1973 (transcribed from a video tape)
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10238341431783073&set=gm.2796773693840717&idorvanity=442978549220255

⁵ Tanya; ch. 33
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Maimonides on parallel tracks. Both of them failed to distinguish two radically different systems of law – the fundamental day and night distinction between Jewish common law from Roman statute law.

T’NaCH\Talmudic משנה תורה Legislative review-Constitutional common law – inductive, precedent-based, always applied within the צדק צדק תרדוף “Torah Faith” of courtroom context (עדות, דינים, פרשנות). Knowledge of God (ידע), directly bound to how justice defines Faith as an eternal obligation of Israel’s acceptance of the Torah at Sinai. Based upon the precedent and testimony of Moshe and Aaron standing before the Court of Par’o and the abuse of beating Hebrew slaves.

“Foundation of foundations” in Rambam’s Yesodei HaTorah a false codified abstraction—but in the Mishna/Gemara world, “foundation” means judicial justice; procedural rules wherein judges and common law Sanhedrin lateral courtrooms build precedent-based “Brief” wherein the prosecutor and defense attorneys – Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argue their precedent “Briefs” before one another in court. This latter common law “foundation”, it and it alone functions as the legal bedrock יסוד, not assimilated Greek or Roman metaphysical speculation abstractions.

Roman statute law (and Indian metaphysics) – deductive, top-down, treating truth as an absolute principle or essence outside of human courtroom process. The 8th middah of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev defines truth as “PATH” or “Halacha”. Both Maharishi and Rambam slip into the Greek/Roman assimilation mold; a direct Torah violation of negative commandments. Their philosophical Absolute – a static ontological given. Not a lived בניני אבות Sinai oath alliance to rule the conquered lands of Canaan with Sanhedrin common law courtroom justice; which like a korban dedicates the Chosen Cohen People to pursue tohor time-oriented commandments to pursue justice – fair compensation of damages – among our People. Both these latter day men, they replicate Catholic dogmatism – “unchanging source” – in purely ontological terms (what exists beneath existence), instead of Torah faith which defines acceptance of the Torah at Sinai as צדק צדק תרדוף.

Maharishi frames faith in terms of direct experience in meditation (phenomenology). Whereas Rambam frames faith in terms of rational proof and contemplation (philosophy). He prioritizes gnostic knowledge above “Fear of Heaven”; meaning the walk to build and protect ones’ ‘Good Name’ reputation.

But both of these “Latter Day Saints” bypass the Talmudic way of the Cohen worship through tohor middot; specifically applicable through the concrete practice of common law courts, precedent based “Briefs”, and justice—which strives to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot.

If we bring the T’NaCH model of mussar-aggadic common law in properly: Adam & Havah “walking with God” does not compare to these assimilated “Latter Day Saints” mystical union. Shalom among our Chosen Cohen People within the borders of the oath sworn lands: “walking in trust” the יסוד bedrock upon which stands שלום and NOT hatred without cause among our people. Later “Enoch walked with God,” “Noach walked with God,” and Avraham – chosen “to keep the way of the Lord … to do justice and righteousness” (la‘asot tzedaka u-mishpat). The real Torah framework: knowledge of God = justice done in community to restore שלום among our divided people who always struggle with our Yatzir Ha’Rah to fight Civil Wars among ourselves.

Contrast this with the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים – the assimilated Roman/Indian metaphysics = Absolute/essence/unchanging source. This נידוי narishkeit stands outside of the oath brit alliance to pursue justice among and between our people. Unlike Maharishi’s “phenomenology,” aggadah does not chase mystical states—it illustrates the human cost of injustice and commands judges to persue precedent-based בניני אבות judicial fairness. Maharishi and Rambam both speak in terms of “Absolute Being” but collapse Torah’s judicial Faith framework based upon the false foundations of Greek/Roman metaphysics. By stark contrast Torah faith = צדק צדק תרדוף. Sanhedrin common law, courtroom-precedent based legalism; fair compensation for damages inflicted, mussar-aggadic framework of walking with God by doing tohor time-oriented commandments with k’vanna.

“Can’t see the forest for the trees” – being so focused on small details that you lose sight of the bigger picture. The trees – all the halachot raised in each and every sugya of Gemara. The forest the common law basis wherein the Talmud serves as the model to re-establish common law courts of Sanhedrin Legislative Review of all government statute laws. This summates my criticism of the statute law codes; how they utterly corrupted how Yeshiva education became all corrupted and Fubar.  The more polite definition of the latter Army military euphemism –  “Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition”. But when a jarhead employs the term, he means: “fucked up beyond all repair”.

The assimilated statute halachic codes, focus upon making a D’sok Halacha. In the case of the Rambam Fubar – straight from the Talmud itself. In the Case of the far weaker – copy-cat – halachic statute codifications of the Tur and Shulkan Aruch – they organized a codification of Reshonim opinion upon any given halacha from the Talmud. Why does assimilated statute halacha pervert the Talmud and Reshonim commentaries upon the Talmud into a fubar? Several reasons: 1. They rely upon the syllogism deductive logic developed by Aristotle and Plato. This substitute theology of logic, it replaces the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s revolutionary interpretation of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev unto פרדס. No different, what so ever, from the ערב רב שיצאו ממצרים. The latter Jews the Torah during the reading prior to Purim which remembers the tohor middah of רחום. Specifically, the commandment to war against Amalek in all generations. רחום — עמלק, represents a כלל — פרט in how the corollary 13 middot of rabbi Yishmael amplify the פרדס kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s understanding of how the Oral Torah revelation interpret the kvanna of the Written Torah.

The Torah description of Jews as אין להם יראת אלהים – the first inference to “Fear of Heaven” in the Book of שמות. The later prophets mussar refers to assimilated Israel as אנשי סדום. They too lacked “fear of heaven” as the Book of בראשית introduces. בעל שם טוב: This term פרט, refers to the founder of Hasidic Judaism, Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov.  However this term כלל, refers to the pursuit of a righteous Good Name reputation. Post Shoah Xtianity permanently lost the claim to a moral good name reputation. Hence: יראת שמים the Talmud directly applies to both a Torah sofer and a shochet.  The mitzva of kashrut, spins around public trust based upon יראת שמים.

The rediscovery of the concealed Ancient Greek texts which caused the Hanukkah Civil War which pitted the P’rushim against the Tzeddukim; when Muslim Armies invaded Spain in approximately 900, during the lifetime of Saadia ben Joseph, 882–942 CE. These rediscovered ancient Greek writings caused the Jews of Spain to emphatically embrace Greek deductive logic. This triggered the “Golden Age” of Spanish Reshonim T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship!!! Alas the bards (Robert Plant (lyrics) and Jimmy Page (music) who wrote the song  “Stairway to Heaven”, declared: sometimes words have two meanings.)  טיפש פשט by stark contrast gets all hyper in their diaper over the obvious ‘bird brained’ ‘brain-washed’ meaning. 

How the Orthodox make a simplistic understanding of the בראשית Creation story, functions as a פרט example.  Another פרט example:  Yeshiva bukkarim saying (all the time) מה פשט?
The false ideal to simplify or stupify abstract T’NaCH and Talmudic common law, simply brain dead.  The Siddur serves as the foundation of all Talmudic scholarship.  Just that simple.  No fancy dance’n.  The Siddur stands upon the יסוד of ORDER.  The ORDER of פרדס inductive logic, not the same as the ORDER of Aristotle’s syllogism – deductive logic.  The assimilated statute law halachic codes – they shatter the ORDER of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law.

A three-part syllogism is a form of logical reasoning that consists of three statements: two premises and a conclusion. It is a classic structure used in deductive reasoning, often associated with the philosopher Aristotle. 

Hegel’s bi-polar dialectics and Aristotle’s syllogism represent two distinct approaches to logic and reasoning, each with its own philosophical underpinnings and implications.  Hegel’s dialectics is a process of development through contradictions. It involves a triadic structure often summarized as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The thesis represents an initial idea or state, the antithesis is its contradiction or negation, and the synthesis resolves the conflict between the two, leading to a higher understanding or state.  

Hegel’s approach emphasizes change and development. Ideas evolve through conflict and resolution, reflecting the complexity of reality. This process is not linear but rather cyclical, where each synthesis can become a new thesis, leading to further contradictions and resolutions.  This late 19th Century German philosophy served as the logic foundation of Marx’s theory of Communism as a response to the Industrial Revolution.  “Revolution” implies the over-throw of the ‘Old Order’.  

What defines the “Old Order” of the Middle Ages?  The economies of the Middle Ages made wealth through the Order of village communes, known as feudalism, wherein the aristocratic lords produced wealth through agricultural production.  The Industrial Revolution over-threw that ‘Old Order’, and replaced it by the production of wealth through Industrial production of goods and services.  This cause a mass population transfer from peasant living in village communes tied to working for their lords.  To citizens with political rights who lived and worked within the factories within huge cities.

To understand the difference between rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic from Aristotle’s deductive logic, fundamentally requires comparing the two viewed from a fair larger “BIG PICTURE” context.  The two-dimensional halachic statute law codes, they compare to looking at a camera picture rather than actually seeing the event captured by the picture.  The question מה פשט?  Simply ideal for the two-dimensional deductive reasoning of Greek deductive logic.  

The mitzva of lighting the lights of Hanukkah – the dedication to interpret the Written Torah through, and only through, the inductive logic of פרדס; the latter defines the culture and customs practiced by the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot throughout all generations.  The passage of this Cohonim culture and customs from generation, to generation, to generation – defines the k’vanna of תחיית המתים.  As does similar, marriage with the purpose to produce children and educate them to keep the cultures and customs of the chosen Cohen people.  The mitzva of קידושין.

Rabbi Akiva’s inductive logic system directly compares to a Loom.  A Loom essential in the construction of the Mishkan.  As a Loom as its warp & weft opposing threads, the “fabric” of the T’NaCH and Talmud contains the Aggada threads of prophetic mussar contrasted by the Halachic threads of practical halachic ritualism.  Weaving the two opposing strands creates time oriented commandments which require k’vanna.  

The Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch deductive logic divorces halacha from aggada.  Worse, the Prime assimilated Reshon Spanish רשע, his code uprooted halacha from its Home Mishna.  The commentaries on the Rambam Code, in their assimilated darkness, failed to affix any Rambam halacha to the B’hag, Rif, or Rosh common law codes.  The latter understood that the Gemarah halachot serve as the “70 faces to the Torah”, they view the language of the Home Mishna from different perspectives to make depth re-interpretations of the obvious פשט language of the Home Mishna!  

This criticism, equally applies to Rabbeinu Tam the leader of the Baali Tosafot common law commentary upon the Talmud.  Going off the dof in search of a legal precedent permits the scholar to view his sugya of Gemara based upon a radically different perspective – “70 faces to the Torah”.  However, the Baali Tosafot commentaries, approximately 60 common law scholars, failed to make the required משנה תורה and make a “Legislative Review” of the language of the Home Mishna which the Gemara comments by way of comparing precedent cases!

Rashi’s common law commentary to the Chumash – radically differs from Rashi’s dictionary like פשט commentary to the Talmud.  For this reason Rabbeinu Tam challenged the Rashi commentary made upon the Talmud.  The question stands:  Why did Rashi change from his common law פשט based upon T’NaCH and Talmudic Bavli and Yerushalmi precedent to writing a dictionary of terms to explain the language of the Talmud?  Answer:  Rashi witnessed the 1st Crusades and the slaughter of the Jews in Germany.  Rabbeinu Tam died before the Rambam published his statute law abomination in approximately 1185.  The Baali Tosafot placed the Rambam into נידוי in Paris 1232.  A decade later, the Pope and King of France burned all the Talmudic manuscripts in Paris.  

King Philip IV of France (also known as Philip the Fair) expelled all Jews from France in 1306. This uprooted and destroyed the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship. Whereas the P’rushim defeated the assimilated Tzeddukiim, which the lights of Hanukkah remember; the Rambam forced Rabbeinu Yonah to write Shari Tshuva. Rashi feared the Goyim might learn how to study the Talmud as common law. Therefore he concealed this basic kabbalah limited only to his commentary to the Chumash. He did not even extend it to his commentaries upon the NaCH or Midrash!

The Jews in ארץ ישראל possessed the wisdom, how to obey Torah mitzvot לשמה.  The Jews in living under the Torah Av tumah curse of g’lut, did not possess the wisdom, how to obey Torah mitzvot לשמה.  A simple מאי נפקא מינא, just that simple.  No fancy dance’n.  (Hence I refuse to travel to g’lut lands because I know I would immediately eat treif foods pork and shrimp yum yum.)

The כלל to anything in life, but most especially to T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship לשמה – ORDER.  The Siddur functions as the יסוד upon which both the T’NaCH prophetic mussar and Talmudic halachah stand.  Just that simple.  No fancy dance’n.  Therefore, sugya integrity defines how to study and learn both T’NaCH and Talmud.  This discipline of scholarship known, as taught to me by Rav Nemuraskii, as learning through a sh’itta.

The internal ORDER of each and every sugya of Gemara – throughout the Sha’s Bavli and Yerushalmi.  Post Shoah, Xtianity and Islam have destroyed their Good Name reputations.  Jews have reconquered our homeland.  Goyim rot as stinking Palestinian dhimmi refugees and Xtians wait for the 2nd coming of their Gods.  What struck fear in Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, no longer exists.  The shoe worn on the other foot today. 

Can our generations achieve self-determination in our Homeland and make the Torah the Constitution of our Republic of 12 Tribes?  Can we build the lateral Sanhedrin Federal Court System of common law Legislative Review?  These two fundamental questions shape and define Jewish identity today.  The purpose of T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship today does not resemble the Reshonim need to codify a Jewish religion for Jewish communities scattered across g’lut having little or no communication between communities.  Today we can communicate in seconds what Jews then took perhaps generations!  The reality of the times determines the Halacha.  This issue which confronts our generations today, can we bring a re-birth to the chosen people, the Cohen sons and daughters of the Avot? 
________________________________________
________________________________________

This Mesechta of Gemara includes the commentary of the Ran רבינו נסים.  He merits respect perhaps on par with the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh, and Tosafot.  If Spain produced a ‘Golden Age’, perhaps he best defines it.  The Ran emphasized the importance of the oral tradition and the interpretations of earlier authorities, including the Baali Tosafot.  The Ran did not support the cherem (excommunication) issued by the Baali Tosafot against the Rambam’s works, but he did align with the concerns raised by the Rosh (Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel) and others regarding the potential implications of the Rambam’s rationalist approach. The Rosh was particularly critical of the Rambam’s philosophical ideas and their impact on Jewish faith.

Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel, the Rosh, openly critical of the Rambam and supported the cherem against his works, viewing them as a threat to traditional Jewish beliefs. He believed that the Rambam’s rationalism could lead to heretical ideas.  The Ran, while critical of certain elements of the Rambam’s philosophy, maintained a more nuanced position, recognizing the value of the Rambam’s legal contributions while also advocating for adherence to traditional interpretations and the authority of earlier scholars.

The distinction between Jewish common law (halacha) and Roman statute law is an important aspect of legal theory, particularly in the context of medieval Jewish scholarship.  Jewish Common Law (Halacha): This refers to the body of Jewish law derived from the Torah, Talmud, and later rabbinic interpretations. It is often characterized by its case-based nature, where legal principles are derived from specific cases and precedents.  Roman Statute Law: This refers to the codified laws of the Roman legal system, which organized legal principles into systematic categories. Roman law had a more formalized structure, with clear definitions and classifications.

The Rosh emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of Jewish law as distinct from external legal systems, such as Roman law. He was critical of the Rambam’s codification efforts, particularly in the Mishneh Torah, which he felt could blur the lines between Jewish common law and alien legal traditions developed by both the Greek and Roman civilizations.

The Ran, while respecting the Rambam’s contributions, did not emphasize the same differentiation between Jewish common law and Roman statute law. His approach was more focused on the practical application of halacha and the integration of various legal sources, including the Rambam’s codification.

The differing approaches of the Ran and the Rosh reflect broader debates within Jewish legal thought about the nature of halacha, the influence of external legal systems, and the importance of maintaining a distinct Jewish legal identity. The Rosh’s emphasis on the uniqueness of Jewish law contrasts with the Ran’s more integrative approach, highlighting the complexities of legal scholarship in medieval Judaism.

Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, the Baali Mor, wrote a commentary critical of the Rif common law commentary written upon the Talmud. He learn the Gemara as precedent halachot by which a person could re-interpret the original language of the Mishna. Hence he learned by reliance upon other Primary Source precedents to understand the language of the Talmud viewed from multiple perspectives. Like the Front/Top\Side views of a blue-print. His chief criticism on the Rif, that his code diminished the depth fluidity of inductive logic reasoning which compares Case/Law to similar precedent Case/Law. The Baali Mor emphasized the importance of studying the Gemara as a source of halachic precedent. He believed that the Gemara should be used to reinterpret the original language of the Mishnah, allowing for a deeper understanding of the legal principles involved.  

A Baali Mor’s chief criticism(s) of the Rif – that his codification diminished the depth and fluidity of inductive reasoning in halachic analysis. The Rif’s structured approach, caused scholars to read his p’sok halacha in a simplified טיפש פשט sh’itta, which confused the inductive vs. deductive reasoning dispute which the Rambam later exploded into a bitter Jewish Civil War.  Court room common law makes ‘compare and contrast’ essential for inductive reasoning.  Essential for deriving legal principles from specific precedent Case instances.  

The Baali Mor advocated for a more dynamic interpretation of halacha, where the law is not seen as static but rather as adaptable to different circumstances.  Talmud in his opinion serves as the model for later common law court room jurisprudence.  This perspective encourages ongoing interpretation and application of halachic principles based on the complexities of real-life situations.  His critique of the Rif highlights the ongoing dialogue within Jewish scholarship about what right then required prioritization. 

Religious halachic codifications vs. the fluidity of legal reasoning which differentiate the brief precedents brought by the prosecution vs. the defense.  In practical terms he differentiates and prioritizes Judicial common law courts from religious codifications.  The latter permits the common man in scattered g’lut communities to easily determine and shape religious halachic faith.  The RambaN wrote מלחמת השם because he recognized the dire needs of g’lut Jews scattered abroad to have access to clear codes of Jewish ritual religious law.

Sugya integrity defines the substance of all Talmudic common law scholarship.  The Rambam Code destroyed this יסוד, like as does Dof Yomi today.  Sugya integrity has an opening and closing thesis statement.  All points of halacha raised in the body of the sugya must fit somewhere on the sh’itta “line” which connects the dots between the opening thesis statement and the closing restatement of the same thesis statement … משנה תורה.  The opening sugya starts on dof .ב and concludes at dof :ג.  The language of the Mishna which requires a משנה תורה re-interpretation of the original language: האשה נקנית בג’ דרכים וקונה את עצמה בב’ דרכים.

The opening thesis statement: האשה נקנית.  מאי שנא הכא דתני האשה נקנית ו ומה שכתב התם דתני האיש מקדש משום דקא בעי למיתני דתני ה כסף. Compare this to the closing משנה תורה restatement of the Opening thesis statement: מה יבמה שאינה יוצאת בגט יוציא בחליצה קמ”ל. ואימא ה”נ אמר קרא ספר כריתות. ספר כירתה, ואין דבר אחר כורתה Now the question stands: How does the closing thesis statement amplify the opening this statement?
The phrase “A woman is acquired” refers to the legal framework of marriage in Jewish law (halacha). However, it is crucial to understand that this term does not imply that a woman is treated as a commodity or object like a slave or a prostitute. Instead, it reflects the formal legal process of marriage, which involves mutual consent and specific actions.  A Jewish woman is not comparable to a slave or a whore because her acquisition in marriage is based on mutual respect, commitment, and legal obligations. The concept of acquisition in marriage (kiddushin) is fundamentally different from the transactional nature of slavery or prostitution.

Hence the closing thesis statement makes a מאי נפקא מינא separation/distinction between קידושין and חליצה.  These two points establish the sh’itta line of all the rest of the subject matter raised in the body of this the opening Mishna of קידושין.  

Barth argued that God reveals Himself primarily through Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. He emphasized that human understanding of God must come from divine revelation rather than human reason or experience. The horrors of the Nazi Shoah revealed that Goyim worship air and no God. Jesus and his Father in Heaven – as dead as a door nail.

Barth’s obtuse theology distinguished between the “Word of God” (Jesus Christ) and the “words of men” (human interpretations). He believed that true theology must focus on the former, asserting that any human attempt to understand God must be grounded in the revelation of Christ. What utter pie in the sky religious rhetoric nonsense. The bible sophomoric translations of the Hebrew T’NaCH — all written by men. Most of whom had absolutely no or very little knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic – the original language of the Hebrew T’NaCH.

None of the sophomoric bible Xtian translators new the difference between T’NaCH and Talmudic common law from Roman statute law. None of these absolute ignoramuses understood the difference between Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס inductive reasoning from Aristotle’s deductive syllogism reasoning! The two divergent logic formats day and night different. Yet uneducated Xtian translators of their so called “Word of God” bibles as ignorant as bees on the rump of a braying ass.

Barth often contrasted the Pauline utter religious rhetoric theological nonsense of “Human sinfulness (Original Sin of Adam) with God’s grace. Never does his empty religious rhetoric ever question how grace as a Godly attribute revealed to Moshe at Horev distinguishes itself from Mercy or Great Chessed or Truth ect other attributes revealed to Moshe at Horev 40 days after the Sin of the Golden Calf.

Barth’s theology of a Universal God argues that this God owns absolute sovereignty, wholly transcendent. Which completely ignores the Jewish Tribal God revealed only to Israel at Sinai, which the Xtian and Muslim religions utterly rejected that revelation, which understands HaShem as a local tribal God of the Hebrew Chosen Cohen people alone. Outside of Judea/Israel HaShem as a local tribal God has absolutely no sovereignty transcendent rule.

Hence outside of the oath sworn lands no one can worship HaShem לשמה; this represents the Torah curse imposed upon g’lut/exiled Jews. And Goyim who never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – how much more so! Central to Barth’s theology is the belief that all theological reflection must be centered on Christ. This narishkeit exposes Av tumah avoda zarah; Torah defines faith as the righteous pursuit of judicial justice wherein the Sanhedrin common law courts strive to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.

Av tumah avoda zarah promote theological creed rhetoric which dictates what believers must believe in this or that or some other God. Bonhoeffer’s political stance against the Nazis is admirable — he resisted a church that bent its knee to Hitler. But the substance of his theology remained trapped within the very Christian framework of Barth’s bankrupt and void theology. Barth and Bonhoeffer both anchor “truth” in Christology, a theological rhetoric divorced from judicial justice or covenantal precedent. Both preserve Pauline substitution theology (sin/grace, Christ as “Word of God”), which replaces Torah’s oath alliance revelation with mythic universality.

Neither ever engaged in Torah common law precedent vs. Roman statute law — nor did they recognize the practical, courtroom-based definition of faith as צדק צדק תרדוף. Bonhoeffer opposed Nazism, but he did so with bankrupt theological tools. His “religionless Christianity” or “cost of discipleship” never escaped Barth’s fundamental error: mistaking a theological creed for covenantal justice. Even resistance to Nazi tyranny in German Protestant circles still operated inside the false logic of avoda zarah. They never questioned the Pauline framework that itself fed centuries of Jew-hatred, pogroms, blood libels, and ultimately the Shoah.

______________________________

Rubies Corner’s Blog

Rubies Corner’s Blog·rubiescorner.wordpress.com·1h ago

Did I Tell You?

I finished my Bible, and now I am reading it again. I have a goal for this year, so I don’t hesitate to pick up my Bible and read for awhile. Since I just finished, I am starting over….
______________________________
______________________________
You could try learning the Hebrew T’NaCH – a radically different collection of books – rather than reading your Xtian bible translations. The Hebrew T’NaCH has translations, it even includes the non Jewish chapters and verses which so completely pervert the Xtian bible sophomoric translations. What difference does Order make? God vs Dog.

The T’NaCH organized into sugyot (translated as sub-chapters). What difference does this make? The fundamental basis of the Hebrew T’NaCH stands upon a fundamental question. Does a person learn this literature לשמה או לא לשמה? To quote Shakespeare: To be or not to be — That is the question.

Sophomoric bible translations never once bring the Name revealed in the opening Sinai commandment. Because the Xtian church does not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, it worships their own versions of the Golden Calf. טיפש פשט – translated as bird brained – makes literal translations of abstract obstruse ideas of mussar. This latter term, mussar, it defines the meaning of the word “prophesy”. Prophets command mussar. Meaning that this prophetic mussar applies to all generations of bnai brit who ever walk the face of the Earth.

Prophets do not predict the future as the Roman counterfeit new testament: “fulfill the words of the prophets” falsely proclaims. The Torah refers to this concept of “prophesy” which it describes through the “prophet” Bil’aam; that prophet practiced כשוף – witchcraft or sorcery, practices that involve magical or supernatural powers; engaging in Av tuma avoda zarah – forbidden or occult practices forbidden by the 2nd Sinai commandment.

The Roman forgery known as the new testament employs a lot of Greek rhetoric. Greek rhetoric: undefined critical terms upon which a religious or political witch “hangs” all subsequent ideas. Obama in the 2008 election employed the witchcraft rhetoric of “CHANGE”. The key term that won two Presidential elections for him. Problem: never in eight years did he ever once make any attempt to define this magical term “CHANGE”. The Arab false prophet Muhammad did the exact same thing in his Koran.

The word “prophet” repeated over and again and again. Never once does the Koran ever define the abstract obstruse term “prophet”. The new testament projects a definition of the term prophet, as mentioned above, that duplicates the Torah concept of witchcraft – predicting the future. The Hebrew T’NaCH defines prophesy as “MUSSAR”; prophets do not predict the future but rather their mussar applies equally to all generations. The outcome of this critical T’NaCH definition of this absolutely critical term “prophet” … T’NaCH commands prophetic mussar but it does NOT teach history. This subtle shift requires a bit of time to sink in once consciousness.

Another example of religious rhetoric which the new testament forgery employs, the Apostle Paul, its concept of 1. You are not under the Law. 2. Original Sin of Adam, guilt complex employed to serve as the pretext for the death and resurrection of JeZeus. 1. The rhetoric of “law”; T’NaCH defines “law” as Judicial courtroom judgments – as law. Whereas Roman law exists as rules and regulations imposed by Caesar or the Roman Senate. Paul’s rhetoric “not under the law” fails to differentiate between judicial common law vs. legislative statute law. Hence Xtians “read” their bible sophomoric translations oblivious that T’NaCH instructs judicial common law through a Case/Rule style. This latter type of “law” stands upon the foundation of earlier judicial courtroom “precedent” rulings. Statute law has not such requirement which would force a person to write a ‘legal brief’ and present possible similar and related court room ruling made prior to the current case heard before the Court. The subtle distinction that comes out of making a comparison of similar Case/Rule judicial judgments – the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev which rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah defines as פרדס p’shat remiz drosh sod.

This logic system format radically different from Aristotle’s 3 part Syllogism. Akiva’s logic format – inductive reason; whereas Aristotle’s methodology deductive reasoning. Both systems of logic have their strengths and weaknesses. But Paul’s religious rhetoric: “You are not under the Law”, obliterated any and all distinctions which separate common law from statute law and inductive logic from deductive logic.

The other Pauline term of religious rhetoric: Original Sin. It implies that humanity inherits guilt from Adam’s transgression. The church amplified this concept into a Fire and brimstone Heaven/Hell God/Satan polarity, which later developed into Calvin’s doctrine of complete Human depravity. Based upon the presumption of Paul’s “Original Sin”. Meaning: that the will of fallen Man enslaved in bondage to sin, and individuals cannot exercise free will as their “Moses” liberator who leads the enslaved church to salvation. Herein the requirement for the resurrection of JeZeus. Central to Calvin’s theology, the doctrine of predestination, defines his religious rhetoric. This Golden Calf replacement theology subsumes the Torah Central theme of “the Chosen Cohen People who do service to HaShem through the dedication of tohor middot” to the replacement church which believes in a false messiah JeZeus. The latter term refers to the 13 Attributes which became revealed to Moshe on Yom Kippur 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב/mixed multitudes replaced the Divine Presence Spirit Name with the word אלהים. The 13 attributes, they define the revelation of the Written Torah at Sinai. How?

These 13 “middot” (translated as measurements) breath as living Spirits from within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart. Air comes from the lungs but tohor spirits come from the heart. Hence the Talmud refers to tefillah as a “matter of the heart”. Whereas the book of the gospel John declares that the Logos/word – not just a spoken word but also a principle of order and knowledge. It refers to JeZeus as the pre-existent divine being. Logos/word rhetoric salad asserts “the Word was God” which establishes the belief in the full divinity of JeZeus.

The revelation of the Golden Calf rejects substitute theology as the definition of Av tuma (evil inclination spirits within the heart called Yatrir Ha’Rah) of avoda zarah (often mistranslated as idolatry). Therefore then how does the Hebrew T’NaCH “study” rather than simply read Common law (משנה תורה)? The first book of בראשית introduces Av tohor mitzvot – known as time-oriented commandments. The next three books of the Written Torah introduce secondary commandments (תולדות) which function as legal precedents. The last 5th book of the Torah (משנה תורה) confirms the mandate of judicial common law as ‘Legislative Review’. Meaning the common law Sanhedrin courts have not only a veto over lower government statute laws but can entirely re-write the lower government statute law and present them now as Torah common laws.

In short, Paul’s religious rhetoric of “Original Sin” supplanted the main Torah theme of exile/g’lut as expressed through Adam’s expusion from the Garden, Noach’s Ark, the enslavement of Israel in Egypt, and the 40 year Wilderness story.