Barth argued that God reveals Himself primarily through Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. He emphasized that human understanding of God must come from divine revelation rather than human reason or experience. The horrors of the Nazi Shoah revealed that Goyim worship air and no God. Jesus and his Father in Heaven – as dead as a door nail.
Barth’s obtuse theology distinguished between the “Word of God” (Jesus Christ) and the “words of men” (human interpretations). He believed that true theology must focus on the former, asserting that any human attempt to understand God must be grounded in the revelation of Christ. What utter pie in the sky religious rhetoric nonsense. The bible sophomoric translations of the Hebrew T’NaCH — all written by men. Most of whom had absolutely no or very little knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic – the original language of the Hebrew T’NaCH.
None of the sophomoric bible Xtian translators new the difference between T’NaCH and Talmudic common law from Roman statute law. None of these absolute ignoramuses understood the difference between Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס inductive reasoning from Aristotle’s deductive syllogism reasoning! The two divergent logic formats day and night different. Yet uneducated Xtian translators of their so called “Word of God” bibles as ignorant as bees on the rump of a braying ass.
Barth often contrasted the Pauline utter religious rhetoric theological nonsense of “Human sinfulness (Original Sin of Adam) with God’s grace. Never does his empty religious rhetoric ever question how grace as a Godly attribute revealed to Moshe at Horev distinguishes itself from Mercy or Great Chessed or Truth ect other attributes revealed to Moshe at Horev 40 days after the Sin of the Golden Calf.
Barth’s theology of a Universal God argues that this God owns absolute sovereignty, wholly transcendent. Which completely ignores the Jewish Tribal God revealed only to Israel at Sinai, which the Xtian and Muslim religions utterly rejected that revelation, which understands HaShem as a local tribal God of the Hebrew Chosen Cohen people alone. Outside of Judea/Israel HaShem as a local tribal God has absolutely no sovereignty transcendent rule.
Hence outside of the oath sworn lands no one can worship HaShem לשמה; this represents the Torah curse imposed upon g’lut/exiled Jews. And Goyim who never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – how much more so! Central to Barth’s theology is the belief that all theological reflection must be centered on Christ. This narishkeit exposes Av tumah avoda zarah; Torah defines faith as the righteous pursuit of judicial justice wherein the Sanhedrin common law courts strive to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.
Av tumah avoda zarah promote theological creed rhetoric which dictates what believers must believe in this or that or some other God. Bonhoeffer’s political stance against the Nazis is admirable — he resisted a church that bent its knee to Hitler. But the substance of his theology remained trapped within the very Christian framework of Barth’s bankrupt and void theology. Barth and Bonhoeffer both anchor “truth” in Christology, a theological rhetoric divorced from judicial justice or covenantal precedent. Both preserve Pauline substitution theology (sin/grace, Christ as “Word of God”), which replaces Torah’s oath alliance revelation with mythic universality.
Neither ever engaged in Torah common law precedent vs. Roman statute law — nor did they recognize the practical, courtroom-based definition of faith as צדק צדק תרדוף. Bonhoeffer opposed Nazism, but he did so with bankrupt theological tools. His “religionless Christianity” or “cost of discipleship” never escaped Barth’s fundamental error: mistaking a theological creed for covenantal justice. Even resistance to Nazi tyranny in German Protestant circles still operated inside the false logic of avoda zarah. They never questioned the Pauline framework that itself fed centuries of Jew-hatred, pogroms, blood libels, and ultimately the Shoah.
Tag: jesus
Addressing the Av Mishna of קידושין
The Mishna of קידושין does not simply record dialectical disputes as a form of “preserving judicial disputes.” It functions like a court record. Beit Hillel serves as the Tort judge defense attorney. Whereas Beit Shammai functions as the prosecuting attorney. Now this distinction – significant because it distinguishes lateral common law courts from vertical Goyim courtrooms.
Great Britain operates Common law court rooms just as does Talmudic common law! However, in the case of the British Courts, all statute laws imposed by the British Parliament in London – they define the British Constitution. As such, no common law British courtroom can over-turn any statute law passed by Parliament. Torah common law, known as משנה תורה operates completely differently – despite being a common law courtroom which absolutely requires earlier court room judicial rulings as precedents. Both court systems stand on this shared foundation of common law.
None-the-less ספר דברים mandates “Legislative Review”, a critical interpretation of the intent of משנה תורה. Torah Sanhedrin common law courts have the Torah Constitutional mandate to over-rule any government statute law imposed by any of the 12 Tribes of the Republic or the Central Government of king David. A Torah prophet serves as an agent of the Great Sanhedrin Court. As such prophets can anoint a man from any tribe of Israel – KING.
And Great Sanhedrin Court prophets can remove any king from Office. As the prophet Shmuel did with king Shaul. This fundamental distinction of Torah Great Sanhedrin courtroom powers of “Legislative Review” differentiates Torah lateral courts from Goyim vertical courts. The latter court the State pays the salary of the judges and the prosecuting attorneys. As such a court case pits פלוני vs. the State. The Torah refers to the state paying the salaries of Judges and prosecuting attorneys as “bribes”. צדק צדק תרדוף absolutely abhors bribery; it qualifies as an example of Av tuma avoda zarah?
This abstract term defines the 2nd Sinai commandment. Do not copy the culture and customs practiced by the Goyim and do not marry foreign women who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Judicial justice serves as the כתר Av tohor time-oriented commandment which stands upon תמיד מעשה בראשית. The kabbalah that doing tohor time-oriented commandments creates the chosen cohen people from nothing. Hence the Torah begins with בראשית. Mesechta ברכות teaches that the world was created for the sake of the Jewish people. Who exactly qualifies as the Jewish people? The chosen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov – the chosen Cohen people.
Obviously, Cohen, Levi, Israel – לאו דוקא terms of reference. A precedent proof, the din that tefillah stands in the stead of korbanot. Amalek – antisemites – continually refer to the Jewish people as a race. The Nazis referred to Jews as “the inferior Race”. Jewish inheritance determined from the mother. However, the central obligation of קידושין, as a pre-condition of marriage, upon the father to educate his children in the oath brit/alliance faith.
Our Mishna compares to ברכות which opens with kre’a shma ערבית, just as the Av Mishna of קידושין opens with האשה. The vertical courtrooms of Goyim jurisprudence the prosecuting attorney prioritized over the defense attorney. But the model of Sanhedrin courts the reverse. The Halacha follows after Hillel!
The Xtian Bible and Muslim Koran both fail to acknowledge that Torah prophets serve as the “police” of the Sanhedrin courts! Hence neither Muhammad nor JeZeus could qualify as prophets. This מאי נפקא מינא distinction equally applies to the acquisition of a wife. The Baal acquires his soul through marriage. The qualifications for serving as a judge in a Jewish court (Beit Din) includes personal attributes and life experiences that are deemed important for this role.
The Talmud suggests that an unmarried man is generally considered less fit to serve as a judge. This is because marriage is seen as a significant life experience that contributes to a person’s maturity and understanding of family dynamics, which can be relevant in legal matters. Similarly, the absence of children can also be viewed as a factor that affects a person’s qualifications.
Having children is believed to provide additional insights into the responsibilities and challenges of family life, which can inform a judge’s decisions. The underlying principle is that judges should possess a deep understanding of human nature and the complexities of life, which are often gained through personal experiences such as marriage and parenthood.
What specifically does a man acquire through wife and family? Answer: Fear of Heaven. A Sanhedrin Judge by definition has an excellent Good Name reputation.
Rejecting Religious Rhetoric as False.
______________________________
Rubies Corner’s Blog·rubiescorner.wordpress.com·
Did I Tell You?
I finished my Bible, and now I am reading it again. I have a goal for this year, so I don’t hesitate to pick up my Bible and read for awhile. Since I just finished, I am starting over….
______________________________
______________________________
You could try learning the Hebrew T’NaCH – a radically different collection of books – rather than reading your Xtian bible translations. The Hebrew T’NaCH has translations, it even includes the non Jewish chapters and verses which so completely pervert the Xtian bible sophomoric translations. What difference does Order make? God vs Dog.
The T’NaCH organized into sugyot (translated as sub-chapters). What difference does this make? The fundamental basis of the Hebrew T’NaCH stands upon a fundamental question. Does a person learn this literature לשמה או לא לשמה? To quote Shakespeare: To be or not to be — That is the question.
Sophomoric bible translations never once bring the Name revealed in the opening Sinai commandment. Because the Xtian church does not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, it worships their own versions of the Golden Calf. טיפש פשט – translated as bird brained – makes literal translations of abstract obstruse ideas of mussar. This latter term, mussar, it defines the meaning of the word “prophesy”. Prophets command mussar. Meaning that this prophetic mussar applies to all generations of bnai brit who ever walk the face of the Earth.
Prophets do not predict the future as the Roman counterfeit new testament: “fulfill the words of the prophets” falsely proclaims. The Torah refers to this concept of “prophesy” which it describes through the “prophet” Bil’aam; that prophet practiced כשוף – witchcraft or sorcery, practices that involve magical or supernatural powers; engaging in Av tuma avoda zarah – forbidden or occult practices forbidden by the 2nd Sinai commandment.
The Roman forgery known as the new testament employs a lot of Greek rhetoric. Greek rhetoric: undefined critical terms upon which a religious or political witch “hangs” all subsequent ideas. Obama in the 2008 election employed the witchcraft rhetoric of “CHANGE”. The key term that won two Presidential elections for him. Problem: never in eight years did he ever once make any attempt to define this magical term “CHANGE”. The Arab false prophet Muhammad did the exact same thing in his Koran.
The word “prophet” repeated over and again and again. Never once does the Koran ever define the abstract obstruse term “prophet”. The new testament projects a definition of the term prophet, as mentioned above, that duplicates the Torah concept of witchcraft – predicting the future. The Hebrew T’NaCH defines prophesy as “MUSSAR”; prophets do not predict the future but rather their mussar applies equally to all generations. The outcome of this critical T’NaCH definition of this absolutely critical term “prophet” … T’NaCH commands prophetic mussar but it does NOT teach history. This subtle shift requires a bit of time to sink in once consciousness.
Another example of religious rhetoric which the new testament forgery employs, the Apostle Paul, its concept of 1. You are not under the Law. 2. Original Sin of Adam, guilt complex employed to serve as the pretext for the death and resurrection of JeZeus. 1. The rhetoric of “law”; T’NaCH defines “law” as Judicial courtroom judgments – as law. Whereas Roman law exists as rules and regulations imposed by Caesar or the Roman Senate. Paul’s rhetoric “not under the law” fails to differentiate between judicial common law vs. legislative statute law. Hence Xtians “read” their bible sophomoric translations oblivious that T’NaCH instructs judicial common law through a Case/Rule style. This latter type of “law” stands upon the foundation of earlier judicial courtroom “precedent” rulings. Statute law has not such requirement which would force a person to write a ‘legal brief’ and present possible similar and related court room ruling made prior to the current case heard before the Court. The subtle distinction that comes out of making a comparison of similar Case/Rule judicial judgments – the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev which rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah defines as פרדס p’shat remiz drosh sod.
This logic system format radically different from Aristotle’s 3 part Syllogism. Akiva’s logic format – inductive reason; whereas Aristotle’s methodology deductive reasoning. Both systems of logic have their strengths and weaknesses. But Paul’s religious rhetoric: “You are not under the Law”, obliterated any and all distinctions which separate common law from statute law and inductive logic from deductive logic.
The other Pauline term of religious rhetoric: Original Sin. It implies that humanity inherits guilt from Adam’s transgression. The church amplified this concept into a Fire and brimstone Heaven/Hell God/Satan polarity, which later developed into Calvin’s doctrine of complete Human depravity. Based upon the presumption of Paul’s “Original Sin”. Meaning: that the will of fallen Man enslaved in bondage to sin, and individuals cannot exercise free will as their “Moses” liberator who leads the enslaved church to salvation. Herein the requirement for the resurrection of JeZeus. Central to Calvin’s theology, the doctrine of predestination, defines his religious rhetoric. This Golden Calf replacement theology subsumes the Torah Central theme of “the Chosen Cohen People who do service to HaShem through the dedication of tohor middot” to the replacement church which believes in a false messiah JeZeus. The latter term refers to the 13 Attributes which became revealed to Moshe on Yom Kippur 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב/mixed multitudes replaced the Divine Presence Spirit Name with the word אלהים. The 13 attributes, they define the revelation of the Written Torah at Sinai. How?
These 13 “middot” (translated as measurements) breath as living Spirits from within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart. Air comes from the lungs but tohor spirits come from the heart. Hence the Talmud refers to tefillah as a “matter of the heart”. Whereas the book of the gospel John declares that the Logos/word – not just a spoken word but also a principle of order and knowledge. It refers to JeZeus as the pre-existent divine being. Logos/word rhetoric salad asserts “the Word was God” which establishes the belief in the full divinity of JeZeus.
The revelation of the Golden Calf rejects substitute theology as the definition of Av tuma (evil inclination spirits within the heart called Yatrir Ha’Rah) of avoda zarah (often mistranslated as idolatry). Therefore then how does the Hebrew T’NaCH “study” rather than simply read Common law (משנה תורה)? The first book of בראשית introduces Av tohor mitzvot – known as time-oriented commandments. The next three books of the Written Torah introduce secondary commandments (תולדות) which function as legal precedents. The last 5th book of the Torah (משנה תורה) confirms the mandate of judicial common law as ‘Legislative Review’. Meaning the common law Sanhedrin courts have not only a veto over lower government statute laws but can entirely re-write the lower government statute law and present them now as Torah common laws.
In short, Paul’s religious rhetoric of “Original Sin” supplanted the main Torah theme of exile/g’lut as expressed through Adam’s expusion from the Garden, Noach’s Ark, the enslavement of Israel in Egypt, and the 40 year Wilderness story.
An Introduction to learning the Talmud of mesechta קידושין.
First and foremost Rule #1. Both the T’NaCH and Talmud teach Torah common law. Modern Hebrew employs תקדים\תקדימים as the translation for precedent(s). Other Hebrew that you might have heard, I tend to doubt it, in Yeshiva: הלכה פסוקה . The Torah specifically states the precondition for eyewitness testimony in court cases both דני ממון ודני נפשות.
Another example: אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות. Now compare eyewitness testimony to נצב התורה על ידי ראיות. Now turn to the Siddur and the 13 rules of Rabbi Yishmael. These rules function as a logical corollary to Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס logic. It truly bothers me that your Yeshiva rabbis never refer to the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days after the Sin of the Golden Calf\substitution theology wherein the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים attempted to introduce a translation of the שם השם לשמה (((That’s how the first Sinai commandment qualifies as a Torah commandment in the first place! All other Torah commandments: Do a person of the Chosen Cohen people do mitzvot לשמה או לא לשמה? Hence the 1st Sinai commandment: the Greatest most important commandment in the whole of the Torah.)))
Yeshiva rabbis who fail to teach T’NaCH and Talmud as common law directly compare to the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים. Yeshivot produce “suits”, uniforms, styles in how to wear ones’ socks! Fancy Fur Burgers they wear on their Heads. The Yiddish term קאפוטע the common garb of the ultra-orthodox in Israel. But the Torah does not address these archaic European nonsense foreign imported cultures and customs which Orthodox Judaism has religified.
Your father learned and became a Torah educator. The modern “Wilderness generation” of the 1920s & 30s, cowardly refused to make aliyah to the Palestine mandate. Chaim Weizmann made the statement “Jews of the world – Where are you?” in 1936. Three years later, the criminal coward in 10 Downing Street Chamberlain imposed the 2nd White Paper which barred Palestine as a refuge for Jews seeking to flee from the European barbarians. The “precedent” of the British White Paper of 1939 directly influenced the decision made by President FDR to close all US borders to Jews attempting to flee from the Nazi Shoah!
Chaim Weizmann’s lamentation, “Jews of the world – Where are you?” reflects his deep concern regarding the Jewish diaspora’s response to the opportunities presented by the League of Nations’ Palestine mandate. He expressed frustration over the limited Jewish immigration (aliyah) to Palestine, especially in the context of rising anti-Semitism in Europe during the 1930s.
Hence it appears a direct connection exists between the Wilderness generation in the Torah to the Orthodox Judaism rabbis of Europe in the 1920s and 30s who forbade Jews to participate in Zionism. Zionism defined through the 1917 Balfour Declaration as Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. The League of Nation introduced the Palestine Mandate of 1922 based upon the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration defines the meaning and intent of Zionism to this day.
Jewish self-determination means for our generations living right now: Can we restore the order and organization of the 12 Tribes “Republic”? Democracy – a word that’s all the rage and fashion today – has its origins from Athens ancient Greece! Think about this when you light the lights of Chanukkah. Do you do this mitzva as just a ritual practicing “suit” robot OR do you understand why Jews light the lights of Chanukkah for thousands of years!
The Oral Torah – a logic system. This 4 part logic system – פרדס – stands in stark contrast to Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism. Akiva’s logic based upon inductive logical comparisons of similar cases – Jewish common law. Aristotle’s logic based upon deductive logical reasoning based upon Order. The siddur has the root of סדר. Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot work hand-in-glove with Akiva’s kabbalah of inductive reasoning. בנין אב מכתוב אחד בנין אב משני כתובים.
It disturbs me that your instructors have betrayed their teaching obligations! These basic terms of Common law\משנה תורה totally alien to you. No Yeshiva educator ever differentiated between Judicial common law courtroom laws FROM statute law which Parliaments/Knesset governments imposes as law enforced by the police upon their subject people! You suffer from being “brain-washed”.
Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors of a population. It often involves the dissemination of information, ideas, or rumors that are biased or misleading, with the intent to promote a particular political cause or point of view. Propaganda can take various forms, including media campaigns, speeches, educational materials, and public service announcements. Governments often use propaganda to foster a sense of national identity and unity among citizens. By promoting a specific narrative about the nation’s history, values, and goals, they can create a shared sense of purpose and belonging. This is particularly important in multicultural societies where diverse backgrounds may lead to differing perspectives.
Through public education, governments can shape public opinion on key issues. By controlling the curriculum and the information presented in schools, they can emphasize certain viewpoints while downplaying or omitting others. This can lead to a population that is more aligned with government policies and ideologies. Governments may use propaganda to justify their policies, especially during times of conflict or crisis. By framing their actions in a positive light and portraying opponents negatively, they can gain public support for decisions that might otherwise be controversial or unpopular.
By instilling specific beliefs and values in the education system, governments can cultivate compliance and loyalty among citizens. This can be achieved through the promotion of patriotism, respect for authority, and adherence to societal norms, which can discourage dissent and encourage conformity. Governments may seek to control the flow of information to prevent dissenting views from gaining traction. By promoting a singular narrative in educational settings, they can limit exposure to alternative perspectives, effectively “brainwashing” individuals into accepting the government’s viewpoint as the only valid one.
The effects of propaganda in education can be long-lasting. Individuals who are educated under a specific ideological framework may carry those beliefs into adulthood, influencing future generations. This creates a cycle where propaganda becomes ingrained in the culture, making it more challenging to challenge or change. Propaganda serves as a powerful tool for governments to influence and control the beliefs and behaviors of their citizens through public education. By shaping narratives and controlling information, they can foster compliance, loyalty, and a unified national identity, often at the expense of critical thinking and diverse perspectives.
An example of propaganda education: no rabbi in any Yeshiva you ever learned in throughout your life has differentiated the distinctions between T’NaCH-Talmudic “common law” from Greek-Roman “statute law”; specifically never has any educator in any Yeshiva in Israel denounced the halachic codifications published by Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch as assimilated Roman statute law. No educator ever pointed out the abomination of the Tzeddukim assimilation to Greek statute law wherein they attempted to cause the Jewish people to forget the “Oral” Torah … which we light the lights of Hanukkah to specifically “remember”.
This shabbat past we discussed the “ORDER” of all Gemara sugyot. The methodology of learning a Gemara sugya by way of a 3 part syllogism logic. When Rabbeinu Tam jumps off the dof of Gemara to some other Gemara sugya you must learn its גזרה שווה comparative Case/Din learning obeys the כלל-פרט logic of rabbi Yishmael. To correctly learn any Tosafot commentary which learns by common law precedents requires that you compare the פרט of the brought גזרה שווה with the כלל of the larger Gemara sugya which includes that גזרה שווה פרט. The framers of the Talmud, Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina – together with the Sovaraim 450 to 600 CE, they edited and organized each and every sugya of Gemara into a כלל\פרט logical format.
An utter disgrace that your Yeshiva educators totally ignore the foundation “editors” of the Shas Bavli. How the Shas Yerushalmi serves as the foundational source of halachic precedents to “understand” (meaning to actively compare like from like to develop the skills required to discern and understand the subtle distinctions and differences. T’rumah and chol grains acquired from the exact same fields! Worlds separate the one from the other. On par with kosher slaughter vs. Goyim slaughter of cattle! Another example: Why does the Gemara of Chullen include the minority opinion of rabbi Yechuda who insists that a shochet with fear of heaven cuts the carotid arteries?
Worked in a slaughterhouse, and none of those kashrut rabbis could answer this fundamental basic question. Answer: A butcher of common beef does not compare to a Cohen who slaughters to gather the “living blood” dedicated on the altar for that korban. That opening Mishna of Chullen, like every other opening Mishna of every Mishna in the Sha’s of rabbi Yechuda’s Great Sanhedrin common law compilation (the Tosefta might include judicial common law rulings of Small Sanhedrin courts), this Av Mishna of Chullen prioritizes the middah of יראת שמים – which means Baal Shem Tov/Master of the Good Name “reputation”.
Chullen rules that if an Apecorkus slaughters an animal – even correctly – its meat remains treif. The Rambam טיפש פשט argues that everything depends upon “knowledge”. Yet this explanation collapses when one addresses the Gemara ruling concerning the Apecorkus! Answer: the Apecorkus lacks ‘Fear of Heaven’, therefore his correctly slaughtered beef remains treif.
Before closing till I hear back from you, the Gemara of קידושין absolutely requires Torah precedents. A man does not love that which he does not own. How does a man “acquire” his wife. That woman, neither a slave or a whore both of which acquired through בכסף בשטר ובביאה. The primary pre-conditions established within the language of the Av Mishna of קידושין.
In the 5 Books of the Torah, בראשית introduces not simply the טיפש פשט of the Avot: Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. Rather, this first Book of the Torah revelation introduces Av-mitzvot – tohor time-oriented mitzvot which have the power to בראשית the chosen Cohen people from nothing in all generations and times. Genetics and Race does not make the chosen Cohen people. Tohor time-oriented commandments Creates from nothing the chosen Cohen people! The Book of בראשית introduces Av tohor time-oriented commandments.
According to the B’HaG these Av tohor time-oriented commandments include even Rabbinic commandments elevated to Av tohor time-oriented commandments as מצוות דאורייתא. The Rambam, his “egg-crate” organization of Torah commandments limited to commandments found within the language of the Written Torah. This man had the Chutzpah to call his Av tuma avoda zarah assimilation to Greek and Roman “statute law” halacha, by the Name of the Book of D’varim-משנה תורה.
Orthodox Judaism propaganda fails to differentiate between the common law classic commentaries written on the Talmud by Reshonim: the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh and Baali Tosafot from the Av tuma avoda zara statute law assimilated rabbis the Rambam, the son of the Rosh, and Karo. No Yeshiva ever informed you that the rabbis of Paris placed the Rambam into נידוי in 1232. Or that 10 years later the Poop/Pope and the king of France burned all the Talmud manuscripts in Paris France and thereafter expelled all the Jews of France which permanently destroyed the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship. The failure of Orthodox Judaism in the generation prior to the Shoah which slaughtered 75% of European Jewry in less than 3 years, these rabbis have permanently destroyed their ‘Good Name’ reputations.
DISGRACEFUL. The story of a Jewish convert to the Catholic Church during the Xtian Shoah pogroms.
Ehrenberg lived during a time when antisemitism was prevalent in many parts of Europe, including Germany. This period saw the rise of nationalist movements and ideologies that often scapegoated Jews for various societal issues. The rise of the Nazi Party in the 1930s brought about extreme antisemitic policies, culminating in the Shoah.
This environment profoundly affected Jewish intellectuals and communities, including Ehrenberg. As an assimilated Jewish intellectual who converted to Catholicism, Ehrenberg likely encountered antisemitism firsthand, which directly influenced his perspectives and writings. His experiences provide an assimilationist traitors’ counter-narrative to the prevailing antisemitic attitudes of his time. Hans Ehrenberg converted to Xtianity in 1926.
His conversion was significant in the context of the rise of Hitler to power. Especially as it reflected the complex interplay between his former Jewish heritage and his active engagement with Xtian theological dogma. Ehrenberg’s experiences and perspectives as a Jewish convert to Catholic Xtianity contributed to his philosophical and theological explorations, particularly regarding the relationship between Judaism and Xtianity.
Ehrenberg’s views as a Xtian convert regarding the Talmud and Judaism reflect the broader tensions between Judaism and Xtianity during this time of Xtian pogroms. After converting to Xtianity in 1926, Ehrenberg felt a need to reconcile his Jewish heritage with his new faith. This often led earlier Jewish converts to adopt openly hostile & critical views of their former faith which prioritized the righteous pursuit of justice as faith and fear of Heaven. His hostility did not limit itself to only the Talmud. His coward racial hatred included the Hebrew T’NaCH as the foundation of Jewish common law legalism. The Talmud which asserted a central to Jewish law and tradition following its publication in about 450CE. Ehrenberg joined their ranks of the many other assimilated “Reform Jews” who grew to despise the Torah obligation to pursue judicial justice among the Jewish people.
A Jewish Xtian convert caused the Church of Rome in 1242 to burn all the hand written Talmudic manuscripts in Paris. This stark precedent aroused the Nazi book burnings in the 1930s. Ehrenberg’s work often exposed his hostile relationship between Judaism and Xtianity. His reflections on the Shoah and the Church’s evil responses directly influenced his views on interfaith denunciations which sought to invalidate any need for church to acknowledgment its Av tuma past war crimes and guilt against Humanity.
Many Jewish intellectuals and other leaders during and after the Shoah expressed their deep absolute revulsion and anger at the Catholic Church’s immoral indifference to the plight of Jews. Particularly the cowardly and utterly immoral crimes committed under Pope Pius XII, who betrayed “its” sub-human moral authority to speak out against the atrocities committed by both the Nazis and the Allies.
Jewish intellectuals and leaders denounced Pius XII for not speaking out forcefully against the Nazi regime or the Allied White Paper and US closing its borders to Jewish refugees, and refusal to bomb the rail-lines leading to the Death Camps. This “sentiment”, widespread among Jewish communities and intellectuals during and after the war. Ehrenberg did not denounce the guilt of the Xtian church. But he did denounce the Talmud in his writings, reflecting his negative perspective on its impact upon shaping the cultures and customs observed by the chosen Cohen people.
Ehrenberg criticized the Talmud as a source of legalism and as a barrier to understanding the essence of faith. He viewed it as contributing to a rigid interpretation of Judaism that he believed violated the Gospel Good News doctrine. In his works, he often and repeatedly articulated his negative views on the differences between Jewish and Xtian thought, often positioning the Talmud in a despicable light. His ignorance of T’NaCH and Talmud as common law which rejects Roman statute law exposes his racial bias coupled with his total ignorance of what separates and distinguishes Jewish common law ruled by lateral courtrooms from vertical State bribed and employed Judges and prosecuting attorneys whose job served to defend and maintain the statute laws imposed by the State and their bureaucrats, this total failure to discern between the Jewish concept of faith which revolves around judicial fair compensation for damages inflicted with the Xtian notion of faith which employs theology and creeds to define a Top-down dictate how the faithful sheep MUST believe in God.
Distinguishing between Mercy from Pity
Have mercy.
Have mercy Pretty girl, she told me. Chameleons faces we do have. We have become strangers to our self, forgot who we were. Once we were whiskey drinking people, who ….
___________________________
___________________________
John mercy not the same as pity. Mercy the 4th tohor middah of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev which the church categorically denies. Torah law, something which the NT writers systematically refused to define. Torah law a legal judicial common law jurisprudence and determination of government rule – known as “Legislative Review”. Wherein the Sanhedrin common law courts not only can declare a law passed by the Legislative or Executive Branches as unconstitutional. Legislative Review takes Judicial government one step further. The Great Sanhedrin court re-writes the questioned constitutionality of a law passed by Congress or the Executive and thereafter re-introduces this court re-written law. This process known as “Mishna Torah”.
The 4th middah of the Oral Torah stands separate and distinct from pity. Torah common law stands upon precedents. Torah commandments qualify as legal precedent in this common law legal system. Three precedent by which a person can interpret the middah of Mercy: 1. The commandment to slaughter all inhabitants of Canaan Man, Woman, and child. 2. The commandment to make eternal war against Amalek. 3. The commandment to kill the stubborn and rebellious child.
The Torah oath brit alliance – actively entails blessing and curse polarities. If actions have their consequences like the ripple effect of a stone thrown into a pond, then these 3 negative commandments listed above they prevent a Torah curse to curse the people of Israel. No pity shown not to the people of Canaan, nor to Amalek, nor to the child who qualifies as a rebellious son. Herein distinguishes the tohor middah of Mercy from the notion of taking pity upon someone or something.
Clarity has forced me to make another re-write of my original draft.
The Ripple Effect of Human Error
SA Examiner
Sandra Cruz·saexaminer.org·Mar 9, 2025
Mysticism for the Modern Seeker: A Review of ‘Embodied Kabbalah’ by Matthew Ponak
Matthew Ponak is a rabbi, a teacher of Jewish Mysticism, and a spiritual counselor. His book “Embodied Kabbalah: Jewish Mysticism for All” is a collection of 42 mystical texts with commentary that presents the essential teachings from Kabbalah and places them side-by-side with profound inspirations from our era and the world’s great wisdom traditions.
The never before translated texts shed light on unknown traditions of mystical enlightenment. Fascinating descriptions of the paradoxical nature of reality are placed next to cautionary guidance against travelling too quickly on the road to expanded consciousness. Spiritual practices for dealing with depression and sadness come along with illuminated poetry of what our world could look like if we all tried to be truly loving. Using the stunning visual layouts of traditional Torah commentary, Ponak opens the gateway for Judaism to add its much needed voice to the universal quest for meaning, inner knowing, and rooted transcendence. (Barnes & Noble, 2025)
Ponak’s Embodied Kabbalah not just a random intro, it’s meant as my opening case study for the very error I attempt to trace: replacing the Horev Oral Torah’s judicial common law with a modern, universalized personal spirituality. Ponak’s book serves as a modern textbook case study of the shift from justice as faith, unto personal mystical belief theology.
His project universalizes Jewish mysticism, detached from the Sanhedrin’s common law legal mandate, and reframes Torah as a “alien voice”, a pluralist “quest for meaning, search for the Holy Grail” — thus replacing the Oral Torah’s function with an individualized internal experience.
This is the same error likewise made famous by the Samaritans, Sadducees, False messiah new testament crazies, Karaites, Rambam’s codification, Reform Judaism, etc.
Each case rejects the Horev Oral Torah revelation — the judicial precedent-based system (Pardes) — in favor of theological belief systems, Greek logic, or statute-law frameworks. Solomon’s Temple decision → Sadducee civil war → Karaite rationalism → Rambam’s statute code → modern personal spiritualities like Ponak’s, virtually the same idea repackaged over and again anew.
In each generation, the same Oral Torah rejection repeats itself, simply re-dressed in new clothing.
Historical Narrative: Timeline of Key Events and Figures
Tzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.
Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.
Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.
Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.
Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.
David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.
Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument: Key Concepts
Pardes vs Greek logic:
Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).
Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence.
Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.
Common Law vs. Statute Law:
Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written Legislative statute decrees, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.
Statute Law: A legal system based on written government laws usually enacted by some legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review. Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.
The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH, as taught through Talmudic Aggadah – as binding mussar precedents which shape the k’vanna of mitzvot elevated to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.
Theological Critique: Key Issues
Assimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding alien Goyim cultures & customs; potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish Cohen-identity and practice.
Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; as as similarly does NT Xtians and Muslims. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law – as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive sh’itta\methodology—the (so to speak) loom that weaves warp and weft into a common cultural fabric which shapes and defines the identity of the chosen Cohen people and equally separates Talmudic law from Avoda Zara.
(Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.
First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites, like their predecessor Tzeddukim, they reject the revelation of the Oral Torah. The After meal blessing, remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim — remembered through the mitzva of lighting the Lights of Hanukkah — their ignoble disgrace, of a pre-New Testament Civil War which also rejects the Oral Torah revelation of Horev, just as much as does the church today; and the later Dark Ages European Karaites – who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither during in ancient times, nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages – from about 900 CE, which famously aroused the indignation of Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE), and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204).
These two influential “Orthodox Jewish scholars”, likewise erred and reached assimilated avoda zara ideas which, in their own unique ways, perverted the Horev revelation of the Oral Torah. Both these “Orthodox” men, raped the 2nd Sinai commandment – highly assimilated and wholeheartedly embraced the rediscovery of ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient world which witnessed the P’rushim/Tzeddukim Civil War remembered every year when Jews light the lights of Hanukkah. Assimilation to alien foreign cultures or customs fundamentally rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, and the Legislative Review Torah mandate of Sanhedrin common law courtrooms through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive logic reasoning.
Nonetheless both of the Gaonic and Reshonic “orthodox” Era scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical theology belief system. None the less the error of personal belief in some theologically defined God, this foreign assimilated error trapped both “orthodox” scholars. Both men, similar to the Tzeddukim and Karaite errors, likewise rejected the Courtroom authority of Sanhedrin common law to rule the Jewish Republic through the mandate of Legislative Review, as established through the Talmud Oral Torah codification. Both these famous rabbinic authorities placed the Karaite Tweedle Dee Tweedle Dumb supporters into a charem excommunication, just as did the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.
Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods – no different than as did the kingdom of Shlomo, the pre Ezra Samaritans, the post Ezra Tzeddukim, the messiah crazies New Testament and the Dark Ages Karaites and modern Reform Judaism of the early 19th Century. This classic error traced through the generations, commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”\”AVODA ZARA”.
The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts consequent to the Muslim invasion of Spain, reopened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights … the Rambam embraced Roman statute law which effectively abandoned the study of Talmudic common law and the logic sh’itta of Pardes introduced by rabbi Akiva. Cults of personality, famous rabbinic personalities, like for example Yosef Karo author of the Shulkan Aruch, post the Rambam Civil War, they dominated the determination of halacha. This new “replacement theology” supplanted the Sanhedrin courts-room common law jurisprudence “faith”, which stands upon the foundation of judicial precedents rather than personalized belief systems in some theologically defined God as an act of “faith”.
The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah – known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the Aristotle model, his 3-Part syllogism format. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah – rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic. This Pardes system of logic – it manifests itself through the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its ensuing Gemara commentary, based upon the working model of a LOOM. Talmudic scholarship seeks to “cement” the culture and customs practiced by all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Herein defines the purpose & scope of the Horev Oral Torah revelation.
As a loom has warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud and Gaonic Midrashim, seek to employ the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva and rabbi Yishmael’s Pardes inductive precedent based learning & 13 middot corollaries, as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, common law cultural identity which shapes and defines the Cohen people seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov.
The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism, Samaritans and New Testament Xtians all universally reject this definition of faith, which commands the pursuit of judicial justice. The Book of D’varim expresses the comprehension: the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, (think korban), the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins, which strive to make fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people – throughout all the generations which the Chosen Cohen people experience a Torah blessing and govern the sworn oath brit lands.
Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim, instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God personal I-believe- belief systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into bureaucratic categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen.
T’NaCH & Talmudic common law shaped rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s common law Mishna; all based D’varim common law; consequent to its second explicit re-defining Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, (a common law judicial system) premised upon D’varim judicial Sanhedrin common law. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to exert their Torah constitutional mandate of Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Princes which rule governments as Judges. Like the T’NaCH Book of Judges portrays.
Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Hence small wonder that the new testament revolt likewise in this same vein rejects the revelation of Oral Torah pursuit of judicial common law justice. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of judicial justice-Faith; that later courtroom Judicial rulings stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts’ judicial rulings – as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.
The later Karaim did not go as far as the ancient Samaritans. The latter replaced the 10 Tribal kingdom known as Israel. These ‘latter-day saints’, established their own Mormon like religion, they too rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! The later Karaim did not reject the masoret of the NaCH. They restricted their rejection of the Oral Torah only to their rejection of the authority of the Talmud and rabbinic Midrashim.
However, lacking the Pardes Kabbalah their “Torah wisdom” skills lacked the will to do mitzvot L’shma, a fundamental requirement to affix prophetic mussar precedents as the Aggadic basis to determine the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments – the key revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. The Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment toldoth precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar, their Mormon like new religion simply could not grasp. The public sanctification of the Name – only achieved when Jews elevate toldoth Torah commandments unto Av tohor time-oriented commandments by making precedent case/rule comparisons.
The much later Talmudic common law codification employs, so to speak, a 70 faces to the Torah — blue-print, diamond faceted, re-interpretation of the original Mishnaic language. Through employment of halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to make a critical different perspective “view” of the language of the Mishna, based upon an all together different sugya of Gemara- halachic “facet” perspective.
Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara, to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya, viewed from a wholly different sugya perspective. This common law commentary seeks to duplicate the sh’itta of how the Gemara learns the language of any given Mishna. Much like and similar to how a building contractor reads a blue-print, which contains front/top\side view perspectives. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclid’s 5th Axiom of plain geometry.
Both the Samaritans, the assimilated Tzeddukim, the NT Xtians, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – One & all they rejected, or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic taught by rabbi Akiva. The warp/weft loom, the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah, as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. However this most essential conflict, pre-dates itself back to kings David and Shlomo, and even to the Judges who ruled following the Yehoshua conquering of Canaan, long before the introduction of the Samaritans, after the fall of the kingdom of Samaria by the Assyrian empire!
The prophet Natan warns David not to copy the ways of the Goyim. Not to build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud debates a 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute. This famous Yerushalmi debate questions the central issue -Did king David, after conquering Damascus, established that city – as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom. The pro opinions argue that Israel has a claim to Syria as part of the post Balfour/League of Nations Jewish state. The negative opinions reject the idea that Israel has a claim to nationalize Syria as part of the Jewish state.
Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advice given by the elder advisors to king Shlomo; so too young king Shlomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes – dead baby – before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.
The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views downstream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions which rejected the revelaltion of the Oral Torah at Horev, all later generation followed the identical error.
King Shlomo prioritized duplicating how the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud (not into a polis city state) but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice — which strives to make fair restitution of damages. Unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah and thereby perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheistic god. Monotheism, by definition, profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein traces Human error made throughout the Ages where upon Man has walked the Face of this Earth.
The Ripple Effect of Human Error
Mysticism for the Modern Seeker: A Review of ‘Embodied Kabbalah’ by Matthew Ponak
Matthew Ponak is a rabbi, a teacher of Jewish Mysticism, and a spiritual counselor. His book “Embodied Kabbalah: Jewish Mysticism for All” is a collection of 42 mystical texts with commentary that presents the essential teachings from Kabbalah and places them side-by-side with profound inspirations from our era and the world’s great wisdom traditions.
The never before translated texts shed light on unknown traditions of mystical enlightenment. Fascinating descriptions of the paradoxical nature of reality are placed next to cautionary guidance against travelling too quickly on the road to expanded consciousness. Spiritual practices for dealing with depression and sadness come along with illuminated poetry of what our world could look like if we all tried to be truly loving. Using the stunning visual layouts of traditional Torah commentary, Ponak opens the gateway for Judaism to add its much needed voice to the universal quest for meaning, inner knowing, and rooted transcendence. (Barnes & Noble, 2025)
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
How Error progresses throughout the course of Human history.
Israel Information Center Ithacainternationalscholars·israelinformationcenterithaca.wordpress.comOnce the focus is the connection between The Torah and the real necessity for the endowed title of an existing National Israeli State, Karaites are an unity opportunity .There is no presumptions of against the family circles of the Cohens which evolved into the various, and even those names of Levy, assuming all efforts to reestablish their…
Historical Narrative: Timeline of Key Events and Figures
Tzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.
Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.
Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.
Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.
Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.
David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.
Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument: Key Concepts
Pardes vs Greek logic:
Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).
Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence.
Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.
Common Law vs. Statute Law:
Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written Legislative statute decrees, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.
Statute Law: A legal system based on written government laws usually enacted by some legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review. Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.
The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH, as taught through Talmudic Aggadah – as binding mussar precedents which shape the k’vanna of mitzvot elevated to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.
Theological Critique: Key Issues
Assimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding alien Goyim cultures & customs; potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish Cohen-identity and practice.
Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; as as similarly does NT Xtians and Muslims. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law – as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive sh’itta\methodology—the (so to speak) loom that weaves warp and weft into a common cultural fabric which shapes and defines the identity of the chosen Cohen people and equally separates Talmudic law from Avoda Zara.
(Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.
First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites, like their predecessor Tzeddukim, they reject the revelation of the Oral Torah. The After meal blessing, remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim — remembered through the mitzva of lighting the Lights of Hanukkah — their ignoble disgrace, of a pre-New Testament Civil War which also rejects the Oral Torah revelation of Horev, just as much as does the church today; and the later Dark Ages European Karaites – who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither during in ancient times, nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages – from about 900 CE, which famously aroused the indignation of Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE), and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204). These two influential “Orthodox Jewish scholars”, likewise erred and reached assimilated avoda zara ideas which, in their own unique ways, perverted the Horev revelation of the Oral Torah. Both these “Orthodox” men, raped the 2nd Sinai commandment – highly assimilated and wholeheartedly embraced the rediscovery of ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient world which witnessed the P’rushim/Tzeddukim Civil War remembered every year when Jews light the lights of Hanukkah. Assimilation to alien foreign cultures or customs fundamentally rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, and the Legislative Review Torah mandate of Sanhedrin common law courtrooms through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive logic reasoning.
Nonetheless both of the Gaonic and Reshonic “orthodox” Era scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical theology belief system. None the less the error of personal belief in some theologically defined God, this foreign assimilated error trapped both “orthodox” scholars. Both men, similar to the Tzeddukim and Karaite errors, likewise rejected the Courtroom authority of Sanhedrin common law to rule the Jewish Republic through the mandate of Legislative Review, as established through the Talmud Oral Torah codification. Both these famous rabbinic authorities placed the Karaite Tweedle Dee Tweedle Dumb supporters into a charem excommunication, just as did the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.
Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods – no different than as did the kingdom of Shlomo, the pre Ezra Samaritans, the post Ezra Tzeddukim, the messiah crazies New Testament and the Dark Ages Karaites and modern Reform Judaism of the early 19th Century. This classic error traced through the generations, commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”\”AVODA ZARA”.
The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts consequent to the Muslim invasion of Spain, reopened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights … the Rambam embraced Roman statute law which effectively abandoned the study of Talmudic common law and the logic sh’itta of Pardes introduced by rabbi Akiva. Cults of personality, famous rabbinic personalities, like for example Yosef Karo author of the Shulkan Aruch, post the Rambam Civil War, they dominated the determination of halacha. This new “replacement theology” supplanted the Sanhedrin courts-room common law jurisprudence “faith”, which stands upon the foundation of judicial precedents rather than personalized belief systems in some theologically defined God as an act of “faith”.
The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah – known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the Aristotle model, his 3-Part syllogism format. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah – rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic. This Pardes system of logic – it manifests itself through the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its ensuing Gemara commentary, based upon the working model of a LOOM. Talmudic scholarship seeks to “cement” the culture and customs practiced by all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Herein defines the purpose & scope of the Horev Oral Torah revelation.
As a loom has warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud and Gaonic Midrashim, seek to employ the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva and rabbi Yishmael’s Pardes inductive precedent based learning & 13 middot corollaries, as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, common law cultural identity which shapes and defines the Cohen people seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov.
The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism, Samaritans and New Testament Xtians all universally reject this definition of faith, which commands the pursuit of judicial justice. The Book of D’varim expresses the comprehension: the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, (think korban), the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins, which strive to make fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people – throughout all the generations which the Chosen Cohen people experience a Torah blessing and govern the sworn oath brit lands.
Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim, instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God personal I-believe- belief systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into bureaucratic categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen.
T’NaCH & Talmudic common law shaped rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s common law Mishna; all based D’varim common law; consequent to its second explicit re-defining Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, (a common law judicial system) premised upon D’varim judicial Sanhedrin common law. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to exert their Torah constitutional mandate of Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Princes which rule governments as Judges. Like the T’NaCH Book of Judges portrays.
Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Hence small wonder that the new testament revolt likewise in this same vein rejects the revelation of Oral Torah pursuit of judicial common law justice. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of judicial justice-Faith; that later courtroom Judicial rulings stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts’ judicial rulings – as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.
The later Karaim did not go as far as the ancient Samaritans. The latter replaced the 10 Tribal kingdom known as Israel. These ‘latter-day saints’, established their own Mormon like religion, they too rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! The later Karaim did not reject the masoret of the NaCH. They restricted their rejection of the Oral Torah only to their rejection of the authority of the Talmud and rabbinic Midrashim.
However, lacking the Pardes Kabbalah their “Torah wisdom” skills lacked the will to do mitzvot L’shma, a fundamental requirement to affix prophetic mussar precedents as the Aggadic basis to determine the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments – the key revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. The Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment toldoth precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar, their Mormon like new religion simply could not grasp. The public sanctification of the Name – only achieved when Jews elevate toldoth Torah commandments unto Av tohor time-oriented commandments by making precedent case/rule comparisons.
The much later Talmudic common law codification employs, so to speak, a 70 faces to the Torah — blue-print, diamond faceted, re-interpretation of the original Mishnaic language. Through employment of halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to make a critical different perspective “view” of the language of the Mishna, based upon an all together different sugya of Gemara- halachic “facet” perspective.
Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara, to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya, viewed from a wholly different sugya perspective. This common law commentary seeks to duplicate the sh’itta of how the Gemara learns the language of any given Mishna. Much like and similar to how a building contractor reads a blue-print, which contains front/top\side view perspectives. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclid’s 5th Axiom of plain geometry.
Both the Samaritans, the assimilated Tzeddukim, the NT Xtians, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – One & all they rejected, or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic taught by rabbi Akiva. The warp/weft loom, the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah, as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. However this most essential conflict, pre-dates itself back to kings David and Shlomo, and even to the Judges who ruled following the Yehoshua conquering of Canaan, long before the introduction of the Samaritans, after the fall of the kingdom of Samaria by the Assyrian empire!
The prophet Natan warns David not to copy the ways of the Goyim. Not to build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud debates a 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute. This famous Yerushalmi debate questions the central issue -Did king David, after conquering Damascus, established that city – as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom. The pro opinions argue that Israel has a claim to Syria as part of the post Balfour/League of Nations Jewish state. The negative opinions reject the idea that Israel has a claim to nationalize Syria as part of the Jewish state.
Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advice given by the elder advisors to king Shlomo; so too young king Shlomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes – dead baby – before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.
The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views downstream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions which rejected the revelaltion of the Oral Torah at Horev, all later generation followed the identical error.
King Shlomo prioritized duplicating how the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud (not into a polis city state) but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice — which strives to make fair restitution of damages. Unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah and thereby perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheistic god. Monotheism, by definition, profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein traces Human error made throughout the Ages where upon Man has walked the Face of this Earth.
How Error progresses throughout the course of Human history.
Israel Information Center Ithaca
internationalscholars·israelinformationcenterithaca.wordpress.com
Once the focus is the connection between The Torah and the real necessity for the endowed title of an existing National Israeli State, Karaites are an unity opportunity .
There is no presumptions of against the family circles of the Cohens which evolved into the various, and even those names of Levy, assuming all efforts to reestablish their…
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Historical Narrative: Timeline of Key Events and Figures
Tzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.
Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.
Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.
Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.
Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.
David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.
Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument: Key Concepts
Pardes vs Greek logic:
Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).
Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence.
Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.
Common Law vs. Statute Law:
Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written Legislative statute decrees, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.
Statute Law: A legal system based on written government laws usually enacted by some legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review. Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.
The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH, as taught through Talmudic Aggadah – as binding mussar precedents which shape the k’vanna of mitzvot elevated to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.
Theological Critique: Key Issues
Assimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding alien Goyim cultures & customs; potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish Cohen-identity and practice.
Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; as as similarly does NT Xtians and Muslims. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law – as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive sh’itta\methodology—the (so to speak) loom that weaves warp and weft into a common cultural fabric which shapes and defines the identity of the chosen Cohen people and equally separates Talmudic law from Avoda Zara.
(Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.
First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites, like their predecessor Tzeddukim, they reject the revelation of the Oral Torah. The After meal blessing, remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim remembered through the mitzva of lighting the Lights of Hanukkah; their ignoble disgrace, of a pre-New Testament Civil War which rejects the Oral Torah revelation of Horev just as much as does the church today; and the Karaites who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither the in ancient times, nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages from about 900 CE, which aroused the indignation of Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE), and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204) – likewise both heretics who in their own way perverted the Horev revelation of the Oral Torah – both men highly assimilated following the rediscovery of ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient Tzeddukim, to reject the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, and the Legislative Review Torah mandate of Sanhedrin common law courtrooms.
Nonetheless both scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical but similar rejection of the Courtroom authority of Sanhedrin common law to rule the Jewish Republic through the mandate of Legislative Review. Both rabbinic authorities placed the Karaite supporters into a charem excommunication just as did the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.
Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods. Commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”\”AVODA ZARA”. The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts by the Muslim invasion of Spain reopened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights … the Rambam embraced Roman statute law which effectively abandoned the study of Talmudic common law. Cults of personality rabbinic personalities, like for example Yosef Karo, dominated the determination of halacha rather than Sanhedrin courts room common law jurisprudence which stands upon the foundation of judicial precedents.
The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah – known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the model of the 3-Part syllogism. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic. This Pardes system of logic – it Organized both the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its Gemara commentary made there after, based upon the working model of a LOOM.
A loom has warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud seeks to employ Pardes inductive precedent based learning as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, common law as the chosen cultural identity that the Cohen people choose to define their unique cultural identity as the people of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov.
The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism, Samaritans and New Testament Xtians all universally reject the definition of faith: Book of D’varim comprehension: the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, (think korban), the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins making fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people.
Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God personal I-belief- belief systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into judicial categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen.
T’NaCH & Talmudic common law shaped rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s common law; all of which base Torah common law upon the Book of D’varim; consequent to its second defining Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, a common law judicial system. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to exert their Torah constitutional mandate of Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Prince lead governments of Judges.
Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Hence small wonder that the new testament revolt likewise in this same vein rejects the revelation of Oral Torah pursuit of judicial common law justice. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of law, that later court Judicial ruling stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts judicial rulings – like as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.
The later Karaim did not go as far as the ancient Samaritans. Who replaced the 10 Tribal kingdom known as Israel. These latter-day saints, they too rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! The Karaim did not reject the masoret of the NaCH. The restricted their rejection of the Oral Torah restricted only to their rejection of the authority of the Talmud. However, lacking the Pardes Kabbalah they lacked the wisdom skills required to affix prophetic mussar precedents to determine the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments; they lacked the wisdom to do mitzvot L’shma. The Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar. The public sanctification of the Name – only achieved when Jews elevate toldoth Torah commandments unto Av tohor time-oriented commandments.
The much later Talmudic common law codification employs, so to speak, a 70 faces to the Torah — blue-print, diamond faceted, re-interpretation. Through employment of halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to view the language of the Mishna, based upon an all together different sugya of Gemara- halachic perspective.
Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara, to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya, viewed from a wholly different sugya perspective. Much like and similar to a building contractor reads a blue-print which contains a front/top\side view. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclid’s 5th Axiom of plain geometry.
Both the Samaritans, the assimilated Tzeddukim, the NT Xtians, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – they all rejected, or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic taught by rabbi Akiva. The warp/weft loom, the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah, as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. This conflict even dates back to kings David and Shlomo, before the introduction of the Samaritans! The prophet Natan warns David not to copy the ways of the Goyim and build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud carries this 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute, which debates the issue whether king David after conquering Damascus established that city as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom.
Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advice given by the elder advisors to king Shlomo; so too young king Shlomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes – dead baby – before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.
The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views downstream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions. Shlomo prioritized duplicating how the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud (not into a polis city state) but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice — which strives to make fair restitution of damages. Unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah and thereby perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheistic god. Monotheism, by definition, profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment.
How Error progresses throughout the course of Human history.
Israel Information Center Ithaca
internationalscholars·israelinformationcenterithaca.wordpress.com
Once the focus is the connection between The Torah and the real necessity for the endowed title of an existing National Israeli State, Karaites are an unity opportunity .
There is no presumptions of against the family circles of the Cohens which evolved into the various, and even those names of Levy, assuming all efforts to reestablish their…
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Historical Narrative
📅 Timeline of Key Events and Figures
- Tzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.
- Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.
- Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.
- Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.
- Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.
- David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.
Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument
⚖️ Key Concepts
- Pardes vs. Greek Logic:
- Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).
- Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence. Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.
- Common Law vs. Statute Law:
- Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written statutes, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.
- Statute Law: A legal system based on written laws enacted by a legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review authority.
- Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.
- The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH as binding precedent.
Theological Critique
Key Issues
- Assimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding cultures, potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish identity and practice. Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, reject the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive method—the loom that weaves warp and weft to form Talmudic law.
- Avoda Zara (Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites like the Tzeddukim reject the revelation of the Oral Torah which the After meal blessing remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim of the Lights of Hanukkah ignoble disgrace of that pre-New Testament Civil War; and the Karaites who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither the ancient nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages from about 900 CE which aroused the indignation of: - Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE) and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204) heretics – both men highly assimilated to the rediscovery of the recently rediscovered ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient Tzeddukim to originally reject the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; nonetheless both scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical movement and placed the Karaite supporters into a charem excommunication just as did the ancient P’rushim to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.
- Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods. Commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”. The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts by the Muslim invasion of Spain re-opened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights.
- The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the model of the 3-Part syllogism. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic, Ordered both the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its Gemara commentary thereon based upon the working model of a LOOM.
- A loom as warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud seeks to employ Pardes inductive precedent based learning as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, cultural identity as a people. The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism rejected the definition of faith as the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, think korban, the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins\ making fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people.
- Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God belief-systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into judicial categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen. T’NaCH & Talmudic common law bases itself upon rabbi Yechuda Sha’s common law upon the Book of D’varim having a second Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, a common law judicial system. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to have Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Prince lead governments.
- Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of law that later court Judicial ruling stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts judicial rulings – like as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.
- The later Karaim did not go as far as did the ancient Samaritans. The latter rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! None the less, the Karaim rejected the masoret of the NaCH as prophetic mussar precedents which make a Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar. The much later Talmudic common law codification employs a 70 faces to the Torah blue-print diamond facet re-interpretation of employing halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to view the language of the Mishna based upon a different Gemara halachic perspective.
- Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya views from a wholly different sugya perspective. Much like and similar to a building contractor reads a blue-print which contains a front/top\side views. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclids 5th Axiom of plain geometry.
- Both the assimilated Tzeddukim, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – they all rejected or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic. The warp/weft loom of the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. This conflict even dates back to kings David and Shlomo! The prophet Natan warned David not to copy the ways of the Goyim and build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud carries this 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute over the issue whether king David after conquering Damascus established that city as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom.
- Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advise given by king Shlomo’s elder advisors, so too young king Sholomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes dead baby before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.
- The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views down stream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions. Shlomo prioritized duplicating who the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud not into a polis city state but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice which makes fair restitution of damages unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah which perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheisist god. Monotheism, by definition profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment.
Conflict Resolution 