The so-called Xtian “pentecost” shares nothing, no common ground with Chag Shevuoth – 50 days after Pesach. Goyim turn to later prophets such as Isaiah. Their theology divorces later prophets from the Torah Constitutional common law. All later prophets mussar interprets the intent of Torah commandments. Avoda zara by definition fails to understand this most basic Torah fundamental. The Torah event of Pesach I bring as a precedent to prove the assertion which condemns avoda zara to death. Only Jews commanded at Sinai to remember Pesach. Contrast the NT apostle Paul, his theology blurred the central theme of the exile\g’lut of Adam from the Garden replaced by his “original sin” justification for his messiah “pie in the sky” religious rhetoric nonsense. Moshiach not dedicated to cleanse sin, but rather to establish justice within the confines of the borders of the lands of Canaan – ruled by the Cohen people.

Xtian rhetoric of repentance for sin shares no common ground nor any common denominator with t’shuva. The precedent where Moshe reminded HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to the Avot that they alone would father the Chosen Cohen people. On Yom Kippur HaShem made t’shuva and annulled his vow to destroy the sons of the Avot and replace them with the seed of Moshe! The 49 days prior to Shevuoth, Jews commanded to count the Omer. Why? Xtianity just another false god no different than Allah. Counting the Omer learns directly from removing חמץ prior to Pesach. Again why? The Book of Sh’mot and the closing Book of D’varim of the Written Torah both refer to Amalek. Sh’mot 17:9 and D’varim 25:18.

The apostle Paul rhetoric declares in Galatians 3:23-25: faith in JeZeus replaces the law. In Romans 6:14 his ‘original sin of Adam’ concept supersedes the priority of grace over secondary law. But the Torah theme of Blessing/Curse 1st and 2nd Sinai commandments, Paul’s theological rhetoric clearly rejects. The Torah curse of exile, first introduced in the Creation story of Adam expelled from the Garden, the floods of Noach, the dispersal of the Tower of Babel, the exile of Avram’s future born Cohen seed to a land not their own, the descent of Yaacov and his sons to Egypt and their ensuing slavery by Par’o. Together with their liberation on Pesach, Paul’s religious sin:grace supersessionism fulfillment theology rhetoric replaces. But the Paul’s theology rhetoric equally compares to: Americans not under Russian law – either!

The 5th Book of the Torah has a second name משנה תורה, which means “common law”. Roman law by contrast, a “statute law” legislative legal system – NOT a “common law” judicial system. For example: British courts operate on principles of “common law”. Meaning, England unlike the US has no written Constitution. Laws passed by Parliament define the British Constitution! Hence British common law courts do not have a Constitutional mandate from Parliament to declare statute laws passed by Parliament as “unconstitutional”.

The Written Torah Constitution of the 12 tribes who make up the Israelite Republic of conquered Canaan, mandates Sanhedrin common law Capital Crimes and Torts courts. Common law judicial law under the Mandate of the Torah Written Constitution, has the power of “legislative review”. Meaning that the Great Sanhedrin common law court can not only declare a law decreed by any of the tribal-States of the Republic-unconstitutional, but the Great Sanhedrin can re-write the unconstitutional law passed by a tribal authority “State government”, such that this “statute law” decree, now obeys how the Great Sanhedrin courts interprets the intent of the Written Torah. This same legislative review equally applies to “statute laws” imposed by the Central Government/king as well!

Torah common law shares a common denominator with British common law courtrooms in that both legal systems fundamentally and absolutely stand upon previous common law courtroom rulings which share a direct similarity to the current case heard before the court. For example: a murder case heard 50 years earlier NOT a valid precedent for a petty theft case heard before a Torah Torts court today! A comparison of precedent Cases requires some shared connection or similarity between the Cases. A murder case and a petty theft case – simply not similar enough – due to the difference between a Capital Crime vs a Torts damage crime.

Therefore an example of two similar cases: the verses which address the precedent of Amalek in Sh’mot and D’varim. Sh’mot states that Amalek made war upon Israel as a place called Refadim. While D’varim adds “they did not possess fear of Elohim”. D’varim read out of context, but as a precedent for the verse in Sh’mot. D’varim implies that Amalek did not possess ‘fear of Elohim’. But the Book of D’varim, which means Mishna Torah-common law, serves as a precedent (בנין אב) to re-interpret the intent of the verse in the Book of Sh’mot! Neither Esav nor the scion of Esav/Amalek ever accepted the Torah at Sinai. Therefore ‘fear of Elohim’ ie the 2nd Sinai commandment, clearly does not and cannot apply to Amalek. Rather, this lack of fear of Elohim can only apply to the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt/ערב רב.

This same ערב רב stood at Sinai and declared their acceptance of the Torah. But 40 days later worshipped the Golden Calf which they called אלהים. The eternal commandment to war against Amalek, therefore refers not to a physical scion of Esav, but rather to the assimilated and intermarried Jews/ערב רב who bring the curse of Amalek/antisemitism upon all generations of Jews throughout the Ages. Herein a clear example of how Torah common law makes a Mishna Torah – legislative review of the Torah itself!

A similar example: the Torah commandment to remove all חמץ prior to Pesach. Compares to the Torah commandment to count the Omer after Pesach for 49 days – similar cases! Now lets examine the case of Amalek with the case of removing all חמץ\counting the Omer. Just as חמץ carries the din of כרת, so too the ערב רב carries the din of כרת. Rabbi Akiva refers to the Wilderness Generation as not having a portion in the World to Come – כרת. Why? Just as the ערב רב worshipped the Golden Calf-אלהים. so too the Wilderness Generation rebelled and refused to conquer the oath sworn land inheritance – Canaan – sworn as the land inheritance of Avram future born – world to come – chosen Cohen seed.

Hence the intent of counting the Omer compares to removing all חמץ from ones’ house prior to Chag Pesach! The ערב רב did not accept the Torah revelation at Sinai and therefore the ערב רב has no brit inheritance in the World to Come. Therefore the intent of counting the Omer, to remove the tuma Yatzir ערב רב as the dominant spirit which “wrestles against Yaacov in the womb of Rivka”, within the heart; heart spelled in tefillah from the Torah לבבך\כם as a Torah precedent. Rabbi Yechuda understood the repetition of the letter ב as the difference between the Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. the Yatzir Ha’Ra.

Herein an example how Torah common law makes a Mishna Torah-Legislative Review which interprets Written Torah commandments into prophetic mussar applicable to all generations of the Jewish people. Goyim not under – anymore than Americans under Russian law. Neither their NT nor Koran ever once refers to the 1st Sinai commandment לשמה. Both foreign religious books worship other 2nd Commandment Gods. The latter Gods declared as Universal Monotheistic. Monotheism by definition violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Moshe sent to Egypt as the מלאך of HaShem in this world, to judge the Gods of Egypt through the 10 plagues and splitting of the Sea of Reeds. Furthermore, the Talmud openly and repeatedly states that only Israel – not Esav or Yishmael – accepted the Torah of HaShem in this world at Sinai. The case of JeZeus prayer to his Father in Heaven proves conclusively that JeZeus did not comprehend the tefillah commandment of kre’a shma – acceptance of the Yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.

The yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven – תורה לשמה לא בשמים היא. Never once does the religions which worship other Gods bring the 1st Sinai Commandment Name. Rather like the Golden Calf substitutes אלהים for the First Commandment Name, which dwells in the hearts/Mishkan of the Chosen Cohen People who accepted alone לשמה this local tribal god, so too and how much more so the God substitutes of JeZeus and Allah Golden Calves.

The removal of chametz prior to Pesach does not “symbolize” removal of pride and sin”. Rather the tuma spirits which define the Yatzir Ha’Ra within the hearts of all generations of Israel forever and to all eternity. Acceptance of the Torah at Sinai learns through the precedents of the judicial oppression of the Court of Par’o who withheld straw and ordered the beatings of Israelite slaves for their failure to meet their daily quota of bricks. Coupled with the story of Yitro, Moshe’s father-in-law who rebuked him, that he himself alone could not judge all the cases of damages suffered among the Israelite people. The Book of D’varim precedent צדק צדק תרדוף links the righteous pursuit of fair compensation of damages through the Courts as the intent of FAITH! Israel came out of Egypt to conquer Canaan with the Faith to rule this land with righteous common law courts. These courts dedicated to pursue justice among our people.

Amalek cannot have “fear of Elohim” any more than can European Xtians during the Shoah – where was JeZeus? Or post WWII Arabs and Muslims who invaded Israel on the same day that David Ben Gurion named the new country with their proclaimed intent to complete the Nazi Shoah and throw the Jews into the Sea. Following the Arab defeats, the collapse of their declared intent to exterminate all Jews in Israel; this Nakba – where was Allah? Amalek simply does not exist as a metaphor for either Xtians or Arabs or Muslims. Amalek the commandment for Jews not to assimilate and marry Goyim on threat of Torah curses destroying Jews like as did the plagues which destroyed Par’o and Egypt together with the destruction of the Gods worshipped by the kings of Canaan.

The Sinai revelation, as expressed through the Mishkan – separates between substance and form – primary vs. secondary. Its not the forms of the Mishkan and later Soloman Temple but rather substance – that the tohor spirits רוח הקודש, revealed after the sin of the Golden Calf, ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון etc., that these tohor spirits dominate the tuma ערב רב spirits which define the clash between opposing tohor vs tuma – spirits within the heart. The classic examples of tuma spirits evil eye, evil tongue, and making a barbeque to heaven by way of sacrifices – as did the two sons of Aaron who died. Cain’s offering likewise rejected. The substance of Torah commandments fundamentally requires wisdom. This wisdom defines the k’vanna which time-oriented Torah commandments require. ‘Form commandments’ – positive and negative commandment – do not require k’vanna. Rather these ‘Form commandments’ function as precedents which permits all generations of the chosen Cohen people to make a legislative review of ‘Form commandments’ elevated unto wisdom time-oriented commandments…

The Blessing\Curse distinction between the first two Sinai commandments separates השם לשמה – לא בשמים היא, from earlier Divine Names, such as אלהים, אל אליון, אל שדי etc which perceive the vision of held by the Avot as HaShem creator of the Heavens and the Earth. The kabbalah which Rav Nemuraskii passed over to me, that such Divine Names refer to the faces of the soul (future born seed in the heavens). Pesach dedicates יה; Shevuoth sanctifies האל. Rosh HaShanna dedicates אל; Yom Kuppur sanctifies אלהים. Sukkot dedicates אל שדי; Shemeni Atzeret sanctifies: איש האלהים. The k’vanna of these Divine Names dedicated each on the 6 days of Chol Shabbat; to sanctify wisdom time-oriented commandments made holy – עבודת השם. Shabbat ceases to do מלאכה, and has the soul name שלום. The spirit verb foundation upon which this Shabbat soul name stands upon – בטחון; no trust no shalom – hence ideally defines the k’vanna of the 3 meals.

The 2nd Sinai curse commandment, defined through the later introduced Torah concept of tuma. The Golden Calf – אלהים. Contrast דברים כה:יח with שמות יב:לח. The Zohar suggests that כל הנחשלים אחריך ואתה עיף ויגע ולא ירא אלהים that this refers only to the ערב רב. Both Esav and Yishmael reject – to this day – the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore אין להם יראת אלהים cannot apply to Amalek but rather directly refers to the ערב רב. Herein serves an example of how משנה תורה makes a Legistlative review of the other four books of the Torah.

The employment of the verse in D’varim as a precedent to the similar verse in Sh’mot defines T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. The eternal mitzva to war against Amalek therefore cannot apply to a family off shoot of Esav because, as mentioned above – neither Esav nor Yishmael accept the revelation of the Torah לשמה – לא בשמים היא. Therefore the mitzva of Amalek refers to antisemitism as a Torah curse, no different than the Torah curses which plagued Par’o in Egypt. Since this eternal Torah curse stands upon the foundation of the 2nd Sinai commandment, then Amalek directly refers to assimilated and intermarried Jews who therein “worship” עבודה זהר.

The NT counterfeit cannot discern between מלאכה from עבודה. The Greek New Testament primarily uses broader terms like ἔργον (ergon, meaning “work”) and λατρεία (latreia, meaning “service” or “worship”). These terms do not have the same connotations of prohibition found in the Hebrew terms, leading to a lack of distinction in the original texts. The much later Vulgate translation clearly no different from the original Greek NT manuscripts because their Latin translations likewise completely fail to discern between the Hebrew מלאכה Latin Opus\עבודה-Servitium because the church עבודה זהר abomination worships/Opus their version of the Golden Calf-word translation which they call JeZeus.

While λατρεία itself is not specifically used in the context of the Sabbath in the New Testament, it appears in passages that discuss worship and service to God, reflecting attitudes and practices related to Sabbath observance. Romans 12:1, Hebrews 9:1, Hebrews 12:28 all employ λατρεία translated as “worship”. This radically differs from the Torah which employs מלאכה as the unique Torah wisdom known as time-oriented commandments. The מלאכה wisdom – the k’vanna required to elevate עבודה Torah commandments unto מלאכה Torah commandments. The Vulgate has no such fundamental awareness of מלאכה because the Church denies the Oral Torah מלאכה of 13 tohor spirits/אל רחום חנון etc., as the basis by which the Oral Torah interprets the k’vanna of Torah commandments applicable to even lower עבודה commandments when these secondary תולדות commandments used as בניני אבות\precedents — in order to derive the prophetic mussar of מלאכה wisdom as the k’vanna of time-oriented commandments. Shabbat the classic example of the מלאכה wisdom of not just this one commandment but all other time oriented commandments which have their own unique מלאכה wisdom k’vanna just as shabbat has its own unique מלאכה wisdom k’vanna. The latter example the mesechta Shabbat of the Talmud defines the wisdom of Shabbat מלאכה as 39 principle labors required to construct the Mishkan. The Vulgate λατρεία view in the context of Shabbat מלאכה completely oblivious of this Torah wisdom. Therefore its Opus\ Servitium no different from the original Greek ἔργον – λατρεία verbs, both this and that translations utterly and totally fails to make the required distinction between מלאכה from עבודה.

Most fundamentally the original NT Greek and later Vulgate Latin translations fail to differentiate between how the First Sinai commandment a מלאכה לשמה from the 2nd Sinai commandment an עבודה. This 2nd Sinai Commandment called עבודה זרה. Failure to differentiate between מלאכה from עבודה, exposes the fundamental lack of wisdom which eternally discerns and distinguishes acceptance of the Torah commandments לשמה from 2nd Commandment Golden Calf עבודה זרה word translations of Names of Gods. The first Sinai commandment a tohor Spirit not a Golden Calf word translation like the opening verse of the Gospel of John declares.

Avodah Zarah in all its historical forms shares a single structural pattern: the attempt to replace the brit of the Avot with a later revelation that claims to supersede or overshadow it. From the Assyrian‑implanted Shomronim, to the communities behind the New Testament JeZeus God, to later universalist theologies in Islam which declare Yishmael bound at the Akadah etc. This אב טומא עבודה זרה, inclusive of statute law halachic religious codifications to post Napoleon Jewish ערב רב sectarian movements. The recurring claim—that they—not the seed of Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov—inherit the “covenantal center”. In every case, the brit of the Avot—displaced and a foreign center—elevated in its place. Whether that “center” — theological, geographic, or cultural or vertical “Star Court” statute law courts. אב טומא עבודה זרה in its very essence employs replacement theology: the relocation of the axis of holiness away from the brit אש forged with the Avot, and toward a later system that declares itself the new Yerushalayim.

Continuation of the Morse Code interpretation of 5th sugya of קידושין. Where the “Dots – Dash – Asterisk” of this Rabbinic Code of inductive reasoning middot. Where “Dots” represent the 7 middot of Hillel; Dash represent the 10 middot of rabbi Akiva; Asterisk represents the 13 middot of rabbi Yishmael. Specifically, that the 7 middot of Hillel communicate the logic of Yovel-Freedom, based upon the liberation of Israel from Egyptian slavery as the Yovel model-basis. Specifically, that the 10 middot of R. Akiva communicates the inductive logic of Justice-Mourning, based upon the death of the 2 sons of Aaron who made a Cain-like “strange fire” korban. Followed by the sudden death of thousands of Rabbi Akiva’s talmidim. And the 13 middot of R. Yishmael – specifically communicates the inductive logic of Pursuit of Righteousness:Tohor middot. Which R. Yechuda referred to as Yatzir Ha-Tov middot within the heart. Therefore my question placed upon this small sugya, which transitions back to halacha away from the 4th Aggadic sugya: How definitive of these differing sets of middot learn and interpret the pressing problem of עגונה which threatens קידושין, replaced by ‘Civil marriages’ today?

No רבוי מיעט in this sugya. But this middah of רבוי מיעט dominates the 1st, second, and 3rd halachic sugyot. The Akiva פירכות, this דין that every קל וחומר must survive, serves as a clear “back-drop” of Oral Torah דיוקים logic which this short sugya defines.

The קל וחומר stress-tested through פירכא, and apparently collapses, due to conceptual distinctions like ”זקוקה ועומדת” term which often come up in discussions related to the rules of Yibbum-Chalitzah and קידושין-גט. Where the language זקוקה refers to a woman who requires a get – the return of her “Nefesh O’lam Ha-Bah soul”, based upon the בנין אב of childless Avram at the brit cut between the pieces. Whereas עומדת, understood through either – the verification by a beit din of her get, or the Chalitzah which releases a widow from the Torah obligation to marry the brother of deceased husband. זקוקה refers to a woman’s marital status; when a woman requires either a גט, or יבום in order to move on from a prior relationship.

Hillel’s 7 middot tend toward: בנין אב and גזירה שוה “early form” – general analogical extension. If two cases resemble each other → law flows between them; it trusts – similar enough – to generate law. This reflects foundational principles in Jewish legal reasoning. Particularly how laws can be derived from one another through analogical reasoning. For example: Binyan Av involves creating a legal category (or “family”) based on a specific case that can then be applied to other similar cases. For instance, if a law applies to one area of Torah law, it can apply to similar areas based on its foundational principle.

Gezeirah Shavah – a method of legal reasoning that draws analogies between two different texts that share key words or phrases. The essence of this interpretation – that when two cases resemble each other, Jewish law allows for a transfer of legal principles and applications between them. When two different situations share common characteristics or foundational elements, they qualify as “similar”.

T’NaCH\Talmudic Common Law flows between similar precedent Cases; based on their resemblance. The law applicable to one case (the “source”) based upon the foundation that Common law stands upon precedents, permitted to base judicial rulings applicable to the other case (the “target”) בניני אבות. The concept “Trust in Similarity”, this analogy trusts that the foundational reasons for the law’s application remain intact. This permits the dynamic logic of Oral Torah פרדס reasoning, to extend across cases.

Hillel’s methodologies represent a sophisticated method of legal thought. His prosbul serves as a strong example. The concept of Yovel, emphasizes creating a cohesive Independent legal interpretation of Torah intent, dependent upon the prevailing conditions of the times. It “understands” (compares a matter to similar matter, such as the separation of t’ruma from chol) by recognizing patterns and relationships between diverse cases. To ensure that the principles of Torah common law both dynamic/flexible and comprehensive.

ר’ עקיבא’s system introduces – sensitivity to every extra word. It makes sharp distinctions, and completely intolerant of Greek Chanukka Civil War Tzeddukim deductive logic/rhetoric – which stands upon loose emotional analogies, by which the elite of Athens controlled the ignorant democratic mobs, likewise as did Rome. Both static statute decree law societies, control democratic mobs through one sided, emotion packed, propaganda; and\or the price of basic staple foods, such the price of bread in Rome.

Fundamentally, R. Akiva’s middot system assumes that no two courtroom cases – identical. The language of the Mishnaic common law, reflects this by distinguishing between two similar Cases, contained within the language of any given Mishna. Hence his middot system, like as found in this 5th sugya, attacks טיפש פשט Case/Din comparison analogies – by exposing hidden differences. For example: “אמה עבריה” → “perhaps”, on the surface serves as a logical took with which to break the קל וחומר analogy.

The servitude of an Amah Ivriyah, generally expected to last for a maximum of six years. In the context of an Amah Ivriyah marrying her master or his son, קידושין applies. If the Amah Ivriyah marries while still in servitude, her husband does not automatically gain the right to determine her freedom. This means that marriage does not grant him authority over her status as a servant. She cannot be forced into emancipation, solely because her status changed from single to married. Her status as a servant remains distinct from that of a normal married woman. Although she becomes a wife through marriage, her terms of servitude still apply unless – formally freed—typically after a maximum of six years, by her master. The husband has specific responsibilities of food, clothing and duty of marriage. These obligations have no connection to her Amah Ivriyah status. Her indentured obligations do not dissolve simply because of marriage. None the less, essential to understand: if קידושין occurs during her captivity, the brit which Avram cut between the pieces – touching the creation of the chosen Cohen people – equally applies to her children.

The laws slavery concerning Amah Ivriyah, unique. On an immediate surface level, they do not conform to the general patterns established by other legal models such as קידושין – other than the oath כללי cut between the pieces by which HaShem swore the Avot, as the fathers of the Cohen people. Her rights and the consequences of her servitude, they differ significantly from normal Jewish women not sold due to conditions of family poverty. Therefore, while the treatment of an Amah Ivriyah externally contrasts sharply with free women in Jewish law, internally the brit cut between the pieces applies equally to the Amah Ivriyah. While our Gemara address the טיפש פשט surface break which separates the slave from a free woman, the פירכא, in the specific of קידושין does not hold with the non similar case of אמה העבריה. However, the Av oath brit Avram & HaShem swore: the mitzva of קידושין, none the less serves as a close בנין אב, which defines the k’vanna of this oath brit כללי umbrella – for all generations inclusive of the פרט “free” and the opposing פרט “g’lut” Jews. Amah Ivriyah serves as a בנין אב for יציאת מצרים.

The terms Zekuka and Omedet complicates our Gemara’s legal reasoning. Both types of Jewish women Zekuka and Omedet equally apply. This theoretical duality creates a legal tension, where different aspects of halacha applies simultaneously, and therefore validates the קל וחומר comparison of “similar” cases. Unlike Amah Ivriyah where rabbi Akiva’s פירכות, on the surface broke rabbi Yishmael’s קל וחומר; one can draw a strict analogy between Zekuka and Omedet. The interplay between “needing intervention” and “awaiting status resolution” cannot be easily likened to a simple straightforward legal categories – the language of the Torah פסוק in דברים. The latter does not throw out rabbi Yishmael’s קל וחומר like a baby with the bathwater; the פסוק does not easily dismiss or invalidate Rabbi Yishmael’s comparative case reasoning.

Rabbi Akiva engaged through nuanced interpretations that often served as tactical rather than strategic logical objections. Post sealing of the Shas Bavli, Reshonim often failed to make this fundamental distinction. They sought to impose clarity for scattered g’lut Jewry, rather than delve into the dynamics of the model of Hillel’s – Yovel priorities. Rabbi Akiva’s & rabbi Yishmael’s middot draw connections and distinctions, easily overlooked by g’lut rabbis faced with the threats of pogroms.

For example the famous Rashi Tosafot dispute wherein Rashi writes that only the קל וחומר permissible to employ post sealing of the Shas by rav Ravina and Ashi; the Tosafot reject this טיפש פשט rote reading of Rashi. In Rashi’s commentary on the NaCH, he himself employs a גזרה שוו, which supports the objections made by his grand children, the Baali Tosafot. The comments made by Reshonim – no different than the halachic rulings brought in a specific sugya of Gemara. Meaning, just as the Gemara halachot serve strictly and only as courtroom בניני אבות-precedents to interpret the multiple faces of how to interpret the wisdom\k’vanna of that specific Mishna; so too and how much more so, Reshonim halachot do not stand upon their own religious ritual feet – absolutely forbidden to isolate halachic precedent and “convert” them into religious statute law “divorced” from the Mishna with which the Framers of the Gemara brought them as precedents in the first place. Halachic opinion only function as בניני אבות to their specific Mishna. Organizing Gemara halachot into statute religious law (egg crate compartments), compares to anointing a bastard as a Cohen HaGadol. The Rambam Sefer Ha Mitzvot and Yad – this very same assimilated marriage which sought to “wed” Israel to Islam’s tawhid Allah Universal monotheism; Yishmael rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai just as it declares that Yishmael bound at the Akadah.

Both rabbi Akiva’s and rabbi Yishmael analytical styles allows for more creative interpretations which lovingly embrace complexity; specifically – recognizing the dual nature of the woman’s legal state. Their middot therein enhance the 7 middot of Hillels Yovel model. The dynamics of Zekuka and Omedet exemplify how Jewish common law resists simplistic statute law deductive analogical reasoning that draws comparisons between two different things, based on reactionary shallow similarities in certain aspects; the blood libel and Jews poisoned the wells and Christ killer analogies the stench of their ensuing pogrom violence remains as a permanent disgrace. This Talmudic Morse code captures the multifaceted nature of Oral Torah interpretive legal status-obligations. Its complexity, reminiscent of Hillel’s most basic interpretative style, highlights a deep understanding of the relationships between laws, obligations, and individual circumstances—thus challenging the straightforward application of legal principles, as codified in Jewish assimilated statute law codifications.

The language זקוקה directly refers to יבום and has nothing to do with גט. However a woman “chained” requires her גט just as a widow requires her Halitzah. Therefore the case of יבמה not categorically different, because it shares a common denominator with עבד עברה. The גט – חליצה comparison, this sugya rejects based upon obvious dissimilarities between the two cases. The silence on the issue of עגונה my objection.

In point of fact, both give “freedom” to the otherwise bound widow, slave, and עגונה; all three equally come within the Av brit umbrella cut between the pieces כלל. The classic reading of this small sugya by Reshonim, which interprets a rejection between גט וחליצה collapses in the matter of עגונה. The difficulty, this sugya does not analyze exit, but rather קנין אישות. This objection not equally addresses the need for the עגונה to return her קידושין קנין אישות? Hence the objection of קנין אישות equally applies to all three similar cases. A fundamental error in assimilated Reshonim deductive logic, which limits debate strictly to the written words on the dof. Oral Torah logic by stark contrast, stands upon making the critical “black fire – white fire” דיוק. The Talmud text understands משנה תורה as having depth. This day vs. night contrast separates T’NaCH\Talmudic common law as dynamic from cursed alien static statute law which dominated g’lut Jewry – especially after the public burning of the Talmud in Paris France 1242, with its ensuing mass population forced transfers from England, France, Germany, and Spain.

The opening thesis supports this premise: No רבוי מיעות employed in this sugya. But the middah of רבוי מיעות dominates the 1st, second, and 3rd sugyot. The 4th & 6th sugyot serves as proof. They switch the axis to an Aggadic prophetic mussar k’vanna pole. Akin to the Stars & Bars – Confederate Flag. So too the Talmud/T’NaCH warp\weft loom-like threads. יצירת קנין, applies both to the widow and the Kallah; the case of עגונה exemplifies contempt rather than respect. The mitzva of קידושין creates through wisdom/time-oriented commandments\ the chosen Cohen people. No discussion of the subject of קידושין — correctly understood without this foundation. המשך זיקה – extension of the קידושין bond, between a widow and her deceased husband’s family, especially in the context of יבום revolves around this: “extension of the bond” of קידושין. This 5th sugya draws a זקוקה ועומדת boundary as its decisive breaker Yabum and get; but fails to address the דיוק case of עגונה. What, this last case simply “chopped liver”?

The עגונה issue relevant now, this very day! Whereas יבומ a far less essential issue, at this time. Yeshiva education fundamentally fails to address the purpose and function of קידושין as the acquisition of the Nefesh O’lam Ha’bah title – acquisition of the woman’s “soul” ; the crux of the mitzva of קידושין, based upon the brit cut between the pieces. This 5th sugya only contains 11 lines of Gemara. Therefore the עגונה chiddush, “Crossing the Rubicon“ as a “logical error” within the constraints of the language of our sugya; this strong objection qualifies as nonsense. Based upon the larger problem of עגונה, not addressed in this sugya – the added subject of עגונה qualifies as a תיקו.

No single sugya in the Gemara fully ‘solves’ the עגונה problem that threatens the mitzva of קידושין – replaced by Civil marriages. No single sugya in the Gemara even implies placing the רשע under the ban akin to נידוי; as a ‘new creation’, which permits the beit din to retroactively invalidate the קידושין, and compel the burial of such רשעים outside of Jewish cemeteries. No different than Benedict de Spinoza’s excommunication from the Jewish community in Amsterdam.

ר׳ ישמעאל – “Anchors” דרשות, they must remain close to peshat. Meaning that the דרוש\פשט pair contrasts with the רמז/סוד pair — in the Warp/Weft Loom relationship which defines the framers of the Talmud Halacha\Aggada scholarship. The fourth sugya previous to our present sugya, an Aggadic sugya that employs the 32 middot of Yossi HaGalill, to make a drosh comparing T’NaCH sugyot which contain a fixed set of Torah middot (אל רחום חנון etc) compared to other בנין אב similar sugyot throughout the 5 Books of the Torah and Prophets, which likewise contain an identical order – the exact same Oral Torah middot which Moshe heard at Horev; based upon counting the שם השם – expressed through the prophetic mystic rotating wheels Divine Chariot. Where the 13 Oral Torah “middot” spin as the spokes/verb “spirits” – the prophetic wheels – of the mystical chariot. שם השם לשמה רוח הקודש the vortex/hub which the other Oral Torah 13 tohor spirit תולדות middot, spin around the שם השם Central hub. Comparable to the Small Sanhedrin common law courts in the Cities of Refuge and other Walled cities which perhaps includes Damascus.

The logical inductive comparison seems solid: יבמה → a weaker acquisition system → yet ביאה works; so קידושין → a stronger → should קל וחומר work. אמה עבריה: has כסף but not ביאה; so such an analogy – not universal. Counter-defence – אמה ≠ אישה :יבמה, because יבמה simply not a “new acquisition case” – because she remains halachically bound. This clearly refutes the קל וחומר, as a false logical comparison between non similar cases – as taught in this sugya.

Thus the logic of opposing sets of middot – in this 5th sugya – exhausts itself. It builds a Hillel-style base assumption, gets attacked by an Akiva-style distinction, which the sugya does not resolve. Therefore our comparison of similar cases fails “upward”. Meaning, instead of validating the קל וחומר, it escalates to a higher authority – ובעלה – the opening word of this sugya. By bypassing the failed similar case analogy, it creates law – the definition of משנה תורה – rather than simply confirms or obeys statute law imposed by Reshonim or Kings or State Legislatures.

קל וחומר – (ר׳ ישמעאל) – constructed & dismantled through פירכא (Akiva-style distinctions), and when no stable derivation survives, the sugya resolves by anchoring the דין directly in the פסוק “ובעלה” – דברים כד:א. But ignores: כי מצא בה ערות דבר which would apply to עגונה, wherein the ex steadfastly refuses to return “title” back to the woman, and permit her to move on with her life free from her ex. The system does not collapse—it ascends to פסוק. Justice defined as צדק צדק תרדוף, therefore Oral Torah inductive logic the generations of Israel determine and define. This contrasts with statute law whose deductive logic fixed and finite. דברים כד:א a complex פסוק. But it clearly states: וכתב לה ספר כריתת ונתן בידה ושלחה מביתו. This מביתו excludes this former אשת איש called בית. The דיוק, if the ex can go on with his life then מדה כנגד מדה so too the woman.

The Tzaddukim placed in נידוי by the P’rushim after the destruction of the Temple. This ban included their wives and children. Later the same ban placed upon the Karaites. Ezra’s generation forced Israel to divorce their foreign wives. The Talmud later refers to them as Na’Creeim; the Shomronim-who converted out of fear of lions. Torah operates upon the needs of the people. עגונה a need to prevent civil marriages. The פסוק ובעלה therefore not the bottom line. The Buck stops at the 2nd Sinai commandment. The Talmud defines av tuma avoda zarah through assimilation and intermarriage. Compare how this mesechta learns ובעלה on .ע, and its connection to ערוה.

ביאה here not just an act but the creation of an exclusive state. The brit cut between the pieces creates the exclusive state: “chosen Cohen people” as the definition of קנין אישות. The 5th Book משנה תורה serves as a בנין אב to “chosen Cohen people”. Based upon prior נידוי precedents: all Torah commandments exist as תולדות to the Avot first two Sinai commandments. Because Israel did not receive the rest of the Torah until Moshe Rabbeinu returned with both the rest of the תרי”ג Written Torah, together with the Oral Torah middot אל רחום וחנון etc by which to interpret the k’vanna of all mitzvot which depend upon the blessing/curse first two Sinai commandments.

The mitzva of קידושין establishes the prohibition of tahorat ha’biet. Tohor vs tuma defines the Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. the Yatzir Ha’Ra within the heart, according to rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nassi. Assimilation destroys the prohibition tohorat ha’biet. Regardless that tohorat ha’biet – a positive Torah commandment! The system never dissolves ערוה without גט. Hillel introduced prosbul to meet a need of his day and time. The Parshah of נח introduces the floods, which Mesechta Sanhedrin attributes to ‘false oaths’. The mitzva of קידושין made before 2 kosher witness and a minyan – no different from the 10 spies! Therefore the beit din has the authority by placing the רשע under the ban of נידוי to create a New Creation just as the beit din does create a New Creation with the ger tzeddick. And there declare that the רשע lacks the brit trust to sanctify the mitzva of קידושין retroactively. Therein the court returns the Nefesh O’lam Ha’ba title back to the עגונה. Justice. Israel came out of Egypt to rule the conquered land of Canaan with justice.

The din of נידוי an oath sworn by the בית דין. The precedent: the Wilderness generation whom rabbi Akiva instructs: אין להם חלק לעולם הבא. Meaning the mitzva of קידושין not applicable to them after the din of כרת. The resurrection of the dead refers not to some mystical NT myth, living on the right hand of the Father in Heaven or the other mystical narishkeit of 72 virgins. The resurrection from the dead stands upon the precedent of the Akadah of Yitzak, the father of the chosen Cohen people. There, Yitzak swore an oath to command his future born Cohen nation-seed, to sanctify wisdom time-oriented commandments which create the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין – in remembrance of the Akadah. Through the wisdom of time-oriented commandments – the holiness of these Av commandments תמיד מעשה בראשית creates from nothing the chosen Cohen people and our מלאכים agents whereby Israel sends forth these Angels to judge the Gods worshipped by Goyim.

Granted that the Reshonim interpret Rabbi Akiva’s “אין להם חלק לעולם הבא” as an eschatological/ aggadic judgment. But rabbinic religious Judaism did the same with the Rambam’s halachic perversion of the 7 mitzvot Bnai Noach as having Universal applicability despite the cold hard fact that only the 12 Tribes of Israel stood at Sinai and accepted the Torah that the שם השם לשמה lives only within the Yatzir Ha’Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people; the Torah itself designates two types of Goyim living within the borders of conquered Canaan: Ger Toshav and Na’Creem.

Rabbis across the board today kiss the Monotheism idol of a Universal ONE GOD narishkeit. Clearly the psok halacha made by rabbi Akiva against the Wilderness Generation, not inclusive of their children who lacked the maturity to understands תורה לא בשמים היא, as the acceptance of the Torah לשמה-מדדות. The counterfeit religions, equally blind to this revelation. A Goy who accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – a ger tzeddick. אישות through the mitzva of קידושין creates from nothing the chosen Cohen people. In like manner a person who publicly profanes his קידושין oath, a בית דין has authority to impose the נידוי din of כרת.

Tohorat ha-biet makes ערוה reversable. Upon eleven clean days without any spots, the woman goes to the mikveh, just as does the ger tzeddick, and come out tohor! ובעלה stable only under these tohorat ha’biet conditions sworn, prior to the Revelation of the Torah at Sinai and again at the brit of Sh’Cem/Rabbeinu Tam tefillen\, that Israel dedicates the services of עבודת השם only when tohor and not in tuma Yatzir Ha-Ra states of emotional hatred. Which the Torah links to the death of the two sons of Aaron, their Cain-like ‘strange fire’ which confuses toldoth commandments with Av tohor wisdom commandments.

A Torah oath stands Worlds apart from a Torah Vow. Both Rosh Ha’Shanna and Yom Kippur definitively prove this fact. Not even השם can annul a Torah oath sworn to the Avot that they alone would father the chosen Cohen people. Even in the face of av tuma avoda zarah – Golden Calf. השם therefore remembered the oath sworn to the Avot and made t’shuva on Yom Kippur. No oath No brit. The טומאה of swearing false oaths – this tuma negates the brit: a man who in public refuses to return the sacred Title property acquired through the mitzva of קידושין by giving her a גט, negates “himself” as traitor of bnai brit. Both the mikveh in one case and the beit din in the other similar case, publicly validates the status of both the woman and the רשע. No different than a Karaite today, who must become a ger tzeddick to join the bnai brit Cohen society.

What fundamentally serves as the foundation of the oath brit identity? יראת שמים. The man who refuses to give his ex-wife her get and return Title of her soul, destroys his good name reputation. No different from a man who publicly profanes Shabbat. The 10 tribes of Israel lost precisely over their loss of their good name reputation identities. Obviously for a beit din to place the ban of נדוי upon a רשע, not a trivial matter. But then again עגונה not lite either.

Just as the עבד עברי losses his free status so too and how much more so the רשע who publicly humiliates his ex-wife by refusing to return her Nefesh Olam Ha’ba soul. Based upon this פסוק condition, that he would return this Title upon their divorce. Further supported by the din of a woman property wherein she enters קידושין – likewise returns to her possession upon divorce.

This Nabal like רשע qualifies within the category of מבטל ברית\הפקעת קידושין. His stands on par with the respect given to an Apikorus – a person whose actions have destroyed their good name reputations. The reference to a “stubborn and rebellious son”, a משל only. Such a Nabal משל, based upon the Book of Shmuel, similar to Cases of Capital Crimes! His דעת throughout the Shas, such as in the opening Mishna of Chullen, another similar משל.

A man who persistently refuses גט, in defiance of beit din and ציבור, reveals retroactively that his דעת קידושין – never aligned with אדעתא דרבנן. A בית דין which exposes that this tuma קידושין, never sustainable within the brit framework, because the husband’s conduct proves itself as a rupture in אדעתא דרבנן – collapses the original קידושין … הפקעת קידושין. The כרת din of נדוי exposes the evidence of rupture on par to the metaphor – stubborn and rebellious son. Thus while rabbi Yishmael’s קל וחומר fails → analogy unreliable; the פסוק anchors system — however, אדעתא דרבנן gives dynamic authority, it establishes a meta-framework of קידושין = אדעתא דרבנן.

The stubborn and rebellious son משל serves to amplify the רשע who refuses to grant a גט – in contempt of a beit din court, which demonstrates a rupture in both ברית and ציבור trust. Such a man, his disgraceful behaviour, as if that man lacks possession of sane דעת. This rupture, not merely moral but legal: it reveals that his original קידושין lacked sustainable אדעתא דרבנן. Through נידוי and ציבור designation, the beit din does not “create a new גט,” but rather exposes and activates the mechanism of הפקעת קידושין—collapsing the original bond due to defective brit דעת. Therefore the בית דין it proves that his דעת invalid → קידושין collapses under אדעתא דרבנן. This tuma marriage – נידוי functions as the ציבור’s formal declaration that this rupture is legally recognized; treated as if it never fully took hold under valid תנאים. Classified as כמי שלא נתקדשה כראוי.

Through נידוי and ציבור designation, the בית דין establishes this rupture as a legal fact. It effectively serves as the evidentiary trigger that activates the הפקעת קידושין—not by replacing the גט, but by collapsing the original קידושין as lacking valid covenantal דעת. Herein the clarified chiddush made upon our sugya of Gemarah which rejects loose analogies but still directly addresses the עגונה crisis. Such a Man, his דעתו אינה מתקיימת במסגרת אדעתא דרבנן של קידושין….אדעתא דרבנן → הפקעת קידושין → פתרון עגונה.

In conclusion: A husband who persistently refuses to grant a גט in defiance of בית דין and ציבור demonstrates a fundamental rupture in ברית and communal trust. This rupture does not negate his general legal capacity, but it reveals that his דעת within קידושין cannot be sustained under אדעתא דרבנן. Through נידוי and ציבור designation, בית דין establishes this rupture as a legal fact. On that basis, they may activate הפקעת קידושין—not by replacing the גט, but by recognizing that the original קידושין lacked valid covenantal דעת and therefore never fully took hold under its תנאים. Accordingly, the woman is no longer bound as an אשת איש, without the need for a גט.

When Yidden face adversity we often tend to turn to the foundations of our national identity.  Unlike the Arab Koran and the Xtian NT/OT-Bible, the Hebrew T’NaCH has a completely different set of priorities which fundamentally changes how the Hebrew read, learned and interpreted.  For the Sages recorded in the sealed Masoret of the Shas Talmud the greatest commandment of the Torah – upon which all other Torah commandments hang like a huge mountain hanging from a single hair – the 1st Sinai Commandment.  Upon this single revelation, all other Torah commandments hinge upon – does a person keep these other commandments in the רוח הקודש Horev revelation of the 13 tohor Spirit revelation – how to accept the 1st Sinai commandment לשמה?

How to correctly understand the 2nd Sinai commandment … interpreted specifically how it contrasts with the 1st Sinai commandment.

שמות כ:ב, that entire verse defines the 1st Sinai positive commandment. Which distinguishes the revelation of the Name שם השם (which I purposely do not write) from all other Divine Name references made in the Book of בראשית. These latter Divine Names, Avraham, for example, called upon אל שדי and did not know the שם השם. Meaning the prophets in the Book of בראשית called upon “their” God – who filled both the Heavens and the Earth. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai in the 1st Sinai commandment – the revelation that the שם השם, first and foremost a Spirit and not a word. The sin of the Golden Calf employs the word אלהים. Thereafter Moshe returned and fasted another 40 days and nights and received the revelation that the שם השם — a רוח הקןדש and not a word; furthermore this שם השם – radically differs from all the Divine Names which the Avot called upon in the Book of בראשית in that תורה לא בשמים היא. Herein defines the crux of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai לשמה. This Hebrew term לשמה, does not mean “for its own sake”. Rather that the Horev 13 tohor spirits אל רחום וחנון etc these spirits NOT words which the lips can pronounce. But rather spirit which dwell, as in the משל of the Mishkan where the Spirits of HaShem לשמה dwell within that structure as the נמשל revelation of השם — לא בשמים היא; meaning the revelation of the Torah לשמה, by definition excludes God in the Heavens above. For example: when a Jew visits a tomb, he tucks in his tzitzit because mitzvot do not apply to the World to Come.

Whereas שמות ג-ו. The verse שמות כ:ז serves as the most distinct fundamental contrast between doing all Torah mitzvot thereafter לשמה – the first commandment; from the 2nd negative commandment which this general negative commandment through the specific verb תשתחוה which most essentially means “do not believe” expressed through the “metaphor” – bow down. All av tuma avoda zarah theologies, creeds and/or belief systems most fundamentally require a stated belief in “other Gods”. The first commandment הוצאתיך ממצרים מבית עבדים stands upon the משנה תורה\common law/ precedent of the oath sworn at the brit of pieces. בראשית טו:יג — ויאמר לאברם ידע תדע כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם ועבדו אותם וענו אותם ארבע מאות שנה. What makes this interesting, Israel was but 210 years in Egypt not four hundred years. חז”ל interprets the time difference to the Egyptian g’lut from the birth of Yitzak. Despite Yitzak never leaving the land of Canaan, Yitzak lived under the authority of foreign kings, no different from the post Babylonian exile where Judea existed as a ”banana republic” under the Persians, the Greek empires, both in Egypt and in Syria, and also by the Roman empire. The Talmud instructs that throughout the entire 2nd Temple period, Jews did not ever once keep the Yovel – the 50th year of freedom – declared throughout the land of Judea. Why?

This declaration of Freedom fundamentally requires that Jews rule Judea as a free Independent nation! Hence the “g’lut” described at the brit cut between the pieces states 400 years, because starting with the birth of Yitzak “freedom” which requires that an Independent Great Sanhedrin Court in Jerusalem makes this Yovel declaration did not exist. During the approximately 110 years of Hashmonaim kings who ruled Judea following the successful revolt against the Syrian Greek empire, political and social anarchy, chaos, and Civil Wars defined this entire period. Herein explains how the Talmud instructs that during the entire period of the 2nd Temple, a span of about 450 years, Jews never once sanctified the mitzvah of the Yovel.

Both the Nicene Creed and the conversion to being a Muslim center on a theological belief that a person must “buy” to be either a Xtian or Muslim. Hence “belief” functions as the יסוד of all av tuma avoda zara. The Talmud interprets the 2nd Sinai commandment specifically through 1. Assimilation and 2. Intermarriage.

Examples of these two יסודות of av tuma avoda zarah: Penchas killing the head of the tribe of Shimon, the war against Midian where Balaam advised seducing Israel with wine and women; from here the חז”ל made Goyim wine forbidden to drink together with eating Goyim made bread. King Sholomo foreign wives – directly linked to his avoda zara. Ezra’s demand that Jews returning from Babylonian exile with foreign wives must divorce these women. Also when Jews built the 2nd Temple they rejected the assistance of the Shomronim imported by the Assyrian empire to replace the populations of the 10 Tribes with foreign alien conquered people who eventually “converted” to the God of the land out of fear for lions.

Another contrast to the distinction between 400 and 210 years, the manner that the Reshonim scholars interpreted אנכי ה’ אלהיך, as the mitzva to know (לדעת) that there is one God. That He is the sole source of existence and authority. And that He is personally connected to (“…אשר הוצאתיך”) Israel alone. Only the 12 Tribes of Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai; Esav rejected the Torah – do not murder. And Yishmael rejected the Torah – do not steal. If a ger tzeddik refuses even one Torah commandment, the court which weighs his New Creation status rejects him or her. This fundamentally rejects the Pauline NT ‘grafted’ as utter nonsense.

Another fundamental component of av tuma avoda zara – its belief system theologies or creeds etc seek to insert a substitutional belief system which the Torah fundamentally rejects. The Primary source מכילתא instructs acceptance of מלכות שמים, specifically as expressed in the tefilla from the Torah mitzvah of קריא שמע, which rabbi Yochanon extended to all sworn blessings contrasted by שבח Tehillem “praises”. The latter lacks שם ומלכות.

The mitzvah of kre’a shma, like shabbat, or Moshiach – all wisdom Torah commandments which require k’vanna. This latter abstract term, understood as the dedication of one or more of the 13 Oral Torah “spirits” which define the שם השם לשמה revealed in the first Sinai commandment. רוח הקודש not words, like the word אלהים which the ערב רב שאין להם יראת אלהים called the Golden Calf. Time-oriented commandments the purpose of observance of “ALL” Torah and Talmudic commandments and mitzvot – according to how the B’HaG learns. Contrast the Sefer HaMitzvot of assimilated Rambam whose book compares to storing eggs by the dozen; he restricts all the תרי”ג mitzvot limited to positive and negative commandments which do not require the wisdom which dedicates a Oral Torah spirit as defined through Torah and NaCH prophetic mussar.

Virtually all rabbinic Jewish authorities throughout the ‘Golden Age’ Spain, duplicated the infidelity of the T’zeddukim as defined through the Hanukkah lights. Rambam serves as the exposed example. But assimilation and intermarriage defined the curse of the 2nd Sinai commandment which resulted in Jewish Civil Wars and forced expulsions from virtually all European countries; specifically England, France, the German kingdom, Spain, and the late 19th Century Czarist mass expulsion of Jews from Russia prior to the Bolshevik revolution.

Assimilated Rambam replaced the inductive logic kabbalah of Rabbis Hillel, Akiva, Yishmael – which interprets Halacha; and Yossi HaGalil’s “32 Middot” which interprets Aggada — all collectively included under the umbrella known as פרדס inductive reasoning which defines the revelation of the 13 tohor middot of Horev post sin of the Golden Calf abomination. The Rambam organized his Yad halachic code in the same manner he did his Sefer HaMitzvot – into rigid Greek philosophy deductive syllogism logic. This fundamentally profanes דברים יב:ל,לא — do not ask how Goyim worship their Gods that I may do likewise. Roman statute laws – decreed by government authorities do not compare nor resemble judicial rulings which have the power to re-interpret (Legislative Review) all laws imposed by kings, Senates or other cult of personality authorities – Caesar for example embraced the idea that he lived as the son of God.

Yet assimilated Rambam organized his Yad which directly duplicated the method of both Greek and Roman statute law! Rambam failed to understand that Gemara halachot contained within a specific sugya of Gemara, חז”ל brought as בניני אבות precedents – akin to different witnesses unique perspectives – of a specific Mishnaic judicial ruling. The Rambam’s replacement theology, arbitrarily organized, based upon Greek logic, Gemara halachot independent of the Mishna – a fundamental error. Halachot from the Gemara do not stand upon their own feet any more than Reshonim comments made upon the Talmud. Once the Talmud sealed – this Primary Source – forever separated from temporary Reshonim or thereafter secondary or tertiary sources.

Reshonim opinions do not and cannot permanently define sealed masoret primary sources. Reshonim by definition existed in cursed g’lut. The language מצרים based upon the above mentioned 400 years in a foreign land – לאו דוקא. G’lut Jews – as slaves – cannot do mitzvot לשמה. Therefore the temporary need that g’lut Jewry experienced at the height of the barbaric Dark Ages does not apply to the Independent Jewish state achieved post the ’48 and ’67 Wars of National Independence. Anymore than the UN has a mandate to determine the borders of a Palestinian state after David Ben Gurion declared the national Independence of Israel.

The מדרש which references (ספרי / מכילתא traditions about עשו וישמעאל), it seems to me directly invalidates any and all belief systems whose theologies promote a Monotheistic Universal God, which the assimilated Rambam openly embraced with both his minority Reshon interpretation of 7 mitzvot applicable to all Goyim in all lands together with his permission that Jews can daven tefillah in Mosques. The god of Israel only the 12 tribes accepted. But even that, according to rabbi Akiva’s interpretation that the Wilderness Generation has no portion in the World to Come. Therefore the god of Israel, a local tribal god and not a Monotheistic Universal God which the theologies of both church and mosque worship. In like manner, בראשית-ברית אש means oath alliance sworn לשמה. This interpretation of the סודות of the word בראשית (a Pardes logic), does not mean “covenant” anymore than the word ONE in the opening verse of kre’a shma refers to Monotheism.

The language שם ומלכות does not refer to acceptance of any “king”. Rather the burden to direct the Yatzir Ha’tov tohor middot to rule the Yatzir Ha’ra middot within the heart – as rabbi Yechuda defines בכל לבבך within the language of kreat shma. כונה a wisdom commandment stands separate from the toldot positive and negative Torah commandments which do not require k’vanna.

Post the Rambam induced – his משנה תורה – Tzedukim Civil War wherein they sought to convert Jerusalem into a Greek polis, all Reshonim and later rabbinic authorities wrote their commentaries upon the halachic codes, not limited to the כסף משנה statute law commentary but inclusive of all commentaries written on the common law codes of the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh, and Baalei Tosafot – following the ירידות הדורות-Rambam “domino effect” where in later rabbinic authorities confuse T’NaCH/Talmudic\Midrashim common law which learns from פרדס logic precedents to the alien imported statute law codes which pretend that Gemara and later Reshonim opinions – like as define both the Tur and Beit Yosef commentaries – determine religious halachic decrees.

The framers of the Mishna and Gemara wrote their works as a model when Jews reconquered the homelands from the Roman barbarians and achieved an Independent Jewish Sanhedrin common law court system which alone possesses the power to declare the Yovel. Even the RambaN in his famous commentary to the Chumas teaches that g’lut Jews cannot keep Torah mitzvot! Glut Jews observe these mitzvot so they do not forget what it means to establish the chosen Cohen society in the reconquered land of Canaan.

“מלך העולם” (standard ברכה language) compares to the twice repeated תמיד מעשה בראשית in the opening שחרית kria shema blessings. The term מלאכה close to מלאכים referenced within this first blessing. The wisdom creation story משל requires the Pardes דיוק which makes the required נמשל; wisdom commandment/time-oriented commandments create from nothing (יש מאין) the chosen Cohen people. This interpretation of the purpose for all wisdom Av time-oriented commandments fundamentally rejects the Goyim notion which continually slanders Jews as an inferior race – made famous by the לאו דווקא Nazi barbarians.

The טיפש פשט literalism that God created the world in 6 days and rested upon the 7th: 1. fails to discern wisdom commandments/time-oriented commandments (like as did the Rambam Sefer HaMitzvot code). 2. That is the “רוחהקודש” k’vanna of these mitzvot which תמיד מעשה בראשית creates the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot from generation to generation. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai, inclusive of the Book of בראשית. The טיפש פשט that reads the Torah in a historical chronological order fails to grasp that the revelation of judicial common law stands upon Pardes/middot precedents, and therefore has no fixed order. For example: the twice repeated עשרת הדברות – in point of fact never commanded in this rigid Code of Hammurabi format.

Following the revelation of the 2nd Sinai commandment Israel feared for their lives and demanded that Moshe make the aliya and receive the rest of the Torah! Why does the Torah then repeat the עזרת דבורות? Torah common law stands upon the יסוד of precedents! The עזרת דבורות “remember” the 10 plagues whereby the god of Israel judged the Gods of both Egypt and later Canaan in the days of Yehoshua the prophet.

In like manner assimilated Rambam stands virtually alone, even among Rishonim sources, when he poskins halacha from Aggadic sources like his 7 mitzvot bnei noach narishkeit. Goyim never accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai. Violation of the 7 mitzvot – the Talmud classifies as a Capital Crime. Only a Sanhedrin court can judge capital crimes. The jurisdiction of Sanhedrin courts limited, no different than the Yovel, to within the borders of an Independent Jewish state in the land of Canaan. Therefore the 7 mitzvot bnai noach referred to in masechet Sanhedrin can only refer to gere toshav which the Torah distinguishes from na’cree/Canaani\Shomronim.

G’lut Jews by definition cannot grasp Pardes middot. The Reshonim Universally failed to affix דרוש\פשט to Aggadic sources in the Shas and רמז/סוד to the halachic portions of the Shas. The local god of Israel limited only to Israel because Moshe sent as a מלאך to Egypt based upon HaShem who remembered the oaths sworn to the Avot. The chosen Cohen seed learns directly from Sarah who commanded Avraham to cast out the bondwoman and her son, that only Yitzak would inherit the Cohen brit faith. Neither the NT nor Koran once brings the word ברית. Covenant does not mean brit. Because to swear a Torah oath requires שם ומלכות and neither books of avoda zara ever bring רוח הקודש Name but rather sin of Golden Calf word translations. The opening verse of the gospel of John – and the word is God. Utterly false to declare: The נמשל never removes God from being בורא ומלך על כל העולם. No man can grasp the Divine anymore that any ant can comprehend human civilizations! The Mishna teaches this in a strong warning: those who contemplate matters “above them”, “beneath them”, or “behind them” – better that, such persons never born.

“גלות Jews cannot grasp פרדס” … just as slaves cannot own property, based upon remembering the slavery of Par’o and Egypt. Rabbi Akiva, Yishmael lived under Roman tyranny occupation. This Tannaic Masoret of Pardes serves to amplify the k’vanna of the 13 tohor רוח הקודש middot of Horev – following the sin of the Golden Calf.

Rashi serves as witness. His Chumash commentary validates Torah common law through his blending of דרוש\פשט. He lived during the Xtian obliteration of the Jews of Germany on their way to duplicate that same obliteration of Jews under Arab rule during the 1st Crusades. Therefore, he limited his Talmudic commentary primarily to a dictionary-like definition of obscure terms. This forced his grandchildren – the Baali Tosafot – to correct his commentary to the Talmud. Rashi feared, as the later public burning of the Talmud in Paris 1242 proved the Goyim’s hatred of Jews. He therefore wrote his Talmudic commentary which concealed the Aggadic דרוש\פשט axis of Pardes inductive logic limited to his Chumash commentary to prevent the church barbarians from discovering how to learn Talmudic common law.

The God of Israel always local. Elie Wiesel “Where was God” throughout the Shoah. Equally applies to where was JeZeus during the Shoah or where was Allah during the Nakba of both ’48 and ’67 Arab defeats which failed to throw the Jews into the Sea and accomplish the Nazi Shoah in the Middle East. The Torah limits “אמונה” strictly and only to צדק צדק תרדוף – based upon the oppression of the court of Par’o who withheld the necessary straw but condemned the Hebrew slaves for their laziness. No Goyim court, not the court of Par’o or the court in any g’lut Goyim lands ever once force the church or mosque authorities to stand trial for genocide or war crime as did the ICC which Israel never signed the Rome Agreement yet nonetheless attempted to impose its jurisdiction and declare the Israeli PM a war criminal post the Oct7th 2023 UNWRA & Hamas massacree of over 1300 Jews and the Red Cross failure to even once visit stolen Israelis held in torture tunnels for 2 years!

The error “God is never geographically limited”, fails to account for the Cohen lands of Canaan, which limits the inheritance of the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot. דברים לו:יח – הסתר פנים restricted to the Life\Death – Blessing/Curse interpretation of the first two Sinai commandments. Ruling the land of Canaan with judicial justice which makes fair restitution of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews to restore the brit alliance among our people which stands shalom upon the יסוד of trust … clearly limited like the example of the Yovel.

“צדק צדק תרדוף” the most essential defining comprehension of Torah and NaCH prophetic mussar of faith. This utterly contradicts the NT alien import of belief in a Roman messiah as god concept. Or the Koran notion that prophets sent to all nations who never accepted the Torah at Sinai; starting with the Koran replacement of Yishmael for Yitzak at the akedah. Bnai Brit common law courts have the Torah faith obligation to pursue righteous justice among our brit allied people.

The בראשית comprehension of מלוא כל הרץ כבודו — לה’ הארץ ומלואה learns from the precedent of the flood of Noach. The floods did not reach the oath-sworn lands of Canaan. צדק defines the obligation of the oath brit faith within the Cohen inheritance lands of Canaan. Goyim courts do not compare or resemble Sanhedrin courts. The latter common law courts with the Torah constitutional mandate to make משנה תורה-legislative review of any and all laws imposed by the 12 Tribal governments of the Republic and/or the Central government/king in Jerusalem. These courts – “lateral courts”. Goyim courts, vertical courts; where the State pays the salaries of the Judges and prosecuting attorneys. The Torah refers to this latter court system through the negative commandment which prohibits judges from accepting bribes. Torah Sanhedrin courts, limited strictly and only to the Independent Cohen nation within conquered Canaan.

שמות כ:ב, that entire verse defines the 1st Sinai positive commandment. Which distinguishes the revelation of the Name שם השם (which I purposely do not write) from all other Divine Name references made in the Book of בראשית. These latter Divine Names, Avraham for example called upon אל שדי and did not know the שם השם. Meaning the prophets in the Book of בראשית called upon “their” God – who filled both the Heavens and the Earth. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai in the 1st Sinai commandment – the revelation that the שם השם, first and foremost a Spirit and not a word. The sin of the Golden Calf employs the word אלהים. Thereafter Moshe returned and fasted another 40 days and nights and received the revelation that the שם השם — a רוח הקןדש and not a word; furthermore this שם השם – radically differs from all the Divine Names which the Avot called upon in the Book of בראשית in that תורה לא בשמים היא. Herein defines the crux of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai לשמה. This Hebrew term לשמה, does not mean “for its own sake”. Rather that the Horev 13 tohor spirits אל רחום וחנון etc these spirits NOT words which the lips can pronounce. But rather spirit which dwell, as in the משל of the Mishkan where the Spirits of HaShem לשמה dwell within that structure as the נמשל revelation of השם — לא בשמים היא; meaning the revelation of the Torah לשמה, by definition excludes God in the Heavens above. For example: when a Jew visits a tomb, he tucks in his tzitzit because mitzvot do not apply to the World to Come.

Whereas שמות ג-ו. The verse שמות כ:ז serves as the most distinct fundamental contrast between doing all Torah mitzvot thereafter לשמה – the first commandment; from the 2nd negative commandment which this general negative commandment through the specific verb תשתחוה which most essentially means “do not believe” expressed through the “metaphor” – bow down. All av tuma avoda zarah theologies, creeds and/or belief systems most fundamentally require a stated belief in “other Gods”. The first commandment וצאתיך מצרים מבית עבדים stands upon the משנה תורה\common law/ precedent of the oath sworn at the brit of pieces. בראשית טו:יג — ויאמר אל אברם ידע תדע כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם ועבדו אתם וענו אתם ארבע מאות שנה. What makes this interesting, Israel was but 210 years in Egypt not four hundred years. חז”ל interprets the time difference to the Egyptian g’lut from the birth of Yitzak. Despite Yitzak never leaving the land of Canaan, Yitzak lived under the authority of foreign kings, no different from the post Babylonian exile where Judea existed as a ”banana republic” under the Persians, the Greek empires, both in Egypt and in Syria, and also by the Roman empire. The Talmud instructs that throughout the entire 2nd Temple period, Jews did not ever once keep the Yovel – the 50th year of freedom – declared throughout the land of Judea. Why?

This declaration of Freedom fundamentally requires that Jews rule Judea as a free Independent nation! Hence the “g’lut” described at the brit cut between the pieces states 400 years, because starting with the birth of Yitzak “freedom” which requires that an Independent Great Sanhedrin Court in Jerusalem makes this Yovel declaration did not exist. During the approximately 110 years of Hashmonaim kings who ruled Judea following the successful revolt against the Syrian Greek empire, political and social anarchy, chaos, and Civil Wars defined this entire period. Herein explains how the Talmud instructs that during the entire period of the 2nd Temple, a span of about 450 years, Jews never once sanctified the mitzva of the Yovel.

Both the Nicene Creed and the conversion to being a Muslim center on a theological belief that a person much “buy” to be either a Xtian or Muslim. Hence “belief” functions as the יסוד of all av tuma avoda zara. The Talmud interprets the 2nd Sinai commandment specifically through 1. Assimilation and 2. Intermarriage.

Examples of these two יסודות of av tuma avoda zarah: Penchas killing the head of the tribe of Shimon, the war against Midian where Bil’aam advised seducing Israel with wine and women; from here the חז”ל made Goyim wine forbidden to drink together with eating Goyim made bread. King Sholomo foreign wives directly linked to his avoda zara. Ezra’s demand that Jews returning from Babylonian exile with foreign wives must divorce these women. Also when Jews built the 2nd Temple they rejected the assistence of the Shomronim imported by the Assyrian empire to replace the populations of the 10 Tribes with foreign alien conquered people who eventually “converted” to the God of the land out of fear for lions.

Another contrast to the distinction between 400 and 210 years, the manner that the Reshonim scholars interpreted אנכי ה’ אלהיך, as the mitzva to know (לדעת) that there is one God. That He is the sole source of existence and authority. And that He is personally connected to (“…אשר הוצאתיך”) Israel alone. Only the 12 Tribes of Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai; Esav rejected the Torah – do not murder. And Yishmael rejected the Torah – do not steal. If a ger tzeddik refuses even one Torah commandment, the court which weighs his New Creation status rejects him or her. This fundamentally rejects the Pauline NT ‘grafted’ as utter nonsense.

Another fundamental component of av tuma avoda zara – it belief system theologies or creeds etc seek to insert a substitutional belief system which the Torah fundamentally rejects. The Primary source מכילתא instructs acceptance of מלכות שמים, specifically as expressed in the tefilla from the Torah mitzva of קריא שמע, which rabbi Yochanon extended to all sworn blessings contrasted by שבח Tehillem “praises”. The latter lacks שם ומלכות.

The mitzva of kre’a shma, like shabbat, or Moshiach – all wisdom Torah commandments which require k’vanna. This latter abstract term understood as the dedication of one or more of the 13 Oral Torah “spirits” which define the שם השם לשמה revealed in the first Sinai commandment. רוח הקודש not words, like the word אלהים which the ערב רב שאין להם יראת אלהים called the Golden Calf. Time-oriented commandments the purpose of observance of “ALL” Torah and Talmudic commandments and mitzvot – according to how the B’HaG learns. Contrast the Sefer HaMitzvot of assimilated Rambam whose book compares to storing eggs by the dozen; he restricts all the תרי”ג mitzvot limited to positive and negative commandments which do not require the wisdom which dedicates a Oral Torah spirit as defined through Torah and NaCH prophetic mussar.

Virtually all rabbinic Jewish authorities throughout the ‘Golden Age’ Spain, duplicated the infidelity of the T’zeddukim as defined through the Hanukkah lights. Rambam serves as the exposed example. But assimilation and intermarriage defined the curse of the 2nd Sinai commandment which resulted in Jewish Civil Wars and forced expulsions from virtually all European countries; specifically England, France, the German kingdom, Spain, and the late 19th Century Czarist mass expulsion of Jews from Russia prior to the Bolshevik revolution.

Assimilated Rambam replaced the inductive logic kabbalah of Rabbis Hillel, Akiva, Yishmael – which interprets Halacha; and Yossi HaGalil’s “32 Middot” which interprets Aggada — all collectively included under the umbrella known as פרדס inductive reasoning which defines the revelation of the 13 tohor middot of Horev post sin of the Golden Calf abomination. The Rambam organized his Yad halachic code in the same manner he did his Sefer Ha’Mitzvot – into rigid Greek philosophy deductive syllogism logic. This fundamentally profanes דברים יב:ל,לא — do not ask how Goyim worship their Gods that I may do likewise. Roman statute laws – decreed by government authorities do not compare nor resemble to judicial rulings which have the power to re-interpret (Legislative Review) all laws imposed by kings, Senates or other cult of personality authorities – Caesar for example embraced the idea that he lived as the son of God.

Yet assimilated Rambam organized his Yad which directly duplicated the method of both Greek and Roman statute law! Rambam failed to understand that Gemara halachot contained within a specific sugya of Gemara, חז”ל brought as בניני אבות precedents – akin to different witnesses unique perspectives – of a specific Mishnaic judicial ruling. The Rambam’s replacement theology arbitrarily organized, based upon Greek logic, Gemara halachot independent of the Mishna – a fundamental error. Halachot from the Gemara do not stand upon their own feet any more than Reshonim comments made upon the Talmud. Once the Talmud sealed – this Primary Source – forever separated from temporary Reshonim or thereafter secondary or tertiary sources.

Reshonim opinions do not and cannot permanently define sealed masoret primary sources. Reshonim by definition existed in cursed g’lut. The language מצרים based upon the above mentioned 400 years in a foreign land – לאו דוקא. G’lut Jews – as slaves – cannot do mitzvot לשמה. Therefore the temporary need that g’lut Jewry experience at the height of the barbaric Dark Ages does not apply to the Independent Jewish state achieved post the ’48 and ’67 Wars of National Independence. Anymore than the UN has a mandate to determine the borders of a Palestinian state after David Ben Gurion declared the national Independence of Israel.

The מדרש which references (ספרי / מכילתא traditions about עשו וישמעאל), it seems to me directly invalidates any and all belief systems whose theologies promote a Monotheisitic Universal God, which the assimilated Rambam openly embraced with both his minority Reshon interpretation of 7 mitzvot applicable to all Goyim in all lands together with his permission that Jews can daven tefillah in Mosques. The god of Israel only the 12 tribes accepted. But even that, according to rabbi Akiva’s interpretation that the Wilderness Generation has no portion in the World to Come. Therefore the god of Israel a local tribal god and not a Monotheistic Universal God which the theologies of both church and mosque worship. In like manner, בראשית-ברית אש means oath alliance sworn לשמה. This interpretation of the סודות of the word בראשית (a Pardes logic), does not mean “covenant” anymore than the word ONE in the opening verse of kre’a shma refers to Monotheism.

The language שם ומלכות does not refer to acceptance of any “king”. Rather the burden to direct the Yatzir Ha’tov tohor middot to rule the Yatzir Ha’ra middot within the heart – as rabbi Yechuda defines בכל לבבך within the language of kre’a shma. כונה a wisdom commandment stands separate from the toldot positive and negative Torah commandments which do not require k’vanna.

Post the Rambam induced – his משנה תורה – Tzeddukim Civil War wherein they sought to convert Jerusalem into a Greek polis, all Reshonim and later rabbinic authorities wrote their commentaries upon the halachic codes, not limited to the כסף משנה statute law commentary but inclusive of all commentaries written on the common law codes of the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh, and Baali Tosafot – following the ירידות הדורות-Rambam “domino effect” wherein later rabbinic authorities confuse T’NaCH/Talmudic\Midrashim common law which learns from פרדס logic precedents to the alien imported statute law codes which pretend that Gemara and later Reshonim opinions – like as define both the Tur and Beit Yosef commentaries – determine religious halachic decrees.

The framers of the Mishna and Gemara wrote their works as a model when Jews reconquered the homelands from the Roman barbarians and achieved an Independent Jewish Sanhedrin common law court system which alone possess the power to declare the Yovel. Even the RambaN in his famous commentary to the Chumas teaches that g’lut Jews cannot keep Torah mitzvot! G’lut Jews observe these mitzvot so they do not forget what it means to establish the chosen Cohen society in the reconquered land of Canaan.

“מלך העולם” (standard ברכה language) compares to the twice repeated תמיד מעשה בראשית in the opening שחרית kre’a shma blessings. The term מלאכה close to מלאכים referenced within this first blessing. The wisdom creation story משל requires the Pardes דיוק which makes the required נמשל; wisdom commandment/time-oriented commandments create from nothing (יש מאין) the chosen Cohen people. This interpretation of the purpose for all wisdom Av time-oriented commandments fundamentally rejects the Goyim notion which continually slanders Jews as an inferior race – made famous by the לאו דוקא Nazi barbarians.

The טיפש פשט literalism that God created the world in 6 days and rested upon the 7th: 1. fails to discern wisdom commandments/time-oriented commandments (like as did the Rambam Sefer HaMitzvot code). 2. That is the “רוחהקודש” k’vanna of these mitzvot which תמיד מעשה בראשית creates the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot from generation to generation. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai, inclusive of the Book of בראשית. The טיפש פשט that reads the Torah in a historical chronological order fails to grasp that the revelation of judical common law stands upon Pardes/middot precedents, and therefore has no fixed order. For example: the twice repeated עשרת הדבורות – in point of fact never commanded in this rigid Code of Hammurabi format.

Following the revelation of the 2nd Sinai commandment Israel feared for their lives and demanded that Moshe make the aliya and receive the rest of the Torah! Why does the Torah then repeat the עזרת דבורות? Torah common law stands upon the יסוד of precedents! The עזרת דבורות “remember” the 10 plagues whereby the god of Israel judged the Gods of both Egypt and later Canaan in the days of Yehoshua the prophet.

In like manner assimilated Rambam stands virtually alone, even among Reshonim sources, when he poskins halacha from Aggadic sources like his 7 mitzvot bnai noach narishkeit. Goyim never accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai. Violation of the 7 mitzvot – the Talmud classifies as a Capital Crime. Only a Sanhedrin court can judge capital crimes. The jurisdiction of Sanhedrin courts limited, no different than the Yovel, to within the borders of an Independent Jewish state in the land of Canaan. Therefore the 7 mitzvot bnai noach referred to in mesechta Sanhedrin can only refer to gere toshav which the Torah distinguishes from na’cree/Canaani\Shomronim.

G’lut Jews by definition cannot grasp Pardes middot. The Reshonim Universally failed to affix דרוש\פשט to Aggadic sources in the Shas and רמז/סוד to the halachic portions of the Shas. The local god of Israel limited only to Israel because Moshe sent as a מלאך to Egypt based upon HaShem who remembered the oaths sworn to the Avot. The chosen Cohen seed learns directly from Sarah who commanded Avraham to cast out the bondwoman and her son, that only Yitzak would inherit the Cohen brit faith. Neither the NT nor Koran once brings the word ברית. Covenant does not mean brit. Because to swear a Torah oath requires שם ומלכות and neither books of avoda zara ever bring רוח הקודש Name but rather sin of Golden Calf word translations. The opening verse of the gospel of John – and the word is God. Utterly false to declare: The נמשל never removes God from being בורא ומלך על כל העולם. No man can grasp the Divine anymore that any ant can comprehend human civilizations! The Mishna teaches this in a strong warning: those who contemplate about matters “above them”, “beneath them”, or “behind them” – better that such persons never born.

“גלות Jews cannot grasp פרדס” … just as slaves cannot own property, based upon remembering the slavery of Par’o and Egypt. Rabbi Akiva, Yishmael lived under Roman tyranny occupation. This Tannaic Masoret of Pardes serves to amplify the k’vanna of the 13 tohor רוח הקודש middot of Horev – following the sin of the Golden Calf.

Rashi serves as witness. His Chumash commentary validates Torah common law through his blending of דרוש\פשט. He lived during the Xtian obliteration of the Jews of Germany on their way to duplicate that same obliteration of Jews under Arab rule during the 1st Crusades. Therefore, he limited his Talmudic commentary primarily to a dictionary like definition of obscure terms. This forced his grand children – the Baali Tosafot – to correct his commentary to the Talmud. Rashi feared, as the later public burning of the Talmud in Paris 1242 proved the Goyim hatred of Jews. He therefore wrote his Talmudic commentary which concealed the Aggadic דרוש\פשט axis of Pardes inductive logic limited to his Chumash commentary to prevent the church barbarians from discovering how to learn Talmudic common law.

The God of Israel always local. Elie Wiesel “Where was God” throughout the Shoah. Equally applies to where was JeZeus during the Shoah or where was Allah during the Nakba of both ’48 and ’67 Arab defeats which failed to throw the Jews into the Sea and accomplish the Nazi Shoah in the Middle East. The Torah limits “אמונה” strictly and only to צדק צדק תרדוף – based upon the oppression of the court of Par’o who withheld the necessary straw but condemned the Hebrew slaves for their laziness. No Goyim court, not the court of Par’o or the court in any g’lut Goyim lands ever once force the church or mosque authorities to stand trial for genocide or war crime as did the ICC which Israel never signed the Rome Agreement yet nonetheless attempted to impose its jurisdiction and declare the Israeli PM a war criminal post the Oct7th 2023 UNWRA & Hamas massacree of over 1300 Jews and the Red Cross failure to even once visit stolen Israelis held in torture tunnels for 2 years!

The error “God is never geographically limited”, fails to account for the Cohen lands of Canaan, which limits the inheritance of the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot. דברים לו:יח – הסתר פנים restricted to the Life\Death – Blessing/Curse interpretation of the first two Sinai commandments. Ruling the land of Canaan with judicial justice which makes fair restitution of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews to restore the brit alliance among our people which stands shalom upon the יסוד of trust … clearly limited like the example of the Yovel.

“צדק צדק תרדוף” the most essential defining comprehension of Torah and NaCH prophetic mussar of faith. This utterly contradict the NT alien import of belief in a Roman messiah as god concept. Or the Koran notion that prophets sent to all nations who never accepted the Torah at Sinai; starting with the Koran replacement of Yishmael for Yitzak at the akadah. Bnai Brit common law courts have the Torah faith obligation to pursue righteous justice among our brit allied people.

The בראשית comprehension of מלוא כל הרץ כבודו — לה’ הארץ ומלואה learns from the precedent of the flood of Noach. The floods did not reach the oath sworn lands of Canaan. צדק defines the obligation of the oath brit faith within the Cohen inheritance lands of Canaan. Goyim courts do not compare or resemble Sanhedrin courts. The latter common law courts with the Torah constitutional mandate to make משנה תורה-legislative review of any and all laws imposed by the 12 Tribal governments of the Republic and/or the Central government/king in Jerusalem. These courts “lateral courts”. Goyim courts, vertical courts; where the State pays the salaries of the Judges and prosecuting attorneys. The Torah refers to this latter court system through the negative commandment which prohibits judges from accepting bribes. Torah Sanhedrin courts limited strictly and only to the Independent Cohen nation within conquered Canaan.

G’lut cursed Judaism, meaning impossible for ‘Egyptian slave Jews’, to pursue judicial Capital Crimes justice in g’lut. Proof that cursed g’lut Jews cannot obey the Torah לשמה. Hence across g’lut Chazal: Geonim, Reishonim – Rambam vs RambaN for example – the Shulchan Aruch to later modern halachic authorities and how much more so Goyim ‘biblical studies’ – none of them by definition instruct Torah rejects monotheism. Despite the multiple places throughout Talmud and Midrashic literature which teaches that both Esav and Yishmael rejected the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – assimilated and intermarried ערב רב Jewish authorities have praised that Monotheism does not fundamentally rape the 2nd Sinai commandment – based upon the precedents of Egypt, Canaan, and the prophet Eliyahu.

None of these “cursed g’lut Jews” link the failure to keep the Yovel as “the” definition of the oath sworn to Avraham at the brit cut between the pieces that he would father the Cohen people who would inherit the lands of Canaan. None of these “cursed g’lut Jews” prioritized the Sinai distinction of Torah לשמה — לא בשמים היא. None of these “cursed g’lut Jews” link the Aggadic story of Cain’s murder of Hevel as משל, which like the dreams of both Yosef and Par’o require their נמשל interpretive דיוק.

The Gemara a direct consequence of Jewish g’lut. Jews forced to communicate their scholarship in a language which the Goyim censors would not expunge. None the less, the “Cohen nation” expressed through halachic precedents! Never once – the 12 Tribes expressed as a Republic anymore than classic Reshonim non-statute law halachic codes prioritized the concept of korbanot! Ritual halachic codes do not address the tohor\tuma divide beyond ritual states. The study of Aggada confined to stories rather than a drosh back to interpret T’NaCH Primary Source prophetic mussar which elevates ritual commandments to wisdom time-oriented commandments from the Torah – like the B’HaG learns. Cursed g’lut Judaism declares Judaism (the assimilated religion) as the origin of monotheism through referring to NT Xtianity and Koran Islam as “daughter religions”. Rambam the assimilated (on par with the son of Ibn Ezra) ruled that Islam not avoda zara.

G’lut Jewry – addicted to p’shat by Reshonim scholarship, which failed to grasp the warp/weft nature of Talmudic halacha\aggada loom which defines the cultures and customs of the Cohen peoples’ self identities, akin to oil in water, amongst g’lut dominant cultures, customs, and ways; as the definition of both the first and second Sinai Av commandments/תרי”ג toldot commandments. G’lut Jewry by definition failed to grasp that time-oriented commandments k’vanna express Torah wisdom. That Greek syllogism logic cannot duplicate.

Emunah in the conquered land of Canaan – that justice seeks to restore shattered trust among our people consequent to damages and even deaths. The Talmudic כלל of hatred without cause, a fundamental interpretation of 2nd Commandment on par with the avoda zara worshipped throughout the Books of the later NaCH. The g’lut notion of ירידות הדורות as false as a 6 year old girl wearing a DD bra. Chinese ancestor worship more akin to g’lut notions that later generations cannot dispute with earlier generations! As if the earlier generations stood closer to the sealed masoret than the later generations – utter and complete nonsense. This curse g’lut לא לשמה reality ignores the mussar of “domino effect” as a valid interpretation of ירידות הדורות. That the Book of Kings express as political satire which mocks King Shlomo as “the wisest of all men”.

Oral Torah the נמשל of the Written Torah Constitutional mandate משל. Oral Torah, as the Horev “interpretation” of the Av 1st & 2nd Torah Sinai commandments, employs Torah and even Talmudic halachot as בניני אבות to define the k’vanna of all Torah commandments defined as the wisdom commandments practiced by the nation of Cohonim within the borders of the conquered lands of Canaan; the 2nd Commandment “interpreted” through assimilation and intermarriage between alien cultures/people – how they worship their Gods.

Torah common law legalism stands upon judicial precedent legal rulings; Sanhedrin Capital Crimes stands upon a minimum of two eye witnesses. Three man Torts courts by contrast operate both within a Independent Torah Republic of 12 Tribes and also in cursed g’lut lands abroad. Herein explains the “interpretation” of bnai Noach to Goyim living outside of the conquered Canaan lands. The Torah Constitutional mandate restricted only to Cohen National Independence within the borders of conquered Canaan.

G’lut classic rabbinic Judaism expressed through Gaonim & Reshonim scholarship converted Judaism into a religion to address the needs of the cursed realities of g’lut. Medieval Jewish philosophy through modern academic biblical studies and post Rambam Civil War statute law halachic codifications like the Shulkan Aruch, historical Judaism, and Reform Karaism – dead as the authors who declared pre-Shoah that Berlin was their Jerusalem. Rambam’s halacha more closely resembles to the Protestant rejection of Catholic images 30 year war – wherein he ruled that Islam’s worship of Allah does not invalidate the 1st Sinai commandment.

This cursed g’lut avoda zara embraced Monotheism; the Rambam בדיעבד permitted Jews to daven in Mosques! Its religious format serves a similar “replacement theology” which directly resembles the NT and Koran av tuma avoda zara. The Oral Torah definitively replaced by Greek logic syllogism formats by both the NT church and Muslim mosque. In similar fashion both replacement theologies prioritize faith as belief in ONE UNIVERSAL GOD which ignores the Oral Torah/Talmudic interpretation that the Sinai god – a local tribal god of the chosen Cohen nation who conquers Canaan. Hence rabbi Akiva ruled that the Wilderness Generation has no portion to the World to Come.

G’lut Judaism blurrs over the בראשית emphasis that the Avot did not know the שם השם לשמה Sinai revelation. Cursed assimilated and inter-married Jewish societies, perhaps best defined by the ‘Golden Age’ of Spain highlighted in the back-drop of the 1492 forced population transfer and Inquisition torture of Marrano Jews. The gospel of John’s golden calf declaration that the word is God, perhaps best defines the “Word of God” av tuma avoda zara, defining expression of both the NT and Koran Golden Calf abominations.

Torah common law legalism prioritizes the Constitutional mandate by its “specific” and repeated references made to justice – expressed through Sanhedrin courtroom judicial rulings which ideally restore fair compensation of damages inflicted by the “tuma” Israel upon the “tohor” Israel. Tohora vs Tuma their defining Constitutional mandate – by no means limited to Korbanot! This Constitutional mandate which distinguishes tohor middot vs. tuma middot — this fundamental Torah Constitutional mandate expressed in the תפילה דאורייתא Torah mandate known as kre’a shma/Yoke of the kingdom of heaven: interpreted to means acceptance of the domination of tohor middot spirits within the heart rather than the domination of tuma middot spirits within the heart. This הבדלה between chosen vs rejected ‘spirits’ bases itself on the 1st Sinai commandment – the שם השם לשמה – defined as Oral Torah spirits. Tuma yatzir middot, understood as the worship of words/religious belief system theologies and or Creeds. The latter tuma spirits define the Greek/Roman belief systems in their Gods.

The later Xtian and Muslim avoda zara ie 2nd Sinai commandment Av tuma religions belief systems … no different from the Greek\Roman Av tuma religions belief systems. They all share the same common denominator, they worship words the expression of their Gods who live in the Heavens above. The Torah revelation of the 1st commandment שם השם לשמה – לא בשמים היא, establishes the chiddush revelation that while the Avot in the Book of בראשית, understood their אל שדי god as occupying both the Heavens and the Earth; the post Sinai שם השם לשמה occupies the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen nation which rules the conquered lands of Canaan as the one and only Cohen republic of 12 Tribes. Only the 12 Tribes accepted the revelation of this Torah at Sinai/Horev.

The Torah Constitutional mandate 1. Rejects the theology of monotheism. 2. Establishes the chosen Cohen nation: expressed through laws which shape and define this tiniest of people. While all nations and societies shape their Gods through a defined religious worship of those Av tuma avoda zara 2nd Sinai commandment Gods, the Torah Constitutional mandate Cohen nation rejects and despises as Av tuma avoda zara spirits which dominate the Yatzir Ha-Ra within the heart, based upon the conflict Esav & Yaacov first introduced through the “womb of Rivka” aggada משל\נמשל metaphor.

The tuma nature expressed through middot, understood as “personality attributes”, this משל Cain personality understands and perceives reality expressed to making a טיפש פשט literal worship of words. For example: the Koran mocks Jews as “the people of the Book”. This pejorative, it projects Arab/Muslim replacement theology which replaces the Hebrew T’NaCH with its Koran – specifically it replaces the akada of Yitzak with Yishmael. No different than the NT Bible replaces Jesus as the Son of God and totally rejects the Avraham “oath brit\alliance” (A political rather than a religious concept, perhaps best expressed through the בנין אב of the mitzva of קידושין).

Both later religious theologies prioritize their replacement theological belief systems over the faith obligation of the Torah brit alliance – this revelation which mandates the Republic of 12 Tribes which rose out of the slavery of Egypt – to rule conquered Canaan with Sanhedrin courtroom justice. Both later religious theologies ignore completely the first commandment revelation לא בשמים היא the fundamental key to understanding that “faith” not a religious belief in God above, below, or in the past ie “Old Testament replaced by the NT or Koran. But rather “faith” as restricted to righteous judicially imposed fair restitution of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews who both share an oath alliance to pursue justice in the oath sworn Cohen land permanent inheritance.