The Torah apparent contradiction reflects different contexts and legal frameworks within the Torah common law legal system. Sh’mote 20:5 refers to a key concept of the oath brit accepted at Sinai; Torah curses based upon the 10 plagues Par’o and Egypt endured. A direct fundamental Torah commandment for all Jews to remember the judicial injustice which the Egyptian slavery eternally recalls within the hearts of the chosen people who alone accept the Torah revelation to this day.

The 2nd verse from משנה תורה which Goyim refer to as Deuteronomy, the Greek word meaning “second law,” utterly fails – perhaps purposely attempts to conceal – this Book as meaning “Common Law”. The Hebrew name, contained within the very language of this Book משנה תורה mandates powers of “Legislative Review” to the Great Sanhedrin Federal Court in Jerusalem.

In rabbinic literature, this issue – addressed extensively. For instance, the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (a midrash on Sh’mote) and later commentators like Rashi interpret Devarim 24:16 as applying specifically to human courts and judicial proceedings, where individual accountability, enforced without intergenerational punishment. This leaves room for divine judgment, as in Shmot 20:5, to operate on a broader, providential level—potentially through natural consequences of sin rippling across generations, or only when descendants continue in those sins. Targum Onkelos, explicitly qualifies the verse by adding that punishment falls on “rebellious children” who “follow their fathers in sinning,” a reading echoed in Rashi’s commentary to avoid grammatical or theological strain. Similarly, some rabbinic sources distinguish between intentional rebellion against G-d (where collective impact might apply) and other transgressions, viewing the texts as complementary rather than conflicting.

The Xtian framers of their “Old Testament” substitute theology and revisionist history prioritize belief in theology as religious faith rather than the Torah vision only for the chosen Cohen people who alone accept the revelation of the Torah; faith defined as the righteous pursuit of judicial Sanhedrin court room common law justice which has the power to not only veto laws imposed by Executive Authority/Powers such as a king, but re-write that statute law based upon precedents established court-room Common law.

A proof precedent gleaned from the separate Goyim NT which has no portion nor shared authority with the Hebrew T’NaCH, their Apostle Paul declared to Goyim: “they are not under the Law” in Galatians 3:24; he claimed that Goyim belief in the NT false messiah JeZeus had replaced the law. This declaration has no legal Torah precedent. In point of fact, halachic common law as codified in the Talmud, based upon the Torah mandate which establishes Sanhedrin Federal common law courtrooms has jurisdiction only when Jews rule the oath sworn lands with political Independence. This condition did not exist in the lifetime of the NT Apostle Paul who lived during Roman rule and occupation of Judea. Furthermore Paul’s writings fail to distinguish the day vs. night obvious differences – gulf – which separates Torah common law from Roman Statute Law.

Galatians 3:24: Paul’s distinction that Goyim are “not under the Law” introduces a theological shift that many believe undermines the continuity with Jewish law. His perspective arose during the tensions of Roman rule, impacting the context of his writings. By juxtaposing Galatians 3:24 against Romans 6:14: “not under the Law but under grace”, Paul switches the narrative away from Torah common law courts to a Xtian theology/religious belief system. Where the Church prioritizes “Grace” – the 5th Oral Torah revelation at Horev to Moshe on Yom Kippur 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf where assimilated and intermarried Israelites “substituted” the word-name אלהים for the Holy Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai Commandment.

The revelation of the Torah at Sinai forever separates the Divine Names earlier employed in the Book of בראשית/Genesis. Those Divine Names such as אל, האל, אלהים, אל שדי express a vision of God in the Heavens. Whereas the Sinai revelation permanently changes this narrative לא בשמים היא that the spirits of the Divine Presence revelation as further clarified and defined by the 13 Oral Torah middot revelation where Grace functions as the 5th attribute of the Holy Spirit Name revealed at Sinai! Acceptance of the revelation of the Torah caused these 13 tohor Divine Spirits to live within the Yatzir Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people alone for all eternity.

The NT by stark contrast JeZeus instructs his disciples to pray to “their father in heaven”. While the Pauline theology’s substitute theology replaces Torah common law faith unto Grace & JeZeus as messiah. This substitution of religious theology for Torah common law courts radically shifts the narrative – on par with the Aramaic declaration “Abracadabra”, where a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat! The later Church priests declared the Oral Torah as non existent while declaring Xtian believers under Grace and not under Law. An obviously absurd declaration seeing that all societies and civilizations without law fall into chaos anarchy Tower of Bavel like Civil War.

The Oral Torah 13 middot serve to define the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment which affixes the life of this Holy Spirit within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the chosen Cohen people living on this Earth and not in the Heavens as the prayer of JeZeus instructs his believers how to pray.

Heaven and Earth separates Torah judicial justice as faith where the middot Spirits of HaShem live within the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people who live on this Earth, from church theological substitution beliefs that JeZeus sits on Mt Olympus together with his Father in Heaven. A gulf so huge that only Jefferson’s Constitutional First Amendment which separates Church from State – even remotely comparable! Jefferson’s principle emphasizes that governance should not be unduly influenced or dictated by religious doctrine, similar to how Jewish practice operates within its own legal and ethical framework, independent of external theologies.

Bottom line: Torah judicial common law only applicable to when Torah blessings cause Israel to stand as an Independent nation, such as the two Wars of Independence fought in 1948 and again in 1967 achieved. G’lut exiled Jewry – despised refugee populations scattered across the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe past Russia – Christ Killer Cain Jews – have no rights nor authority to impose judicial common law courts, and even less authority to have prophets enforce those judicial rulings through prophetic mussar in any foreign land where Goyim despise and abhor Jews as sub-humans only fit for Shoah extermination.

The Jewish legal tradition is built on din, middah k’neged middah judicial authority of justice. Xtianity historically framed Jews through theological polemic, supersessionism, and later political power. The brit at Sinai binds Israel, not humanity. Torah law not a NT revisionist history universal religion. Torah as Constitutional law draws a sharp border boundary beween theological av tuma avoda zarah.

Xtian theology, from its earliest layers, contains supersessionist ancient Greek static deductive logic and actually denies Talmudic inductive logic as existing at all! Their poemic “Old Covenant” portrayed as replaced and fulfilled. The Jewish people are reinterpreted as spiritually obsolete. The authority of Torah law, Xtian rhetoric propaganda frames as bondage or curse. The Church becomes the new Israel. This substitute replacement theology along with its false messiah JeZeus – embedded in the foundational texts of its foreign alien traditions – Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Mormon etc. Enshrined through Roman imperial Xtianity, medieval canon law restrictions, accusations of deicide, forced disputations, expulsions, pogroms, public Talmudic book burnings, three Century Ghetto-gulag war crimes, all of which served as precedents for the Xtian Europe Shoah.

The gulf between Torah jurisprudence and Xtian theology is so vast that only a Jeffersonian separation of church and state is comparable. Xtianity – a universal salvific theology. A gross lie to declare this av tuma Torah abomination of avoda zara as “a daughter religion”. This same din equally applies to the av tuma Koran abomination of avoda zarah.

Torah = constitution, law, national identity, land, courts, sovereignty. The latter day Goyim religions = belief, salvation, universalism, metaphysics, grace, false prophesy. The latter exist on a completely different separate axis than does Constitutional law first established through the Torah and later through the current Constitution of the United States. Herein explains why Paul’s statements about “not being under the Law”, not merely theological disagreements — they represent a complete redefinition of what “common law,” “Torah brit which eternally creates through wisdom commandment/time oriented mitzvot,” and “faith” even mean.

Torah judicial common law only functions when Israel rules in sovereign national Independence. Xtian theology developed when the Romans had utterly destroyed and up rooted Jews living in Judea and scattered across the face of the Planet – starting with the non Jew Herod appointed as king over Judea.

Better to exist as Herod’s dog than be a violently murdered son or wife of that maniac. Post Shoah the power dynamic reversed, Xtianity wears the shoes of exile; the EU when it attempted to write a Constitution made not a single reference to the church which formed and shaped Xtiandom from Constatine till Pope Pius XII ally and partner of Hitler.

Justice in Torah simply and only juridical, Constitutional, and reciprocal—rooted in concrete obligations, not abstract theological Creed based belief systems. If justice – blind, a famous metaphor, then Judges who prioritize their “Ego I” over “eye witness testimony” directly “fulfill” to the Torah negative commandment against bribery.

False prophet attempts to include all Humanity in the Sinai revelation which all Goyim to this very day absolutely and most fundamentally reject – they define the k’vanna of the Golden Calf as it “Universally” applies to all Man Kind. Canon law as alien to Torah common law as the two false prophet based “Daughter Religions”. Both theological belief systems stand now in exile post Shoah.

UN blood libel slanders which unilaterally declare dhimmi Arab stateless refugees post the Arab defeats in 1948 and 1967; which attempt to determine the borders of the Jewish state as if it remained a League of Nations protectorate territory; nations who presume that they have the right to determine the Capital City of the Jewish state as well as a non existent Palestinian people and state as vile and corrupt as the blood libels and host desecrations slanders of the Middle Ages. Both the ’48 & ’67 Wars Arab leaders vowed to throw the Jews into the Sea and complete the Nazi Shoah!

The statement that classical Judaism does not assert that the Divine Presence dwells exclusively in Jews, but inclusive to Goyim as well. Ontologically (A branch of metaphysics philosophy which addresses the nature of being, existence, and the reality of entities.) Goyim excluded from the Torah oath-brit – simply because the Talmud instructs that both Esau and Yishmael refused to accept the Torah. The assimilated and addicted to Greek philosophy, no different from the Tzeddukim during the Hanukkah Civil War, the post sealing of the Sha’s Bavli, Spanish Reshonim – Rambam at their head – ruled that mesechta Sanhedrin aggadic portion 56–59, and Avodah Zarah 64b – Gere toshav operable only when the Yovel in force. The Sha’s Bavli written and compiled after the Roman destruction and exile of Jews from Judea. The Romans renamed that captured province “Palestine”. The Rambam statute law code by contrast ruled that the Talmudic language “bnai Noach” applied Universally to all Goyim – based upon his avoda zara belief that the revelation of HaShem at Sinai – an Allah Universal God. Consequently Rambam erroneously ruled that Jews could daven in Mosques!

Violation of the 7 mitzvot by “gere toshav” residents qualifies as a Talmudic Capital Crime which requires a Sanhedrin Court to impose the death penalty upon such a criminal. Obviously since the Sanhedrin court only has jurisdiction restricted to the borders of an Independent Jewish state in Judea, then the 7 mitzvot bnai noach cannot and do not apply Universally as the Rambam erroneously poskined.

An Israeli today, who commits a capital-offense: not bound by that Sanhedrin common law because the vision of Zionism has yet to mature and inspire a commitment to restoration of Sanhedrin common law courts as the “LAW” of the land. A Jew today can publicly chilul Shabbat without any legal obligations. The language of Rambam (Hil. Melakhim 8:11), resembles that of the Apostle Paul! Greek metaphysics concealed like a wolf dressed in sheep clothing.

Modern legal positivism – sovereignty based theories of law – closely resembles the vision of Talmudic common law courts; to serve as the model when Jews reconquer our homelands from the Goyim. G’lut beit din courts fail to delegate on of the three judges as prosecutor another as defence where both present opposing Talmudic common law precedents, a debates as which precedent qualify as closer to the current case heard before “this” ideal g’lut Torts court of damages. The aggadic story of Noach no more binding upon Goyim today than aggada determines halachah. Only the Rambam among Reshonim scholars held that aggadita determines halacha. The Rambam opinion which argues that Islam denies corporeality, & multiplicity in divinity – absolute narishkeit. Montheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment based upon the 10 plagues which judged the Gods of Egypt and the sworn oath cut at Sh’Cem prior to the wars to conquer the kingdoms of Canaan who worshipped still other and different God like Baal.

The Ramban in his commentary to the Chumash, Vayikra 18:25 and related passages (also Devarim 11:18), ruled that g’lut Jews only do mitzvot to remember that Torah mitzvot once existed. The first Sinai commandment, the language of Egypt describes all g’lut – in all generations. Henceforth g’lut Jews cannot observe the Torah לשמה, because they remain yet in “Egypt”. Mitzvot in galut merely & only rehearsed, so as not to forget. Hence Judaism replacement theology prioritizes religion no different than does Xtian and Muslim theologies.

Only while living in the oath sworn brit lands can Jews achieve National Independence and dedicate to rule these lands with righteous judicial justice, policed by prophetic mussar לשמה. The brit of blessings opposed by the brit of curses serves as the obligatory “book-ends” of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

The slide unto assimilation and intermarriage defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment, based upon the NaCH Book of Kings and Book of Ezra. The Rambam Greek metaphysical claim, not only not jurisdictional which the Torah requires, but worse! The Zohar kabbalah language of Shechina, bases itself upon the משל\נמשל revelation of the Mishkan which separates forms from substance. The substance of the Mishkan, that the tohor Oral Torah spirits define the Spirit first Commandment Name, and that these tohor spirits live only within the hearts of the Chosen Cohen people. The Rambam’s spirituality which makes the 7 mitzvot bnai noach aggadah applicable to all Goyim duplicates the Pauline propaganda rhetoric which did the exact same thing.

Ramban holds mitzvot in galut are only rehearsal. כדי שלא יהיו עלינו חדשים כשנחזור לארץ Therefore they are not truly לשמה because the curse of g’lut slaves can neither own property or rules as independent judges. G’lut courtrooms exist as vertical courts rather than Torah horizontal courts.

G’lut-Judaism transformed into “religion”, consequent to the collapses of the Roman road system and fear from robbers. As a consequence, virtually all inter-state travel ceased. Scattered Jewish communities, required a simplified version which clearly defined Jewish culture and customs to prevent Jewish assimilation and intermarriage. The Ramban in his מלחמת השם challenges the Baal Ha-Maor precisely on this need which justified the Rif codification of halacha.

The Rambam statute halachic code utterly rejected the B’HaG and Rif common law halachic codes which mirrored the Talmud as common law judicial Gemara halacha as legal precedent to interpret the language of the Mishna based upon different perspectives of courtroom eyewitness testimony. Hence, his alien Greek/Roman statute law code embraced Pauline and Islamic Universalism of Monotheistic Gods and abandoned the local Sinai god, as well as the compound “SIN” – the Rambam’s philosophy as recorded in his Moreh embraced Greek metaphysics just as his legal statute law code totally abandoned T’NaCH and Talmudic common law.

In point of fact, the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot limits Torah commandments to the טיפש פשט literal reading of the words of the Chumash as Torah commandments. This negates the revelation of the Oral Torah at Sinai on par with the Karaim and Tzeddukim. Wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot clearly inclusive of Talmudic halachic mitzvot as דאורייתא. His Yad code abomination destroys the warp/weft fabric of halacha\aggada through his absolute failure to include his sources of where his Gemara halachic rulings re-interpret the language of a precise and specific Mishna. The common law codes by stark contrast ALWAYS include the Primary Source Mishna. The later down stream commentaries thereafter likewise showed how Gemara halachic rulings make a משנה תורה – changed witness perspective which views the language of the Home Mishna from a completely different “facet” viewpoint.

An example of the Rambam טיפש פשט narishkeit stupidity. The Rambam in his introduction 14 shorashim whereby he defines what defines mitzvot as דאורייתא, he rebukes the B’HaG ruling that tefillah a Torah commandment! Yet in his 5th positive commandment he contradicts himself and rules that the mitzva of tefillah qualifies as a mitzva from the Torah. The Ramban conclusively proves that the language of the Shemone Esrei “tefillah” as דרבנן. What both Reshonim failed to grasp, that the first Mishna of ברכות teaches that kre’a shma – the mitzva of tefilla דאורייתא.

Another example: the mitzva of tefillen required to swear the Torah oath of kre’a shma. Tefilla requires swearing a Torah oath just as does the mitzva of קידושין another rabbinic commandment that if elevated to a wisdom commandment time-oriented mitzva makes an aliya to דאורייתא. The Reshonim failed to explicitly validate kre’a shma as tefillah from the Torah as they equally failed to emphasize the k’vanna of the Rashi tefillen affixed to the מקום קבועה of the oath sworn at Gilgal; while the Order of the Rabbeinu Tam tefillen affixed remembering the oath sworn at Sh’Cem. T’shuva requires remembering and not repentance for sin as Xtian avoda zara declares. The precedent for the Torah commandment for t’shuva, on Yom Kippur Jews “remember” that Moshe reminded HaShem of his oaths sworn to the Avot that they and they alone would father the chosen Cohen people.

The Baali Tosafot ruled that wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot acquire full de’oraita status when performed with proper k’vanna (e.g., tefillah as d’oraita via kavanah, on Berachot 13a). The Rambam largely erases this critical nuance with his flat static halachic rulings, such as tefillin and tefillah. His code destroyed the facet-shifting logic of Mishna → Gemara → Mishneh Torah that mirrors courtroom precedent, as seen from the statute law super commentaries written thereafter. The impact effect: Rambam “flattens” the warp/weft of halacha/aggadah, converting the oath brit sworn obligations, procedural Talmudic fabric into a linear statute-like Greek/Roman code.

One of the most direct and striking statements appears in Rashi’s commentary on Leviticus 25:38 “I am the Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be God to you”. Rashi explains, drawing from Torat Kohanim and Ketubot 110b sources, that whoever resides in Eretz Yisrael has God as their God in a direct, intimate sense, while whoever leaves the land of Israel is as if they worship idols (כְּמִי שֶׁעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה) – based upon the first Sinai commandment. Jews in g’lut have effectively returned to Egypt. A direct violation of the first Sinai commandment.

The Torah oath brit entails Blessings or Curses. ויקרא יח:כח and פרק כ employ the mussar “vomits out”. Kre’a Shma ערבית, this wisdom commandment/time-oriented mitzva – specifically accepts Torah curses as part of the yoke of Heaven. ויקרא כו:לג Israel scattered like barley through a sieve, preventing mutual comfort. Rashi’s view aligns with classical sources, while portraying leaving as a grave spiritual risk. A core theme in his Torah commentary.

Baali Tosafot, the grand-children of Rashi, primarily 12th–13th centuries. On Ketubot 110b which addresses the Mishna’s rules on coercing aliyah, the prohibition against leaving it, and the non-neutral nature of curse g’lut or even temporary departure. The core Talmudic passage in Ketubot 110b states that all may force family members to ascend to Eretz Yisrael (but none may force them to leave), and spouses can compel each other to move there or remain, with refusal potentially leading to divorce without ketubah payment. This reflects the mitzvah’s gravity: dwelling in the land enables a fuller divine relationship.

Living in chutz la-aretz invalidates: 110b: one who lives in Eretz Yisrael, if he has a God. G’lut likened to having no God or even to idolatry (“ke-ilu oved avodah zarah”). Tosafot’s commentary highlights that leaving the land—severs optimal mitzvah fulfillment (especially mitzvot ha-teluyot ba-aretz like terumah, ma’aser, and shemittah), and exposes one to the spiritual dangers of avoda zara—the 2nd Sinai commandment.

Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen (a prominent Tosafist), who held that nowadays there is no mitzvah to dwell in Eretz Yisrael, because many land-dependent mitzvot exist with associated severe punishments (e.g., for improper terumah/ma’aser observance), and people cannot reliably guard against them amid g’lut hardships and lack of full Torah infrastructure. These problems do not exist today.

Rabbeinu Chaim represents a minority Tosafot opinion. On par with the Smag, (another baali tosafot) who based his halachic code upon the order of Rambam’s Sefer Ha-Mitzvot. The Tosafot records it to explain why coercion no longer applies practically. The French school of Talmudic common law does not negate the ideal or eternal value of yishuv ha-aretz. They affirm the Talmudic ideal: leaving (or staying out) carries spiritual peril, akin to distancing from God. The exceptions (temporary departure for Torah study, marriage, or rescue from danger/property loss, as per Talmudic sources) remain narrow concessions, not permissions for casual or permanent g’lut.

Rashba (Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet, c. 1235–1310), (he lived in Barcelona Spain), one of the foremost halakhic authorities of medieval Spain (known as the Rashba), addresses the gravity of leaving Eretz Yisrael in his vast collection of responsa (Teshuvot ha-Rashba). His writings reflect and reinforce the classical view that permanent or casual departure from the land is spiritually perilous and generally forbidden, except in narrowly defined dire or necessary circumstances.

Rashba aligns closely with the Talmudic sources (e.g., Ketubot 110b–111a, Avodah Zarah 13a, Bava Batra 91a–b). He emphasizes that dwelling in Eretz Yisrael is tied to the highest levels of divine closeness, mitzvah observance (especially those dependent on the land), and national destiny. Leaving exposes one to spiritual degradation, akin to the Talmudic statement that “whoever dwells outside the land is as if he has no God” (Ketubot 110b).

Departure, especially for settlement abroad, is viewed as a serious breach. It severs one from the land’s inherent holiness and the mitzvot ha-teluyot ba-aretz, most essentially encapsulated in the First Sinai commandment לשמה. Rashba echoes the idea (seen in sources like Rashbam on Bava Batra 91b, which he influences) that leaving actively removes oneself from these obligations, diminishing one’s spiritual stature. Choosing to go into g’lut on a regel no different than all other mitzvot ha-teluyot ba-aretz.

Rashba permits temporary departure only for compelling, limited reasons, always with the intention to return. Classical allowances he upholds (drawing from Talmud include:

to study Torah, to marry based upon the story of Yaacov, to rescue property or oneself from death, based upon David fleeing to Gath. Business or livelihood, but only temporarily and not for permanent relocation.

Even when allowed, these concessions to necessity in no way shape or form qualify as an ideal. Rashba would view unnecessary absence as spiritually risky, potentially leading to assimilation, weakened observance, or loss of the land’s elevating influence. His rulings reflect the post-Talmudic consensus: the land is the optimal environment for Jewish spiritual and moral flourishing; leaving it—even temporarily without justification—carries grave implications, while only dire straits (persecution, famine, essential Torah/marriage needs) justify exceptions, always with return as the goal.

Rabbinic tradition does not summarize Tehillim 33 as “God’s sovereignty” in the abstract. Divine Providence (השגחה) over Israel alone through the brit of blessings and curses. Other nations stand in the shadow of ancient Egypt. Goyim never to this day accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. They worship Gods in the Heavens, no different than the ancient Greek worship of the Gods on Mt. Olympus. Post the Roman destruction of Judea and conversion to the Xtian form of Monotheism which contrasts with the Muslim absolute Universal God theology – these Goyim worship a Trinity or Tawhid God in Heaven. Both reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai which introduces the Divine Spirit lives in the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people alone. If this Divine Spirit lived in the hearts of Goyim then how could HaShem discern his chosen Cohen people from the non Cohem Goyim like as did HaShem choose the korban of Hevel and rejected the korban of Cain?

Midrash Tehillim 33: God “looks into the deeds of all humanity” and “directs the fate of nations.” The Reshon scholar Radak comments the distinction between hashgacha kelalit (global providence) and hashgacha peratit (individual providence). This comment in alignment with the distinction between the Cain Hevel korbanot.

דבר ה׳ an extremely abstract complex concept that טיפש פשט translations fail to grasp and weigh. Rashi: “The word of Hashem is upright” refers to the Torah and the prophetic promises. Contrasts with the dikduk opinion expressed by Greek assimilated Ibn Ezra from Spain. (Ezra’s son converted to Islam).

Torah absolutely rejects the idea: “The futility of human power without God” as utterly vague and consequently worthless. “God”? Based upon the g’lut realities of Xtian and Muslim Monotheism theology, clearly all but Rabbinic leaders prior to the Rambam held that both Gods worshipped by either Xtians or Muslim not the revelation of the שם השם לשמה first commandment revelation which differentiates between the בראשית vision of אל, האל, אלהים, אל שדי God in the Heavens above and not in the yatzir ha-tov brit hearts below as the post Sinai Torah commands: לא בשמים היא.

Tehillem 33 call to righteous ביטחון – based upon the verb שלום stands upon the foundation of ביטחון/trust. A friend who ‘trusts’ his ally as his brother to guard his back shares no common ground with worship. “Our soul waits for Hashem,” the reference to the First Commandment revelation of the Name validates the vision that HaShem לא בשמים היא. HaShem not a Universal God for all Mankind. Only Israel accepts this revelation of the Sinai oath brit faith.

Tehillim 33:6 – “By the word of Hashem the heavens were made.” This precedent interprets the בראשית Aggadic mussar which instructs that creation refers directly to the נמשל chosen Cohen people created through observance of wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot. Rather than stops at the משל טיפש פשט that simply reads that God created the Universe. The latter fails to discern Av wisdom commandments which require k’vanna and define the korban of Hevel from positive and negative commandments which resemble the korban of Cain which does not require k’vanna.

Isaiah 40:26: God calls the stars out “by name,” another משל\נמשל mussar. Wisdom commandments also commonly referred to as time-oriented commandments – a מלאכה rather than a עבודה. The ancient Greek language cannot and does not discern the subtle distinction which separates the two distinct verbs. Talmud defines understanding as “the discernment between like from like”.

Common labor/עבודה in no wise compares to skilled labor/מלאכה. This latter verb closely resembles the language of מלאך\מלאכים. The reference to “stars” called out by name reflect a fundamental shift where prior to the Bavil g’lut Angels did not have specific particular names whereas post Bavil g’lut the later T’NaCH sources started to refer to Angels with direct names. HaShem sent Moshe described as an Angel to Par’o. Yaacov sent an “angel” to his brother Esau and wrestled with the “angel” of Esau, remembered through the mitzva of not eating the gid ha-nasheh.

Wisdom commandments as a נמשל interpretation can “create” the chosen Cohen people by means of sending מלאכים created by wisdom commandments. Herein the prophetic mussar of Isaiah 40:26. Tehillim 33:10–11 – “Hashem foils the counsel of nations”, supports this key Torah theme. Isaiah 8:10: “Devise a plan, but it will be foiled.” Jeremiah 18:7–10: God reshapes nations based on their moral behavior. Following the Shoah arose Israel from g’lut as an Independent nation to the absolute chagrin of England and Europe.

Tehillim 33:13–15 “From heaven He observes all humankind”, follows this central theme. In similar vein Proverbs 15:3: “The eyes of Hashem are everywhere”, and Job 34:21: “His eyes are upon a man’s ways”. Tehillim 33:16–17 “A king is not saved by his army”, likewise interprets the blessing/curse Torah brit. The strength of a horse can do nothing to stop the plague of Torah curses when our people assimilate and intermarry with Goyim and therein worship other Gods. Zechariah 4:6: “Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit”, and Hosea 1:7: God saves “not by bow or sword” likewise validates the Torah blessing/curse oath brit.

Tehillim 33 appears in some Jewish communities in Kabbalat Shabbat – the Av wisdom commandment which discerns repeatedly מלאכה מלאכה מלאכה. The Ashkenazic Pesukei d’Zimra introduces the distinction between a ברכה מן השבח; the former opens with ברוך שאמר which contains שם ומלכות. Tehillim, for example, all lack שם ומלכות. The central k’vanna of the Siddur absolutely requires that for a person to sanctify any wisdom commandment that that person possess the “chosen” eye which discerns that ברכות as תולדות follow the “fear of heaven” required to swear a Torah oath. Whereas a שבח, contrasts to ברכות by remembering that HaShem rejected the First-born Cain’s korban as but an unworthy “barbeque to heaven”/no k’vanna mitzva. This rejection of a korban lacking k’vanna compares to HaShem and the rejection of king Shaul as Moshiach after he failed to sanctify the time-oriented commandment to kill Amalek.

Selected Verses of Selichot likewise hold portions of Tehillim 33. This Tehillem no superscription “Of David,” etc. The Talmud instructs that a Torah sages merits greater respect than a king. Any person of Israel can rule the nation as King. Moshe first anointed the House of Aaron as “king”. Shmuel first anointed Shaul as “king”. The chosen first Cohen born not determined by order of birth טיפש פשט. A Torah sage 1:10,000. Hence the Torah sage merits respect whereas arrogant and foolish “kings” through their assimilation and intermarriage filled the land with oppression and injustice as did Par’o in Egypt.

Rabbinic tradition does not summarize Tehillim 33 as “God’s sovereignty” in the abstract. Divine Providence (השגחה) over Israel alone through the brit of blessings and curses. Other nations stand in the shadow of ancient Egypt. Goyim never to this day accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. They worship Gods in the Heavens, no different than the ancient Greek worship of the Gods on Mt. Olympus. Post the Roman destruction of Judea and conversion to the Xtian form of Monotheism which contrasts with the Muslim absolute Universal God theology – these Goyim worship a Trinity or Tawhid God in Heaven. Both reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai which introduces the Divine Spirit lives in the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people alone. If this Divine Spirit lived in the hearts of Goyim then how could HaShem discern his chosen Cohen people from the non Cohem Goyim like as did HaShem choose the korban of Hevel and rejected the korban of Cain?

Midrash Tehillim 33: God “looks into the deeds of all humanity” and “directs the fate of nations.” The Reshon scholar Radak comments the distinction between hashgacha kelalit (global providence) and hashgacha peratit (individual providence). This comment in alignment with the distinction between the Cain Hevel korbanot.

דבר ה׳ an extremely abstract complex concept that טיפש פשט translations fail to grasp and weigh. Rashi: “The word of Hashem is upright” refers to the Torah and the prophetic promises. Contrasts with the dikduk opinion expressed by Greek assimilated Ibn Ezra from Spain. (Ezra’s son converted to Islam).

Torah absolutely rejects the idea: “The futility of human power without God” as utterly vague and consequently worthless. “God”? Based upon the g’lut realities of Xtian and Muslim Monotheism theology, clearly all but Rabbinic leaders prior to the Rambam held that both Gods worshipped by either Xtians or Muslim not the revelation of the שם השם לשמה first commandment revelation which differentiates between the בראשית vision of אל, האל, אלהים, אל שדי God in the Heavens above and not in the yatzir ha-tov brit hearts below as the post Sinai Torah commands: לא בשמים היא.

Tehillem 33 call to righteous ביטחון – based upon the verb שלום stands upon the foundation of ביטחון/trust. A friend who ‘trusts’ his ally as his brother to guard his back shares no common ground with worship. “Our soul waits for Hashem,” the reference to the First Commandment revelation of the Name validates the vision that HaShem לא בשמים היא. HaShem not a Universal God for all Mankind. Only Israel accepts this revelation of the Sinai oath brit faith.

Tehillim 33:6 – “By the word of Hashem the heavens were made.” This precedent interprets the בראשית Aggadic mussar which instructs that creation refers directly to the נמשל chosen Cohen people created through observance of wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot. Rather than stops at the משל טיפש פשט that simply reads that God created the Universe. The latter fails to discern Av wisdom commandments which require k’vanna and define the korban of Hevel from positive and negative commandments which resemble the korban of Cain which does not require k’vanna.

Isaiah 40:26: God calls the stars out “by name,” another משל\נמשל mussar. Wisdom commandments also commonly referred to as time-oriented commandments – a מלאכה rather than a עבודה. The ancient Greek language cannot and does not discern the subtle distinction which separates the two distinct verbs. Talmud defines understanding as “the discernment between like from like”.

Common labor/עבודה in no wise compares to skilled labor/מלאכה. This latter verb closely resembles the language of מלאך\מלאכים. The reference to “stars” called out by name reflect a fundamental shift where prior to the Bavil g’lut Angels did not have specific particular names whereas post Bavil g’lut the later T’NaCH sources started to refer to Angels with direct names. HaShem sent Moshe described as an Angel to Par’o. Yaacov sent an “angel” to his brother Esau and wrestled with the “angel” of Esau, remembered through the mitzva of not eating the gid ha-nasheh.

Wisdom commandments as a נמשל interpretation can “create” the chosen Cohen people by means of sending מלאכים created by wisdom commandments. Herein the prophetic mussar of Isaiah 40:26. Tehillim 33:10–11 – “Hashem foils the counsel of nations”, supports this key Torah theme. Isaiah 8:10: “Devise a plan, but it will be foiled.” Jeremiah 18:7–10: God reshapes nations based on their moral behavior. Following the Shoah arose Israel from g’lut as an Independent nation to the absolute chagrin of England and Europe.

Tehillim 33:13–15 “From heaven He observes all humankind”, follows this central theme. In similar vein Proverbs 15:3: “The eyes of Hashem are everywhere”, and Job 34:21: “His eyes are upon a man’s ways”. Tehillim 33:16–17 “A king is not saved by his army”, likewise interprets the blessing/curse Torah brit. The strength of a horse can do nothing to stop the plague of Torah curses when our people assimilate and intermarry with Goyim and therein worship other Gods. Zechariah 4:6: “Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit”, and Hosea 1:7: God saves “not by bow or sword” likewise validates the Torah blessing/curse oath brit.

Tehillim 33 appears in some Jewish communities in Kabbalat Shabbat – the Av wisdom commandment which discerns repeatedly מלאכה מלאכה מלאכה. The Ashkenazic Pesukei d’Zimra introduces the distinction between a ברכה מן השבח; the former opens with ברוך שאמר which contains שם ומלכות. Tehillim, for example, all lack שם ומלכות. The central k’vanna of the Siddur absolutely requires that for a person to sanctify any wisdom commandment that that person possess the “chosen” eye which discerns that ברכות as תולדות follow the “fear of heaven” required to swear a Torah oath. Whereas a שבח, contrasts to ברכות by remembering that HaShem rejected the First-born Cain’s korban as but an unworthy “barbeque to heaven”/no k’vanna mitzva. This rejection of a korban lacking k’vanna compares to HaShem and the rejection of king Shaul as Moshiach after he failed to sanctify the time-oriented commandment to kill Amalek.

Selected Verses of Selichot likewise hold portions of Tehillim 33. This Tehillem no superscription “Of David,” etc. The Talmud instructs that a Torah sages merits greater respect than a king. Any person of Israel can rule the nation as King. Moshe first anointed the House of Aaron as “king”. Shmuel first anointed Shaul as “king”. The chosen first Cohen born not determined by order of birth טיפש פשט. A Torah sage 1:10,000. Hence the Torah sage merits respect whereas arrogant and foolish “kings” through their assimilation and intermarriage filled the land with oppression and injustice as did Par’o in Egypt.

The Torah and NaCH prophets learn from the 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe at Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf – Av tuma avoda zara – where assimilated and intermarried (ערב רב) Israelites translated the “word” אלהים as a replacement for the revelation of the שם השם לשמה; this replacement of a word which the lips of Man can pronounce with the Divine Presence (רוח הקודש) Spirit critically defines the Sin of the Golden Calf as the worship of “idolatry”.

Meaning all other Divine Names first introduced in the Book of בראשית, such as אל האל, אלהים, אל שדי etc., they all refer to the vision of a God in the Heavens above – by words; based upon the premise that the Torah speaks in the language of Man. However the Sinai revelation changed this spirituality unto the revelation of the שם השם לשמה who lives within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the chosen Cohen people in this Earth below, through the רוח הקודש Divine Presence Spirits expressed through Oral Torah middot-chords … just as the משל “form” of the Mishkan-Sinai revelation teaches the mussar of the נמשל “substance” that the שם השם לשמה permanently resides upon the Earth below and not the Heavens above. דכתיב: דברים ל:יב – לא בשמים היא.

The Torah and NaCH prophets learn from the 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe at Horev – following the sin of the Golden Calf avoda zara where assimilated and intermarried (ערב רב שאין להם יראת אלהים) Israelites translated the “word” אלהים vision of God in the Heavens above, as a replacement for the revelation of the שם השם לשמה Spirit that permanently lives only in the oath sworn land inheritance brit cut with Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov’s chosen Cohen seed within the Canaan inheritance through Torah oath alliances. Meaning all other Divine Names first introduced in the Book of בראשית refer to the vision of a God in the Heavens above. The Sinai revelation changed this spirituality, just as did the redemption of Israel from Egyptian g’lut/exile slavery, unto the revelation of the שם השם לשמה who lives within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the chosen Cohen people in this Earth below. Still another Sinai metaphor – just as the משל “form” of the Mishkan Sinai revelation teaches this identical mussar נמשל “substance”, that the שם השם לשמה permanently resides upon the Earth below and not the Heavens above. דכתיב: דברים ל:יב – לא בשמים היא. All Goyim in all generations have rejected and invalidated this the revelation of the Torah at Sinai through their av tuma avoda zara counter revelation substitute theologies.

Both the NT and the Koran exist as permanent examples of spiritual Goyim replacement theologies and revisionist history which endeavors to substitute their God Names like as did the Golden Calf replaced the word אלהים for the Divine Presence 1st Commandment revelation Spirit Name. This local tribal god, which only Israel accepted (to this day) at Sinai following the 10 plagues and splitting of the Sea of Reeds in Egypt; botho theological Universal Monotheistic God(s) belief systems replaced the revelation of Torah common law pursuit of justice within the borders of the oath sworn Canaan inheritance lands sworn to the Avot fathers of the chosen Cohen nation.

Both the Av tuma avoda zara theological belief system substitutes for man to rule its people with righteous judicial common law Sanhedrin Capital & Torts courtroom – but rather re-defined through much later Nicene Creed declaration made following Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Xtianity. Which only thereafter equated Jesus as the messiah for not only Israel but all Mankind; together with a totally new Trinity God-Head, who brings salvation from Adam’s original sin, according to the letters written by the Apostle Paul; or the Muslim Tawhid al-Rububiyyah (Oneness of Lordship) revisionist substitute theology which proclaims: Allah as the sole creator, sustainer, and controller of the Universe & Muhammad as the last of the prophets.

[Prophets, according solely to the Koran, sent to all Man kind; these prophets speak in the native tongues, (Perhaps based upon the Gospels originally written in Greek.), to the people that Allah sends them to warn]. Regardless, that both Moshe and Yonah spoke only in Hebrew – the language spoken by the chosen Cohen brit oath alliance seed of the Avot; the mussar of Yonah directed toward g’lut-exiled Israel, uprooted from Samaria to remember/t’shuva the oaths sworn to the Avot, that only they – and the Jesus false messiah or Yishmael, would father the chosen Cohen people.

The vast gulf which separates the Koran, first revealed about 610 CE (something like the Zohar after the burning of the Talmud in Paris 1242 CE), from the Sinai revelation – approximately 1446 BCE. The Koran glosses over – the now irrelevant Torah Akadah narrative; similar to the Xtian Bible “Old Testament” fashion; which likewise written in Goyim languages, equally invalidates the Hebrew T’NaCH. While the Gospels declare prophets no different than witch fortune tellers who do not require crystal balls; the Koran prioritizes the notion that the Arabs were the last nation to receive their “prophet” – Muhammad. Neither replacement theology validates the Torah vision that prophets command mussar alone, strictly and only to all generations of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov – living within the borders of the oath sworn Cohen Canaan permanent land inheritance.

The Aggadic portions throughout the Talmud turn to the “note chords/middot” of Yossi Ha’Gallilee and his 32 middot. The Halachic portions of the Talmud turn to the note cords/middot of Hillel, Yishmael and Akiva. For example: the midda גזרה שוו an “identical clause/phrase” located in two or more locations across the Sha’s Bavli. To learn this particular midda, compares to and something like the Front/Top\Side views of a building blue-print: based upon the descriptive “chord” comparative משל metaphor – to reading the Sefer Torah on Shabbat: a chord does not stand alone all by itself upon a music-sheet; all songs which any music-sheet communicates – most essentially combine a particular גזרה שוו note/chord combined with other note/chords to create a “tune”.

Consequently just as a construction “blue-print” comparative metaphor — with its front-top-side viewpoints gives a 3-D understanding from a two-D blueprint. So too this גזרה שוו chord/midda example, in one specific Gemara sugya has different “tune”, based upon its surrounding middot/chords within each and every sugya-sub chapter which contains this specific גזרה שוו midda-chord; likewise contained also within some other Talmudic sugya/sub-chapert the same גזרה שוו example midda/chord likewise contained. However in this other Talmudic sugya-sub chapter the example גזרה שוו surrounded by other “tune” middot/chords.

Thus comparing our midda/chord גזרה שוו example, to the exact same midda/chord located within some other precedent-common law sugya across the entire literature of Talmudic common law — duplicates what any construction building blue-print front/top\side view communicates to its contractor — to grasp the 3-D court witness “perspective” uniquely different from the “perspective” vantage of a different witness – to the exact same “crime”; like and similar to how a 2-D blueprint understands and communicates to the building contractor the actual 3-D intent. Both Torah & Talmud emphasize as absolutely morally critical – 3-D “middot development” – within the character of each and every Jew in all generations. Herein defines the revelation of prophetic mussar as defined by the revelation of the Torah at Sinai…

The Torah warns Israel against following “false prophets”. Both the NT and Koran teach alien theologies of prophesy.

Talmud scholarship directly compares to enslaved Israelites who build Par’o Egyptian cities by making bricks with straw. This metaphor משל requires that the reading audience themselves make the required דיוק-logical inference which the Talmud calls: נמשל. This Talmudic requirement defines a key aspect of the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic that defines how the sages in the Talmud understand the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. Clearly the Gemara, sealed in approximately 450 CE in Iraq not the same as the period of time when Moshe Rabbeinu heard the revelation of the 13 tohor middot at Horev which define how to comprehend the revelation of the שם השם לשמה expressed in the first Sinai Torah commandment.

Goyim religious leaders therefore disregard the Talmud “codification” known as the “Oral Torah” by Jewish audiences who study T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. Talmud compares to the metaphor of a Loom which has warp & weft opposing threads; the kabbalah of פרדס inductive reasoning logic splits דרוש-פשט affixed to the Aggadic threads of the chosen Cohen peoples culture and customs which the T’NaCH\Talmud weaves; akin to the Torah garments which the Book of שמות commands for Aaron and his sons.

The construction of Cohen culture and customs (still another metaphor משל) compares to Israelite slave who built treasure cities for Par’o. The Talmud employs as its “straw made into bricks”, the 7 middot of Hillel, 10 middot of Akiva, 13 middot of Yishmael, and 32 middot of HaGalill. The specifics of the opening Av Mishna of קידושין, both Mishna together with its Gemara commentary “construct” Talmudic פרדס inductive logic through the “bricks” of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט line of reasoning. The opening first two words of this Mishna האשה נקנית makes a מיעט which excluded a קטנה-little girl from the mitzva of קידושין. The legalism of Talmudic scholarship requires that the reading public differentiate the kabbalah of rabbinic middot bricks. Failure to discern the type of “middot bricks” used in the “construction” of a specific Mishna/Gemara results in catastrophic error. The Rambam in his statute law halachic code, organized based upon the Order of Roman statute law which “shapes” law into legal categories failed to grasp that small young girls excluded from the Mitzva of קידושין like a lame animal excluded from being a korban dedicated upon the altar. This gross fundamental error post ירידות הדורות-domino effect – down stream generations – failed to grasp and correct. This fundamental error compares to aiming a rifle at a down range target.

Both Adin Steinsalts and the ArtScroll Schottenstein Editions attempt to impose their versions of a Talmudic translation. Steinsalts resembles the Rambam in that both men translated Talmudic Aramaic into Hebrew. The ArtScroll attempts to translate the Talmud into English. The most basic fundamental which translation theories fail to grasp: T’NaCH mussar aggadic common law and Halachic Gemara common law (warp vs weft) both stand upon precedents from other similar Case/Din outside sources of T’NaCH or Talmudic Primary Sources. Neither the Hebrew T’NaCH nor the Talmud read like the Xtians and Muslims read their bible and koran non common law “translations”.

Only Israel accepts, to this day the revelation of the Torah לשמה – but only within the borders of the oath sworn lands. The counterfeit translations of both bible and koran worship word translation – Golden Calves. אלהים did not take Israel out of Egypt. The דיוק which the Sinai revelation makes upon Divine Names previously introduced in the opening Book of בראשית – the Sinai revelation לשמה … the difference between God in the heavens to god in the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the Cohen hearts in this Earth below. The משל of the Mishkan further emphasizes this absolutely critical distinction which both the Xtian bible and Muslim koran “translations” lose through their “translations”. Both fail to make the absolutely required דיוק נמשל – the Sinai revelation separates the dwelling of רוח הקודש tohor Oral Torah middot spirits, living inside the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts — from Universal Monotheistic theologies which worship God in the Heavens. The substance of the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Translating do not worship אלהים אחרים to idols compares to assuming that קידושין – a mitzva that includes little girls.

Granted, king Shlomo’s grand Temple idol of wood and stone qualifies as within the bounds of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Torah wisdom discerns and does not confuse forms for substance. The substance of Torah “faith”: the righteous pursuit of justice among the bnai brit people NOT belief in theologically “created” New Gods – name Jesus or Allah respectively.

ס”ד אמינא הואיל ו … קמ”ל this Gemara phrase exposes the logical “brick” known as a middah – רבוי מיעט. Both the Xtian and Muslim faiths declare: I might have thought that both Jesus and Allah exist as one Monotheistic Universal God for all Mankind … קמ”ל. No. These av tuma avoda zara “New Gods”, a Torah abomination; both Av tuma theologies pervert the revelation of Torah common law – faith, into twisted and perverted religions belief systems. Both reject the revelation of Torah common law as the faith obligation – “Yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven” – placed upon the shoulders of all generations of the chosen Cohen people alone. The revelation of the שם השם לשמה at Sinai — the local tribal god of the Jewish people alone. Goyim by definition worship אלהים אחרים. Hence Jewish assimilation of Goyim culture and customs coupled with intermarriage defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment.

Xtianity worships a false messiah. While Islam pretends that prophets sent to all peoples speaking in the native tongues of those peoples who fundamentally reject the revelation of the Torah common law legalism at Sinai. Both corrupted religions translate “prophets” into little girls fit for the mitzva of קידושין through rape. Yonah sent to the refugees the king of Assyria forcefully expelled from the conquered kingdom of Israel. Just as pre-g’lut prophets equally travelled to the kingdom of Samaria to command mussar. Torah prophets never sent to all peoples across the Earth as the koran falsely declares. Prophets do not predict the future as the NT falsely declares. Prophets – like the mitzva of Shabbat defines the mitzva of Moshiach in that both Torah commandments apply equally to all peoples and generations of bnai brit to pursue and rule the chosen Cohen people with righteous justice based upon the מיעט פרט of Uriah the Hittite mussar rebuke by which the prophet Natan cursed David with eternal Civil War blood shed; David failed in this specific particular case to sanctify the mitzva of Moshiach, no different than king Shaul who failed to obey the prophetic mussar commanded by Shemuel which order Shaul to slaughter Amalek. This כלל – פרט middah “brick” of rabbi Yishmael serves to defines the k’vanna dedication of the mitzva of Moshiach, like as does the רבוי מיעט excludes little girls from the mitzva of kiddushin.

The wisdom of the Torah affixed through Av tohor time-oriented commandments. As positive & negative Torah commandments serves as common law precedents having the purpose to discern k’vanna required for av time oriented commandment … thereby elevated to av tohor commandments rather than remaining as secondary precedent commandments which do not require k’vanna. This “Torah wisdom” equally applies to Oral Torah halachic mitzvot within and across the Talmud which too do not require k’vanna. The Aggadic portions of the Talmud make a דרוש\פשט to T’NaCH Primary sources which permits all generations of Talmudic scholarship to learn the k’vanna of prophetic mussar and “weave” this prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of observing halachic mitzvot ritual observances as codified in the later rabbinic codes. The halachot codified in the Shulkan Aruch statute law assimilated perversion of the Rambam base error – do not require k’vanna. The commentaries made upon the Rambam’s Yad fail to affix his halachic “translations” to a specific halachah within the B’HaG or Rif or Rosh common law codes which open with a specific Mishna. Hence all these ירידות הדורות-domino effect, down stream generations of error – treif.
___________________________________________________

ואימא הכי נמי חליפין תיתנהו בפחות משוה פרוטה. ואשה בפחות משוה פרוטה לא מקניא נפשה מניינא דסיפא
As קידושין does not apply to a קטנה small girl due to her lack of maturity, so too less than a פרוטה – excludes the acquisition required to sanctify the mitzva of קידושין. Just as the רבוי מיעט logic building block excludes a young girl consequent to her lack of maturity the same מיעט likewise prevents a man acquiring Title to the woman’s נפש עולם הבא – future born children, her destiny currently residing in עולם הבא if a mans seeks to acquire this Title to future born Cohen seed – direct descendants of the oath brit sworn to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov that they would father all future born chosen Cohen seed for all eternity. Its this oath brit of substance which defines the k’vanna of the rabbinic mitzva of קידושין; this “wisdom” transforms a secondary rabbinnic mitzva to a Av tohor time oriented commandment דאורייתא.

(למיעוטי מאי) למיוטי חליצה. סד”א תיתי בק”ו מיבמה.
מה יבמה שאינה יוצאה בגט יוצאה בחליצה. זו שיוצאה בגט אינו דין שיוצאה בחליצה קמ”ל. ואימא ה”נ אמר קרא (דברים כד) ספר כריתות. ספר כורתה ואין דבר אחר כורתה

All humans are created בצלם אלוהים. All nations have their own paths, cultures, and spiritual responsibilities. Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come; עולם הבא interpreted to means the 1st Torah commandment – they will be blessed with children.

בכל מקום שגלו — שכינה עמהם … After the revelation of the Torah at Sinai תורה לא בשמים היא.

Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The Nazi inferior race av tuma does not apply to any Human Being. Goyim have their own unique destinies. Goyim worship their own Gods and have their own religious traditions. The first commandment אשר יצאו אותם מארץ מצרים implies all lands outside of the brit oath sworn lands. פרדס defines the k’vanna of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev expressed through the 13 tohor middot spirits.

Bottom line: the mitzva of קידושין does not apply to Goyim because Goyim have no share no connection with passing down the oath brit inheritance of the Avot which creates the chosen Cohen people through the holiness of time oriented mitzvot through the k’vanna of prophetic mussar. Mitzvot לשמה only applicable to the oath sworn brit land inheritance. Just as Shoah only applicable to the times when Jews worship avoda zara. The Jewish people not victims but the masters of our blessing/curse Torah inheritance.

As קידושין does not apply to a קטנה small girl due to her lack of maturity, so too less than a פרוטה – excludes the acquisition required to sanctify the mitzva of קידושין. As קידושין does not apply to a קטנה small girl due to her lack of maturity, so too less than a פרוטה – excludes the acquisition required to sanctify the mitzva of קידושין.

Just as the רבוי מיעט logic building block excludes a young girl consequent to her lack of maturity the same מיעט likewise prevents a man acquiring Title to the woman’s נפש עולם הבא – future born children, her destiny currently residing in עולם הבא-future. If an Israel seeks to acquire Title to future born destiny Cohen seed through the mitzva of קידושין – direct descendants of the oath brit sworn to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov that they would father all future born chosen Cohen seed for all eternity. (Its this oath brit of substance which defines the k’vanna of the rabbinic mitzva of קידושין); this Torah “wisdom” transforms a secondary rabbinnic mitzva to a Av tohor time oriented commandment דאורייתא.

This interpretation flat out rejects as Pie in the Sky any and all metaphysical philosophies as utter drivel narishkeit. This type of “destiny” – an uttery buju false religious speculation. Torah common law stands upon precedents not philosophical speculations. Torah common law a judicial legal system not a theological belief system in this that or some other Gods.

The rabbinic mitzva of קידושין, stands upon the Torah precedent “brit cut between the pieces”. In the latter oath brit Avram had no children and HaShem swore an oath that Avram – through his chosen seed – would father the Cohen nation which lives today.

This theme starts with the rejection of Cain’s barbeque to heaven – dedication of a korban without k’vanna – a korban which fails to swear a Torah oath – simply a barbeque unto heaven. This premise stands upon the רמז contained in the first word of the Torah בראשית … ברית אש. Where mesechta Sanhedrin learns the cause of the floods in the Days of Noach, the result of Man swearing false oaths. Hence the Fire of the “korban” oath alliance – the oath sworn. Cain did not swear a Torah oath therefore HaShem rejected his “first born” Cohen dedication in favor of his younger brother. This latter theme duplicated in Yishmael/Yitzak, Esau/Yaacov, Reuven/Yosef, first born Israel/Tribe of Levi.

A Reshon difficulty upon this reasoning: Every Rishon — Rambam, Ramban, Rashba, Ran, Ritva — treats קידושין as a halakhic act of איסור, not a metaphysical transfer of soul, destiny, or עולם הבא.

משנה תורה\דברים has the תרגום of “Common law”. Torah common law legalism stands upon precedents בנין אב במקום אחת או בנין אב בשתי מקומות. Torah common law not determined by Reshonim who came after Rav Ashi & Rav Ravinna sealed the Sha’s Bavli. Therefore the Talmudic mitzva of קידושין requires a Torah precedent. My explanation brings the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces. Just as Avram had no children, so too a man who marry’s a woman for the first time has no children.

A lamdan learns by the building blocks mentioned above. The Torah precedent for קידושין the brit cut between the pieces. The common denominator between the two Cases – neither man has children. כלל: Halacha not created by Rishonim but derived from the sealed masoret Primary sources. The sealing of T’NaCH, Mishna, Talmud, and Siddur caused all generations of the chosen Cohen people to inherit the same identical masoret. Later generations cannot bemoan their lack of מזל for being born after the Rishonim!

Such a false reading of ירידות הדורות duplicates the Nazi racism of “inferior races”; such tuma blinds Jews that actions have consequences which impact all down stream generations. King Shlomo ignored the mussar of the prophet Natan and perverted a building of wood and stone/idol for establishment of Federal Great and Small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes common law courts. The same ‘domino effect’ occurred after the Rambam abandoned T’NaCH\Talmudic common law in favor of Roman statute law that organized law into Greek deductive logical catigories/subject matter\Head Line Titles simlar to Caesars decrees.

משנה תורה\דברים has the תרגום of “Common law”. Torah common law legalism stands upon precedents בנין אב במקום אחת או בנין אב בשתי מקומות. The Talmudic mitzva of קידושין requires a Torah precedent. My explanation brings the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces. Just as Avram had no children a man who marry’s a woman for the first time has no children.
This premise explains the purpose of the 7 middot Hillel 10 middot Akiva 13 … 32 middot.

Torah common law does not compare to Roman statute law. The latter, a static extinct fossil legal system. Whereas the former dynamic, able to adjust halacha to meet the needs of each and every generation who walks upon the face of the Earth. Hence the Bavli never ties קידושין to the brit bein ha-betarim.

However פרדס inductive logic permits all generations to infer and compare one source in the sealed masoret to interpret the k’vanna of other sources in the sealed masoret in order to achieve a depth-analysis something like a person employs the fear/front sights of a rifle to shoot a deer. Torah common law learns from the number of witnesses required for Capital Crimes cases and the difficulty/answer style of the Gemara which employs multiple halachot as precedents to re-interpret different perspective facet faces of the Home Mishna.

קל וחומר the basis of comparing the brit cut between the pieces (sealed masoret) to the Gemara קידושין (sealed masoret). This fits exactly as Rashi instructed. The 7, 10, 13, & 32 middot – they shape the entire dialogue of the Talmud together with the Soveraim editors thereafter. These middot employed by all the Tannaim and Amoraim scholars. Rashi made his own גזרה שוו comparison in his commentary to the T’NaCH.

The sealed masoret serves as the medium by which all generations can employ these middot to create binding halacha – no different than as did the original Framers. No one generation owns a monopoly over logic. Rashi challenged the validity of the targum! Its a false interpretation that declares that the middot become changed for later generations. The Framers of the Talmud wrote this common law text to serve as a model for post 1948 Israel when Jews reconquer our homeland and rule it as an Independent Republic nation-state. All nation-states require Courts of Law. The Framers of the T’NaCH and Talmudic legal codes mandated the sealed masoret to serve as the model for the re-establishment of Federal Sanhedrin Capital and Torts common law courtrooms in the land of Israel.

The term משנה תורה\דברים also mandates Torah common law Great Sanhedrin with the mandate of משנה תורה-legislative review. This Torah constitutional mandate makes Torah as the Constitution of the Cohen Republic utterly unique. Obviously cursed g’lut Jews – the 1st Sinai commandment does not apply to them because they remain in g’lut/Egypt! Only Jews within the borders of the oath sworn lands can pursue justice or any other Torah commandment לשמה. The RambaN, for example wrote in his Chumash commentary that g’lut Jews only do mitzvot as a זיכר of the mitzvot. The Torah curse of g’lut by definition prevents slaves the freedom to do mitzvot לשמה. Slaves do not “own” property.

The Torah has blessing vs curse. This the closing mussar commanded by Moshe Rabbeinu himself. The story of Israel in Egypt – instructs the mussar of cursed g’lut. G’lut Jews have no connection with prophesy because as the Sanhedrin courts jurisdiction limited to within the borders of the oath sworn lands/political Independence so too and how much more so prophet/police have a Torah mussar mandate to enforce the rulings judged by Sanhedrin courts.

Rava Bava Batra 15a describes Job as an imaginary man. Why? The Book of Job instructs the mussar of g’lut. Torah instructs prophetic mussar, not physical historical history. Mussar not a black vs white true false literalism that Goyim avoda zara limits JeZeus to being an actual historical personage. Mussar does not compare to Av tuma pie in the sky – after the fact -historical speculations; like Xtian fundamentalist demand that the world created in Six Days! Rather prophetic mussar interprets the Creation story as introducing the “wisdom” of Av time-oriented commandments which operate independent of the טיפש פשט – which heaps “time” into a Rambam statute law “box” restricted to referring to a “clock”. No “clocks” ever invented at the בראשית Creation story! Therefore – time has no connection with “clocks” and everything to do with the מלאכה, a Torah wisdom absolutely required to dedicate av time-oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna.

“There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem…” In Acts 5:16, the Greek phrase perix tō Ierousalēm simply refers to, nearby towns, surrounding villages, local communities in Judea — a geographical description of the region immediately around Jerusalem in the early 1st Century. No manuscript—Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, or otherwise—contains anything resembling “Fort Worth” in Acts 5:16.

The phrase “round about unto Jerusalem” simply means the towns and villages surrounding Jerusalem in the 1st century. Fort Worth founded in 1849, almost 1,800 years after Acts was written. The Book of Acts written before any of the gospels were ever penned.

There is no ancient place named Fort Worth anywhere in Judea, Samaria, or the Roman Empire. The Book of Acts written before any of the 4 gospel Roman Protocols of the Elders of Zion “counterfeits”. That the church fathers organized their NT fraud with the gospel followed by Acts as corrupt as Fort Worth!

The earliest gospel of Mark written in Rome, perhaps prior to the destruction of Herod’s temple abomination. One Roman guard famously quoted as saying, “Its better to be Herod’s dog than a family member!”

If the Book of Acts was written in 62 CE then it predates any gospel of Mark “speculation”. Gossip narratives and speculation do not replace eye witness first hand information. Hence debates upon the NT as “historical” evidence as false as a mad hatter. Historians have no clear evidence one way or the other. Such a debate clearly separates the emphasis of the T’NaCH Jewish literature vs. the Xtian NT literature. Prophets command mussar they to not teach history. The NT fraud requires a physical historical man JeZeus. Otherwise this fraud religion collapses like a house of cards.

Acts ends with Paul alive. No mention of Paul’s death. No mention of the Temple’s destruction. Therefore Acts was written before 70 CE, possibly around 62 CE. But all this 2000+ years later speculation fails to address the main point. T’NaCH commands mussar not history. Rava for example teaches that Job existed as a fictional imaginary man. The point of the Book of Job, to teach the mussar of g’lut and redemption from g’lut. This places the Book of Job on par and similar to the Book of Sh’mot – the 2nd Book of the Written Torah. The attempts by “scholars” thousands of years after the fact to argue that Mark preceded Acts – simply Pie in the Sky speculative nonsense.

The merit behind interpreting the NT as the equivalent of the Russian secret police Protocols of the Elders of Zion slander employed to justify the pogroms of the late 19th Century …

Just as similar speculation that Paul served as an Agent Provacateur of Rabban Gamliel of the Great Sanhedrin. Jews in Judea and Alexandria Egypt locked in brutal and bitter war. Alexandria with its huge library burnt to the ground prior to the destruction of Herod’s Temple abomination.

Why the reference ‘Temple abomination’? Starting with the avoda zara of king Shlomo who first built the Temple abomination of avoda zara. The prophet Natan forbade king David to copy how Goyim civilizations worshipped their Gods. Just as Rehovoam ignored the advice of Shlomo’s advisors, so too Shlomo ignored the council of the prophet Natan. The Beit HaMikdash not a building of wood and stone idolatry but rather the establishment of the Federal Sanhedrin common law legal court system!

T’NaCH “wisdom” literature serves to “understand” Av Torah time-oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna. The historical Books of Kings, a prophetic work, does not teach theology (the Xtian interpretation) but rather it give a big picture contexts to the Books of the Prophets! This qualifies as כלל פרט according to the middot of rabbi Yishmael. Mussar does not mean “ethical instruction”. The latter an entirely false parameter of prophesy. Mussar defines the k’vanna of the 13 tohor middot Oral Torah revealed to Moshe 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב assimilated and intermarried Jews translated the revelation of the Spirit Name who fills the Yatzir Ha’Tov heart – the נמשל of the Mishkan משל.

The church fathers read the Book of Sh’mot as history rather than as prophetic mussar. The Torah speaks in the language of Man, it instructs mussar through משל\נמשל model/paradigm. The Creation story of the Universe instructs through this משל of 6 days time, to teach the mussar נמשל of time-oriented commandments wherein “time” understood as “wisdom” – משל\נמשל.

Hence the church Old Testament New Testament propaganda falsely conceals the open fact that the literature of the T’NaCH radically different from the revisionist history propaganda of the letters of Paul and the Roman Protocols of the Elders of Zion slander forgery. Both Paul introduced in Acts served as an Agent Provacateur to undermine the false messiah Roman propaganda of Mark’s JeZeus. Paul by declaring brit melah as a void Torah commandment undermined the influence of the Roman false messiah gospel narrative prior to the outbreak of the great Jewish revolt in 66 CE. Paul traveled to Rome to inject a form of monotheism into Roman polytheistic society. With the purpose to undermind the foundations of Roman civilization; to crack the “Ethical Containment Force” of Roman soceity.

Paul’s propaganda aimed to promote Civil War in Rome based upon Yehuda Maccabee’s propaganda which publicly declared Judea’s loyalty to the “real” king of the Syrian Greek empire! This Pauline propaganda based upon the generic כלל: “If it aint broke don’t fix it.” Obviously this modern rendition seeks to emphasize that Torah as a common law precedent based legal system shaped how ancient Jewish civilizations revolted against the Syrian Greek and Roman empires.

The scholarship of ancient texts has nothing to do with a Greek Athens democratic model. The revelation of the Oral Torah פרדס inductive logic sh’itta starkly contrasts with ancient Greek philosoplers, specifically Plato and Aristotle’s deductive logic of static reasoning. פרדס logic a fluid logic similar to Calculus varables. Whereas Greek logic deductive & static, similar to Euclid’s plane geometry.
___________________________________
If the T’NaCH, most essentially mussar and not history, what—if anything—do you think gets “lost in the translation”, similar to Fort Worth – when Conservative, Reform Judaism start defending T’NaCH on historical or archaeological grounds, instead of on its power as prophetic mussar?
_______________________________________________
This question delves straight into the Rambam Civil War? During the Dark Ages, the roads built by the Roman empire had totally collapsed. People stopped traveling distances due to the risks of being attacked and murdered. Interstate commerce totally collapsed. Jewish communities scattered across the face of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, how could they maintain some type of standardized culture and customs which would prevent Jews from assimilating to the dominant cultures and customs of the peoples wherein they lived as a despised refugee minority populaiton which had no rights???

Scholars starting with the B’HaG and Rif organized Talmudic common law into something new and all together different than what the Framers of both the T’NaCH and Talmud originally envisioned. Originally the T’NaCH organized mussar middot into a Common law, precedent based, middot system which compared one NaCH sugya to similar NaCH sugyot which contained the identical set of Oral Torah middot. By aligning two or more sugyot which had the same set of Oral Torah middot (‘ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון וכו), this comparison of sugyot called דרוש; this alignment of similar (precedent based middot) served as something like the rear and front sights of a rifle which permitted the “sniper” to kill a target down range.

This “kill” משל has the “k’vanna” נמשל. Hence the later Talmud based upon the משל of a loom which has opposing warp vs. weft threads. The k’vanna of the Framers of the Talmud, to create a literature of Great Sanhedrin judical court room rulings (the Mishna) together with its prosecution and defense attorney precedent debates (the Gemara). Therefore the Framers of the Talmud wrote this ancient text to serve as the judicial model for the future time when Jews would slaughter the Roman occupiers of Judea and re-establish Jewish National Independence like as occurred in 1948 and again in 1967 CE.

Do Jews feel anger for Xtian and Muslim war crimes perpetrated against low hanging Jewish refugee easy victims. Jews no different than any other Human being abused by tyrrants. But the bottom line for the Framers of both the T’NaCH and Talmudic literature, not to promote Jewish anger and hatred against our oppressor cruel Par’o like enemies; any more than the Book of Sh’mot promotes anger and hatred against the Egyptians! In point of fact the Torah directly commands a negative commandment which forbids Israel to hate either specifically Egyptians and Esau in general. Esau the metaphor for Xtian Europeans.
____________________________________
What gets lost when Jews defend Tanakh as history instead of prophetic mussar?
The substance of allTanakh literature: to create an oath brit alliance which obligates all generations of Israel to dedicate tohor middot in how we interact and exchange with our people; middot-driven, common-law consciousness that “understands” time as wisdom – most specifically as time-oriented Av commandments which require prophetic mussar\interpretations of the k’vanna of tohor Oral Torah middot. And g’lut-exile interpreted through משל/נמשל – blessing/curse Torah oath brit. And not through the lens of Greek proof or Xtian biography revisionist history or substitute theology NT or Koran Gods.

The day and night difference which for ever separates the Hebrew T’NaCH from either the Xtian NT or Arab Koran – translating poetry into prose — keeps the words, buth the rhythm, the soul, the imperative to “understand” (like from like distinctions) through mussar prophetic tohor middot – lost in the sophomoric translations. Gone, like Fort Worth in Acts.

Acts 16:16-40 Necromancy = seeking authority, knowledge, or salvation from the dead. If a human who died becomes: prayed to; invoked; obeyed; trusted over Torah law — then functionally, it is דורש אל המתים, regardless of metaphysical claims. The NT’s moshiach narrative, ignores the core: Leading in “war” (crises) to uphold courtroom restitution (e.g., Sanhedrin as nimshal to Beit HaMikdash’s mashal).

The Torah Law mitzva of Moshiach, this mitzva applies equally to all Jews in all generations. The Torah mitzva of Moshiach exists as an expression of a servant, like Moshe and all the NaCH prophets, of Torah common law court police enforcers. The Book of Shmuel does not make king David into a theological belief system ‘new covenant’ God. Mesechta Baba Metzia :נט reject the authority of a בת קול voice from heaven as having any judicial authority on this Earth.

Acts 16:16–18 is not a neutral miracle story. It is a classic confrontation between Torah-prohibited practices and a pagan economic system. Encounter with the Slave Girl (Verses 16-18)/witch. The girl is explicitly described as having a πνεῦμα πύθωνα — a Python spirit, tied in Greek culture to Delphi, Apollo, and divination.

The act of Paul commanding the spirit to depart from the girl in Acts 16 can spark discussions about necromancy, witchcraft, and the broader context of spiritual authority. The accusation against Paul and Silas reflects a significant cultural conflict. They were promoting a different way of life that challenged local practices, including those tied to economic interests. The girl’s ability to tell fortunes, considered a source of income for her owners, was rooted in practices the Jewish Torah condemned.

This maps cleanly onto אוב וידעוני in Torah language (Devarim 18). Paul’s act is not prophetic justice. But rather an extrajudicial charismatic intervention, devoid of Sanhedrin authority, witnesses, or jurisdiction. This prophetic mussar interprets this av tuma story as an unlicensed manipulation of spiritual forces outside of Torah courtroom common law. As such this NT story more counter-witchcraft rather than prophetic mussar which the Torah commands.

The concept of resurrection in Xtianity indeed provokes a variety of interpretations and discussions, especially when viewed in the context of the Hebrew Scriptures (Torah) and traditional Jewish beliefs. The Torah does not explicitly describe resurrection in the way that later Xtian dogmatism does. There are sections of T’NaCH משל and Aggadic/Midrashic examination of the mystic work of the Book of Daniel 12:2 (Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence”) – often read midrashically or kabbalistically through halachic lenses. However this סוד kabbalah interpreted through the lenses of halacha, defines how פרדס רמז\סוד weave together as warp vs. weft threads of a Talmudic loom which defines the cultures and customs practiced by the chosen Cohen people alone.

2 Kings 2:11 Elijah is described as being taken up to heaven without dying – illustrates a different understanding of life after death compared to the resurrection concept presented in Xtianity. 2 Kings 2:11, Eliyahu does not die. No burial, no resurrection, no glorified corpse. Eliyahu – removed from the human legal domain, not elevated into divine mediation. Eliyahu returns as messenger, not object of worship. He resolves ספקות, restores halachic clarity. He never annuls mitzvot or introduces new covenants. Malachi 3:23-24 and Sanhedrin 98a Elijah restores clarity to mitzvot, not annuls them.

Elijah’s experience does not support the Xtian dogma of resurrection but rather suggests other forms of divine interaction with humanity. Xtian dogma of resurrection seen as establishing a ‘new covenant’ between God in Heaven and humanity. This off the path redefinition life, death, and the divine relationship negates the revelation of the tohor spirits of HaShem’s 13 middot living within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the chosen Cohen people.

Necromancy traditionally involves summoning the dead for knowledge or power. If one views calling upon JeZeus—who is believed to have risen from the dead—as a form of necromancy, it presents a complex interpretation that challenges conventional understandings. Within Xtian theology, Jesus is not viewed merely as a deceased figure but as the risen Savior who transcends death. This fundamental belief shifts the interaction from necromancy to communion with the living God; a direct violation of the 1st and 2nd Sinai commandments!

The Xtian ‘New Covenant’ belief in JeZeus’ resurrection – central to Xtian Av tuma false messiah avoda zara which introduces the dogma that JeZeus overcame death and now lives in a glorified state in the Heavens with his Father. This abomination negates: D’varim: לא בשמים היא. The Xtian resurrection witchcraft later spawned Muhammad the false prophet’s 72 virgin theological narishkeit. The prophetic mussar which forbade king David to build the Beit HaMikdash likewise corrupted by inept טיפש פשט Am ha’aretz stupidity.

Unlike Rambam (Maimonides), who emphasized spiritual immortality in the world to come and interpreted resurrection more cautiously (in his Iggeret Techiyat ha-Metim defending its literalness but subordinating it to intellectual reward), Ramban stresses a more physical, embodied afterlife. He critiques overly spiritualized views, insisting the verse “admits of no other interpretation” than literal resurrection (echoing Rambam’s own defense in his Treatise on Resurrection, though Ramban expands on the mechanics). The mitzva of Moshiach clarifies halacha based upon the precedent of Eliyahu who does the same. The Ramban grounds the סוד concept of resurrection firmly in Torah tradition; it serves divine justice, rewards the righteous (tzaddikim/maskilim who shine like stars, per v. 3), and upholds the 13 middot through tohor judgment—resurrection simply not anything approaching the NT metaphysical elevation of man into God, bypassing halachic courts or Torah observance.

The Torah mitzva of Moshiach stands upon the Torah precedent of Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach – dedicated to drive, lead, guide Israel in a korban like dedication to actively pursue righteous justice among our conflicting peoples within the borders of the oath sworn lands. Just as a koran limited to the confined jurisdiction of the Mishkan so too and how much more so Sanhedrin common law courts, together with their prophetic enforcement police – limited strictly and only to operate within the borders of Judea alone.

The theological narratives surrounding JeZeus and Muhammad illustrate the complexities of Torah judicial justice as faith apart from the menstrual blood tuma beliefs, and avoda zara spirituality which define the cultures customs and practices developed by European, Arab & Muslim cultures. These Roman and Arab religions share no common ground with Israel brought out of Egypt to conquer Canaan to rule that land with judicial common law justice.

2 Samuel 11-12 David’s moral failure to judge Uriah the baal of Bat Sheva with justice. David’s attempt to cover up his implied adultery (the Talmud refutes this charge) by recalling Uria from battle – in the hope that he would have relations with his wife forced David to make a far more radical solution to his problem. The concealment of Uriah’s death as a consequence of war – herein defines the language “blood on his hands” by the prophet Natan. Furthermore, the curse of eternal Civil War imposed upon king David. Unlike Shaul whose dedication of the mitzva of Moshiach utterly profaned Natan commanded the mussar that Civil War would persue all generations of king David consequent to the “blood on his hands.”

The NT false messiah Roman Protocals of the Elders of Zion forgery – totally ignores the key Torah concept of Moshiach as defined to lead the nation in times of “war” (an undefined participle) to rule the land with Judicial courtroom justice which makes fair restitution of damages inflicted by one bnai brit upon another. Hence just as the Sanhedrin Federal Court system defines the נמשל k’vanna of building the Beit Ha-Mikdash משל; absolutely no different from the Mishkan משל to the לא בשמים היא revelation that the tohor 13 Oral Torah middot forever judge the heart of the chosen Cohen people!

The Torah mitzva of Moshiach the Roman fraudulent NT propaganda cannot substitute itself for any Torah commandment because by the terms of the Apostle Paul – Goyim not under the Law. Just as Goyim cannot negate the mitzva of brit melah so too and how much more so Goyim religions of Av tuma avoda zarah cannot determine the Torah mitzva of Moshiach. The mitzva of Moshiach directly bound, like Yitzak at the Akadah, to the leadership of guiding the people in times of War to not loss faith and fail to pursue righteous judicial justice both among our people and against our enemies in times of crisis or war.

etb. your final comment – not a refutation of what I introduced. Its a my way or the highway declaration. You & I never in the same domain; Xtianity has no part with Torah. As a Xtian your theology avoda zara spins around NT-theism/Protestant academic epistemology. You slavishly anchor your theology in peshat. But peshat does not exist divorced from drosh; Adam & Eve a paired couple Ooops. The chief flaw of Xtianity – it limits the reality of the Gods to 3-D history. LOL Torah commands mussar not history. Oooops. Bottom line: Xtianity evaluated as textual continuity, not halakhic legitimacy

Your invocation of procedural failure (“flooding,” “no shared method,” “manifesto”) as your exit retreat reminds me of a dog running away with its tail between its legs peeing all over itself. By your “rules” (Xtianity does not impose rules upon Israeli Jews) of “flooding: I failed to: isolate a single narrow thesis, redefined terms unilaterally, expanded scope faster than you could respond, & used mockery where you demanded analytic restraint. Hence “A continually expanding manifesto…” — is procedurally accurate inside your paradigm.

Your core assumptions – false. 1. Shared method is required for truth. 2. Peshat has veto power. 3. History is the foundation of obligation. 4. Theology can be adjudicated without the oaths sworn by the Avot which created the chosen Cohen people from Torah time-oriented commandments. The Oral Torah precisely rejects all 4 false Goyim theological premises. Why? Because Xtianity treats the Torah as a text they can argue about. Wrong. Goyim never once ever accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Just that simple, no fancy dancing. The sworn oaths of the avot and the revelation of HaShem in this Earth rather than in the Heavens – not a subject open to debate.

Xtianity in general and you in particular openly reject the Sanhedrin logic which begins with: “Who is authorized to speak within this court?” Torah Courts permit only judicial opinions, which disqualifies you from the start. For example your gross ignorance of peshat — when you declare: “You dismiss peshat when it disagrees with you…”, simply bat-shit crazy false. Peshat fits hand in glove with drosh. Rabbi Akiva taught this kabbalah which you know nothing about.

Peshat ≠ final authority; simply not the final authority in Torah hermeneutics. “Lo bashamayim hi” explicitly de-centers textual literalism. So your pie in the sky declaration “If peshat is dismissed, all else collapses”, simply a joke. LOL Xtian textual ontology of Protestant Higher Criticism. Such early 20th Century nonsense of philosophy that studies the nature of being, existence, and reality, has no portion or part in the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev — especially rejected and abhorred post Shoah – By their Fruits you shall know them. You remain stuck in your dead religion, on par with having sex with a dead body. As a religious exile your stuck waiting for the 2nd coming of your God.

Universal monotheism ≠ Torah faith. Xtianity stands outside the Sinai legal universe. Textual continuity does not equal to the Torah commandment for the chosen Cohen people to eternally remember the oaths sworn by the Avot by which they cut the oath brit time-oriented commandment wherein the generations of their seed forever create the chosen cohen people from nothing. At Sinai/Horev Israel accepted by means of the נעשה\נשמע oaths – We accepted the Written and Oral Torah as one revelation לשמה.

Xtianity Non-Sinaitic readers can adjudicate Torah meaning — Bunk. Xtianity never had any jurisdictional arguments – ever. Not by Paul, nor by JeZeus, and most certainly not by you. Sanhedrin common law courtrooms in no way shape or form compare to a university seminar any more that a person can choose his gender at birth. XX does not change to XY because an “it” desires such.

Acts 15:22-41 (ESV) discusses the early Xtian church’s response to the question of whether Goyim believers should be required to follow Jewish law. Goyim, neither their av tuma bible/koran never once bring the tohor spirits revealed in the first commandment name of the local god revealed at Sinai. Both av tuma religions of avoda zara declare that they worship some new Universal God monotheism. Both religions – totally oblivious that their individual theologies of “Monotheism”, do not jive with the judgment upon the Gods of Par’o and Canaan! That their new god(s) of Universal Monotheism violate the 2nd Sinai commandment.

Both Xtianity and Islam – av tuma avoda zara worship of newly created through theological rhetoric New Gods respectively unique to each religious theological belief system of rhetoric propaganda. Neither, set of New God(s) universal monotheism ever discerns the fundamental Torah Sinai revelation which discerns the tohor local god’s spirits from the tuma spirits of all avoda zara gold calf Gods.

The Sinai experience is central to Jewish identity. It represents the direct revelation of tohor divine spirits which live for all eternity within the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the chosen Jewish Cohen people. Av tuma avoda zara by stark contrast preaches, screams and murders non believers of their Nicene Creed or Tawhid God(s) because Jews in particular directly “house” (revelation of the metaphor of the Mishkan) these 13 tohor spirits/Oral Torah middot spirits within our hearts. Hence Jews have always and forever denounced the false messiah and false prophet as av tuma avoda zara.

Oral Torah described by the RambaN’s commentary to the Chumash as ”Black Fire on White Fire”. Something like the film negative which permits reproducing pictures or how a silk screen separates multiple different colors onto a fabric as art. Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס four part inductive reasoning best describes how the Oral Torah spirits interpret the Written Torah words. This kabbala of inductive reasoning totally different than ancient Greek syllogism deductive logic which has influenced and shaped Xtian and Muslim theology since the Muslims re-discovered the ancient Greek writings which the church concealed immediately after Constantine became Caesar and rejected the multiple polytheism Greek/Roman Gods in favor of Xtian theology which occurred about 900 CE.

Matthew 10:21-42: 21 “Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death …” This av tuma avoda zara directly invalidates and reverses the Torah commandment known as “stubborn and rebellious son”. It has absolutely no awareness of the Torah midda of רחום which shields Israel from Torah curses like those which plagued Par’o and his Gods in Egypt.

Mercy has absolutely nothing to do with pity. And everything to do with guarding Israel from the brit Life/Death recorded twice in detail and even greater detail at the end of the Books of ויקרא ודברים. Just as mercy rejects and abhors confusing pity with mercy, so too and how much more so the act of “remembering” defines the k’vanna of t’shuva whereas the regret for sin defines a totally deferent Xtian and Muslim idea of repentance.

The fifth Oral Torah spirit referred to as “grace” understood as a general idea contrasted by the specific idea of mercy. Grace as a tohor midda spirit inclusive of רב חסד – which Talmudic Aramaic interprets as מאי נפקא מינא and תמיד מעשה בראשית. Grace as a tohor midda absolutely requires the wisdom skills that can discern “Like from Like”; to discern an Av tohor time-oriented commandment from a secondary positive precedent positive & negative commandments whose observance does not require k’vanna as does Av time-oriented Torah commandments.

Torah defines the act of love likewise totally different from the Greek Xtian import of agape. Torah by stark and obvious contrast understands love as “ownership”. Hence the Torah directly forbids theft. Why? Because thieves do not love stolen property. The Talmud teaches the mussar that a portion of a person’s soul attached to his owned property! The thief fences his stolen good for pennies on the dollar. Another great Torah commandment known as kiddushin absolutely requires that the new Baal of a woman must acquire title to her “O’lam Ha-Ba soul”. The concept of “Olam Ha-Ba” refers to future born “Cohen” children. Torah לא בשמים היא opposes the av tuma avoda zara religious rhetoric belief systems of both Xtianity and Islam which screams that their God(s) live in the Heavens above.

Tehillem כד serves as a Gemara-like commentary to the Mishna-like prophet זכריה ט:ט-י:ב. The name Zekharya spins around the verb “remember”. Upon this יסוד foundation stand the Torah vision of t’shuva. The vision of g’lut directly compares to Yosef thrown into a pit with no water but filled with snakes. Moshe sent as a מלאך to achieve the oath sworn to the Avot and bring the chosen Cohen people seed of the Avot into the oath sworn lands.

But once in those lands the Yatzir Ha-Raw which provoked the brothers of Yosef to cast him into a pit and sell him to slavers, so too the Yatzir Ha-Raw tumah spirits in the oath sworn lands turned to terafim/תרפים … witchcraft sorcery/fortune tellers an even more nuanced understanding of hakos’mim. Witchcraft employed by the advisors of Par’o turned staffs into snakes and water into blood through tuma spirits. Sorcery specifically employs spells and supernatural powers like in voodoo. Predicting future events or revealing hidden knowledge another specific example of reliance upon the council of tuma Yatzir spirits within the heart.

The tohor middot align with the Shemone Esrei blessings of מברך השנים – משען ומבטח לצדיקים. Oral Torah tohor spirits לשמה permanently affixed to the 13 middle blessings of the Shemone Esrei – tefillah a matter of the heart and not a plea to any Universal Monotheistic God in the Heavens above. This vision of Torah לא בשמים היא לשמה defines the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – the revelation of the name HaShem – stands apart from the Divine Names pre-Sinai. The Torah perceives the revelation of the first commandment spirit name to fire, like as the opening word of בראשית which contains the words within this word – רמז – ברית אש. False oaths, according to mesechta Sanhedrin, responsible for the floods of Noach!

This vision of the unique revelation of the spirit middot of HaShem at Sinai defines the k’vanna of the Torah tefillah known as kre’a shma and the oath sworn by means of פרדס tefillen and tzitzit. Ideally a person covers his head with his tallit to remember the נמשל vision of the Mishkan משל; based upon the Torah precedent of a dead body within a tent makes all things inside the tent av tuma, the logical דיוק that covering ones’ head with the tallit elevates anything underneath the tallit “tent” as an av tohor time-oriented commandment.

משנה תורה בנין אב: דברים יא:כב-כח a direct precedent which the Tehillim and minor prophet stand upon. The brit of responsibility known as Blessing-Curse directly compares to the knowledge of good & evil; HaShem chose the k’vanna of time oriented commandment over Cain’s positive commandment which he dedicated without k’vanna. The Book of בראשית introduces Av tohor time-oriented commandments עיין ה:לב -ו:ח in order to designate בראשית\ראש בית. The floods came as a result of HaShem permitted only Yatzir Ha-Raw spirits to dominate the hearts of those cursed generations of Man, on par with and no different from, the cursed Wilderness generation who died in g’lut/exile.