Bunk on 1 Corinthians 1:1-10. False translation to read the 2nd Sinai commandment as prohibition of images/idolatry – simply dishonest. The 1st Sinai commandment likewise false to imply “exclusive worship” utter nonsense. Only Israel accepts the Sinai revelation therefore the god of Sinai a local tribal god – NOT a Universal monotheistic God. אלהים אחרים in no wise implies a commandment not to venerate images! Nor does this commandment promote what the later prophets openly mocked as insanely stupid – idolatry! Corinthians language of “Lord,” “Christ” no different than the Golden Calf language of אלהים! No where in the language of either the first or second Sinai commandments any appeal for unity in any “after the fact” belief creed theologies. Such religious rhetoric compares to homosexuals declaring that the Torah permits perverted sexual relations.

The First Sinai commandment does not promote “exclusive worship”. It commands Israel to remember which god judged the Gods of Egypt and brought Israel the Yovel liberation which eternally binds all later generations to pursue judicial justice strictly within the borders of the lands sworn as the Cohen inheritance of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov – the fathers of the Chosen Cohen people. Judaism does not view divine status reserved to anything other לשמה בארץ ישראל; which means the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which dedicates to make fair compensation of damages inflicted upon the innocent as the basis to prevent hatred without cause/avoda zarah. Judaism as developed during the Dark & Middle Ages of g’lut forced to “convert” Torah into a religious creed halacha ritualism. Religious halacha ritualism has zero to due with ruling the oath sworn Cohen lands with righteous just courts of common law. The Greek language “Christ” no different from אלהים in the av tumah worship of the Golden Calf.

Corrupt translations – all Xtian bibles – confuse mysticism for prophesy. The Book of Daniel not included in the Order of Prophets. Daniel a mystic not a prophet. The Xtian av tumah avoda zara not only worships a Man as God, but a Hercules bastard child conceived by Zeus the father! The writings of Paul closely resemble to Ancient Near Eastern practices which expressed support for images of JeZeus nailed to the cross and other similar cultic manifestations of divine presence and political legitimacy, not merely aesthetic idols.

Early Pauline titulary predates the writing of any of the later gospel counterfeits. Pauls 1 Corinthians promotes a rival cultic-political allegiance language, analogous to Israelite confessions of the deity אלהים language the ערב רב שאין להם יראת אלהים used as the name of their Golden Calf cult abomination. Monotheism rapes the 2nd Sinai commandment because no Gods of Egypt ever really judged through the 10 plagues! Furthermore, ברית, as found in ברית אש\בראשית in no shape manner or form implies equivalence to the false translation “covenant”. To cut a Torah brit requires שם – the Sinai Name revealed in the 1st Commandment, and מלכות – the tohor middot Moshe heard at Horev following the av tumah avoda zara which the Golden Calf defines as the permanent definition of translating words substituted for Divine Spirits like the Oral Torah “pronouns” אל רחום חנון etc. These 13 Oral Torah spirits a bnai brit person can dedicate a Torah sworn oath/מלכות, just as a person can be referred to by a pronoun rather than his actual name.

Why does the Torah open with בראשית ברא אלהים and not the Sinai 1st commandment Name? The avot did not know the 1st Commandment revelation Name. Avraham called upon אל שדי – for example. The avot perceived the vision of the Creator as in both the Heavens above and the Earth beneath. Post Sinai revelation the revelation לשמה teaches a chiddush: תורה לא בשמים היא. Israel has the obligation to establish Yovel liberty in the Canaan inheritance and rule this land with righteous judicial justice. Courtroom common law not a theology or creed or belief system. Courtroom common law stands upon the foundations of prior Sanhedrin judicial rulings.

Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The two “daughter religions” pervert both JeZeus and Allah as their Golden Calf respective אלהים. The Torah opens with בראשית to introduce the main theme of Torah common law – Av wisdom commandments which the Mishna refers to as “Time-oriented commandments”. Neither the NT nor Koran has any knowledge of the Torah wisdom which the בראשית creation story opened with this introduction. Islam came more than 2000 years after the Torah revelation, its declaration that Yishmael dedicated at the Akadah – fails to discern the rejected korban dedicated by Cain! Wisdom time-oriented commandments require מלכות middot as the ברית חדש, interpretation of Yermiah’s mussar, which rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nassi interpreted בכל לבבך as Yatzir Ha-Tov dominant over the Yatzir Ha-Rah spirits which wrestled within the womb of Rivka.

Paul’s 1 Corinthians represents simply his version of a substitute God theology, no different than the later Allah substitute and the Prime Cause tuma אלהים substitute prior to the revelation of the 13 Oral Torah Divine Spirits. Early Pauline theology promotes a rival cultic-political allegiance analogous to king Shlomo’s Temple which the prophet Natan directly condemned as the manner how Goyim worship their Gods. The Torah revelation of the Sinai Mishkan distinguishes the klippah forms from the Shekinah substance whose tohor Spirits lives within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the chosen Cohen people. Tefillah a matter of the heart and not some prayer to a Zeus father in heaven above.

The Mishna and Gemara came after the Bar Kochba disaster and Rome had already changed the name of this conquered province as Palestine rather than Judea. King David failed to establish the Yovel within the land. The rebuke of Uriah no different than the rebuke of Amalek wherein king Shaul profaned the dedication of Moshiach. None of the kings of Israel ever prioritized the pursuit of judicial common law justice; meaning liberty not a priority in any of the Tribes of Israel or Yechuda prior to the Babylonian g’lut. The Talmud openly states that the Yovel never observed throughout the בית שני period. Hence the Talmud – a vision when Jews reconquer our homeland of Canaan and rule this land through the Torah Constitutional mandated common law Sanhedrin Courts – with their hub in Jerusalem and the spokes of the Federal court wheel in the 6 or more Cities of Refuge.

The Golden Calf like the Mishkan separates klippah from substance. The substance of אלהים אחרים worship of substitute names as gods. This prophetic Av definition of avoda zarah – 2nd Sinai commandment – any attempt to replaces words of Man for tohor Spirits. Linguistic avoda zarah precedes image-avoda zarah as seen in all Catholic churchs. The Torah speaks in the language of Man; meaning Spirits expressed through word metaphors God/אל; Mercy/רחום; Grace/חנון etc. The conflict between Tohor vs Tumah spirits – a matter of the heart and not the Heavens above.

The T’NaCH defines avoda zarah through the war with Midian ie assimilation and intermarriage. Later examples of kings copying the foreign altars or Shlomo’s Cathedral and foreign wives; or Ezra’s demand that Israel divorce their foreign wives. The Golden Calf rivals in comparison to the revelation of the Mishkan. Moshe anointed the House of Aaron as Moshiach to lead the generations through korbanot the dedication of pursuit of justice within the borders of the homeland.

The vision of the Framers of the Talmud – not the g’lut assimilated statute halachic religious codes. פרדס divided into Aggadah דרוש\פשט of T’NaCH prophetic mussar which through wisdom defines the k’vanna distinctions between the spirits of the 13 Horev middot/Oral Torah. The Talmud affixes רמז/סוד to the Halachic ratio of the warp/weft common law “fraction” which stands upon the יסוד of בניני אבות-precedents. The Prophetic interpretation of Oral Torah spirits which distinguishes the k’vanna which separates אל רחום חנון etc from one another — as affixed to the 13 inside middle blessings of the Shemone Esrei like the 3 + 3 opening and closing blessing remember the dedications made on each of the Chag Yom Tov. Each and every Shabbat affixed to the annual reading of the Torah with its 54 Parshiot; where the twice repeated blessing/curse – the responsibility and accountability of each and every generations and the remaining 52 Parshiot (4 X 13) affixed to a given Oral Torah spirit לשמה.

The korban (Tefillah stands in the place of korbanot, based upon the Temple as a House of tefillah) distinguishes between the dedication of living blood from dead blood. If a person cooks liver in a pan, בדיעבד kosher to eat because this rabbinic blood not the same as the living blood thrown upon the altar. In like manner, the dedication of tohor spirits from within the Yatzir Ha-Tov heart not the same as the breath a person exhales from his lungs.

Making an aliya of mitvot elevated from תולדות commandments which do not require prophetic mussar defined Oral Torah middot, where by a person stands before a Sefer Torah or sits with his tefillen and swears to dedicate his Yatzir Ha-Tov middot to rule over his tumah Yatzir Ha-Rah middot within not just his heart but how he socially interacts with his family, friends, neighbors community and people within the borders of this the brit inheritance lands of the chosen Cohen nation. Based upon the t’shuva of remembering the judicial oppression of Par’o and Egypt as the eternal memory why our people left Egypt to conquer Canaan.

Moshe Rabbeinu summed up his Torah which makes an eternal משנה תורה-legislative review of the conflicting tohor – tumah middot spirits within the hearts of all generations of Israel. Here! Life or Death – choose LIFE. Only in the fully conquered land of Canaan does Israel stand in the shoes of King David and choose to establish Sanhedrin common law courtroom Federal Legislative Review of State and National Government statute law לשמה. Herein the way wherein the prophet Moshe envisioned his Torah to function as the Constitution of the Cohen Republic of Tribes.

Goyim treat their Gods JeZeus, now called Jeshua, they mutilate the Sinai Spirit unto Yahweh, Lord, Allah etc. The false prophet Muhammad declares that Prophets sent to all humanity speaking in the native tongues of those people who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai by saying Yishmael dedicated at the Akadah or other such perversions.

The first Sinai Name לשמה commands the action to remember/t’shuva the liberation from Egyptian slavery. Egypt a לאו דוקא word which applies equally across the board to all lands outside of conquered “liberated” Canaan. Yahweh = Elohim = The Golden Calf…all linguistic idols. Torah defines faith as the righteous pursuit of justice NOT a belief theology or creedal system.

King Shlomo the Civil War curse the prophet Natan placed upon David for his failure to trial the capital crimes case of Uria before a Sanhedrin court! King David once he had defeated all foreign kings from off the land he should have immediately established from the Torah the mitzva of Yovel and immediately thereafter restored the Cities of Refuges with their small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Courts. The window of opportunity of anointing a king to fight the necessary wars for all the 12 Tribes to celebrate the Yovel liberty slammed shut when שישק conquered Yerushalem and profaned the Holy of Holies by stealing the golden shields. NaCH commands mussar it does not teach history; based upon the Torat Moshe whose written Torah ideally functions as the Constitution of the republic and directly mandates Sanhedrin common law courts.

Hence the Book of Shmuel and D’ray Ymin/11:10–47 & 12:1–40 lists Uriah as one of the mighty men; and likewise Tehillem 51 makes reference to Uriah. The purpose of the Moshiach to fully conquer the land that all 12 Tribes can keep the Pesach based mitzva known as Yovel: proclaim liberty across the land; establish as the “Temple” the Federal Sanhedrin common law Court system across this land. Herein defines the mitzva of Moshiach by which the prophet Shmuel anointed first Shaul and later David; again with a Torah curse of causing it to rain during the dry season, because the oath to the Avot had already blessed their seed to conquer these lands. But the people rebelled and demanded a king to fight their wars.

How does Oral Torah common law affix/interpret 2 Shmuel 11 to David failed to try Uriah before a Sanhedrin court for capital crimes? Torah common law stands upon precedents. The precedents for this basic fundamental the vertical court of Par’o which vindicated the beating of Hebrew slaves despite Par’o orders to withhold the necessary straw required to make bricks. Yitro’s rebuke to Moshe – some say made before the revelation of the Torah, some opinion say that rebuke came after the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

Yovel vs Pesach learns from the prophet Yehoshua. How do the generations remember the liberation from Egyptian slavery – through the mitzva of the Yovel; furthermore the precedent of acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven requires remembering Egyptian judicial oppressions. Chazal teaches that for the Yovel to apply as a Torah mitzva that all 12 tribes dwell in liberty in the land.

If so, why do most rabbinic readings of 2 Shmuel 11-12 fail to directly frame this requirement? Answer: Oral Torah which learns from prior בניני אבות a kabbalah. Torah common law not a statute law legalism. The latter persons can read law decrees codified in legal codes. Examples: of this non kabbalah assimilated Jewish scholarship, the Rambam Yad, the son of the Rosh Tur, and Karo’s commentaries on the Tur Beit Yosef with the Shulkan Aruch cliff notes.

The common law codes on Talmudic common law B’HaG, Rif, Rosh they fundamentally understand the kabbalah of common law, (Also concealed – meaning not directly mentioned. Why? Torah wisdom commandments require common law precedents – this wisdom concealed from Goyim foreigners who worship other Gods.), as did the Baali Maor commentary on the Rif and the French school of Talmudic common law – the Baali Tosafot.

Why did the RambaN so strongly dispute with the Baali Maor objections to the Rif common law code? During the Dark Ages Ashkenazi Jewry but Sephardi Jewry too (Rambam had to flee Spain or convert, the son of Ibn Ezra converted to Islam.), experienced extreme distress during the Dark Ages, when the Roman road system had collapse and people stopped almost all international trade due to the chaos and anarchy of those times. Therefore the isolated pockets of exiled Jewish communities requires a simple “so to speak” kitzer shulkan aruch to quickly inform them of Torah culture and customs.

Chazal rabbis lived during g’lut. G’lut Jewry post the codification of the Mishna (Post the Bar Kochba revolt crushing defeat where the Romans changed the name in 135 from Judea to Palestine.), and Gemara; restricted interpreting the Talmud limited only to morality and religious halachic ritual observances. Chazal – stuck in g’lut did not read the Mishna-Gemara/Talmud as a blue-print for the time when Jews would reconquer the homeland and keep the Yovel. Even the sages of the Talmud openly admit to this fact. Jews during the 2nd Commonwealth never observed the Yovel as a Torah commandment.

Sanhedrin Capital Crime Courts have jurisdiction only within the borders of the Jewish State free from foreign rule. Hence no real Sanhedrin court existed during the Babylonian Persian Greek and Roman occupations of the land. Just as the Sanhedrin court established by Napoleon a sham Sanhedrin court!

The Baali Tosafot chief criticism of Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash, his failure (post the 1st Crusades slaughter of almost all the Jews of Germany) to write a common law commentary on the Talmud. Many commentaries on Talmudic aggada as well as upon the Baali Tosafot! But not one of them, no different than the commentaries written on the Yad Rif or Rosh learns the halachot tied to a specific sugya of Gemara which reinterprets a phrase of the Mishna based upon the precedent of Halacha within the Dof (and how much more so off the Dof) of the Gemara. Rather all the commentaries treat halacha as if it stands upon its own two feet rather than as a precedent which views the language of a specific Mishna phrase viewpoint; attempting to duplicate eye witness courtroom testimony.

The kabbalah of rabbi Yishmael amplifies the 7 middot of Hillel and 10 middot of Akiva. בנין אב means precedent. Precedents apply strictly to common law courtrooms not to statute law religious decrees. The kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט opens with a broad assumption and then restricts the din. For example the Gemara learns the opening Mishna of קידושין – אישה נקנית through the precedent of etrog. Just as an immature etrog invalid for the 4 species on Chag Sukkot, so too a young girl does not qualify as אישה. Common law (T’NaCH & Talmudic) stand upon precedents. Statute law does not stand upon precedents.

A classic proof, hence the Baali Tosafot appear to dispute the Rashi comment, where the latter said that of the 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael – only the kal v’homer valid for g’lut Jews to use. Absurd, Rashi in his commentary to the NaCH employs a g’zrah shvah! The Baali Tosafot rebuked the טיפש פשט reading of Rashi’s commentary divorced from the context of Rav Ashi sealing the Gemara! Once the Talmud sealed, it became the fixed masoret for all generations of Israel. Hence just as the sages in both the Mishna and Gemara relied on the rabbinic kabbalah of middot so to all generations of Israel could employ a middah employed on a dof of Gemara and by means of a Kal v’homer use it to re-interpret another sugya of gemara!

The situation of David and Uriah according to Shabbat 56a and Sanhedrin 107a.: “כל האומר דוד חטא אינו אלא טועה”. Batsheva is at least a safek eshet ish, possibly already divorced on condition, which softens the accusation of full-fledged adultery. Tosafot wrestle with the details of this in Bava Metzia 59a. So already in Chazal, the legal axis is not “David skipped a Sanhedrin trial,” but “Uriah was halachically liable as a rebel, and Batsheva’s marital status was halachically complex. However the Talmud clears David but fails to address the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach. Based upon the anarchy and chaos post the generation of Yeshua who conquered the land and established the Yovel through keeping Pesach and brit melah – the sign of the brit of liberty which HaShem and Avram cut at the brit of pieces, once David achieved piece in the land, then his Moshiach anointing required that he establish first the Yovel and then the Temple (not a building of wood and stone), but Federal common law courts like the spokes on a wheel as visioned by the prophets – Jerusalem as the central hub and the cities of refuge as the small sanhedrin spokes.

King Shlomo the Civil War curse the prophet Natan placed upon David for his failure to trial the capital crimes case of Uria before a Sanhedrin court! King David once he had defeated all foreign kings from off the land he should have immediately established from the Torah the mitzva of Yovel and immediately thereafter restored the Cities of Refuges with their small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Courts.

Hence the Book of Shmuel and D’ray Ymin/11:38 one of the mighty men; 18:17 \, and Tehillem 7,31, 32, 51. The purpose of the Moshiach to fully conquer the land that all 12 Tribes can keep the Pesach based mitzva known as Yovel: proclaim liberty across the land; establish as the “Temple” the Federal Sanhedrin common law Court system across the land. Herein defines the mitzva of Moshiach by which the prophet Shmuel anointed first Shaul and later David; again with a Torah curse of causing it to rain during the dry season.

How does Oral Torah common law affix/interpret 2 Shmuel 11 to David failed to try Uriah before a Sanhedrin court for capital crimes? Torah common law stands upon precedents. The precedents for this basic fundamental the vertical court of Par’o which vindicated the beating of Hebrew slaves despite Par’o orders to withhold the necessary straw required to make bricks. Yitro’s rebuke to Moshe – some say made before the revelation of the Torah, some opinion say that rebuke came after the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

Yovel vs Pesach learns from the prophet Yehoshua. How do the generations remember the liberation from Egyptian slavery – through the mitzva of the Yovel; furthermore the precedent of acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven requires remembering Egyptian judicial oppressions. Chazal teaches that for the Yovel to apply as a Torah mitzva that all 12 tribes dwell in liberty in the land.

If so, why do most rabbinic readings of 2 Shmuel 11-12 fail to directly frame this requirement? Answer: Oral Torah which learns from prior בניני אבות a kabbalah. Torah common law not a statute law legalism. The latter persons can read law decrees codified in legal codes. Examples: of this non kabbalah assimilated Jewish scholarship, the Rambam Yad, the son of the Rosh Tur, and Karo’s commentaries on the Tur Beit Yosef with the Shulkan Aruch cliff notes.

The common law codes on Talmudic common law B’HaG, Rif, Rosh they fundamentally understand the kabbalah of common law, (Also concealed – meaning not directly mentioned. Why? Torah wisdom commandments require common law precedents – this wisdom concealed from Goyim foreigners who worship other Gods.), as did the Baali Maor commentary on the Rif and the French school of Talmudic common law – the Baali Tosafot.

Why did the RambaN so strongly dispute with the Baali Maor objections to the Rif common law code? During the Dark Ages Ashkenazi Jewry but Sephardi Jewry too (Rambam had to flee Spain or convert, the son of Ibn Ezra converted to Islam.), experienced extreme distress during the Dark Ages, when the Roman road system had collapse and people stopped almost all international trade due to the chaos and anarchy of those times. Therefore the isolated pockets of exiled Jewish communities requires a simple “so to speak” kitzer shulkan aruch to quickly inform them of Torah culture and customs.

Chazal rabbis lived during g’lut. G’lut Jewry post the codification of the Mishna (Post the Bar Kochba revolt crushing defeat where the Romans changed the name in 135 from Judea to Palestine.), and Gemara; restricted interpreting the Talmud limited only to morality and religious halachic ritual observances. Chazal – stuck in g’lut did not read the Mishna-Gemara/Talmud as a blue-print for the time when Jews would reconquer the homeland and keep the Yovel. Even the sages of the Talmud openly admit to this fact. Jews during the 2nd Commonwealth never observed the Yovel as a Torah commandment.

Sanhedrin Capital Crime Courts have jurisdiction only within the borders of the Jewish State free from foreign rule. Hence no real Sanhedrin court existed during the Babylonian Persian Greek and Roman occupations of the land. Just as the Sanhedrin court established by Napoleon a sham Sanhedrin court!

The Baali Tosafot chief criticism of Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash, his failure (post the 1st Crusades slaughter of almost all the Jews of Germany) to write a common law commentary on the Talmud. Many commentaries on Talmudic aggada as well as upon the Baali Tosafot! But not one of them, no different than the commentaries written on the Yad Rif or Rosh learns the halachot tied to a specific sugya of Gemara which reinterprets a phrase of the Mishna based upon the precedent of Halacha within the Dof (and how much more so off the Dof) of the Gemara. Rather all the commentaries treat halacha as if it stands upon its own two feet rather than as a precedent which views the language of a specific Mishna phrase viewpoint; attempting to duplicate eye witness courtroom testimony.

The kabbalah of rabbi Yishmael amplifies the 7 middot of Hillel and 10 middot of Akiva. בנין אב means precedent. Precedents apply strictly to common law courtrooms not to statute law religious decrees. The kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט opens with a broad assumption and then restricts the din. For example the Gemara learns the opening Mishna of קידושין – אישה נקנית through the precedent of etrog. Just as an immature etrog invalid for the 4 species on Chag Sukkot, so too a young girl does not qualify as אישה. Common law (T’NaCH & Talmudic) stand upon precedents. Statute law does not stand upon precedents.

A classic proof, hence the Baali Tosafot appear to dispute the Rashi comment, where the latter said that of the 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael – only the kal v’homer valid for g’lut Jews to use. Absurd, Rashi in his commentary to the NaCH employs a g’zrah shvah! The Baali Tosafot rebuked the טיפש פשט reading of Rashi’s commentary divorced from the context of Rav Ashi sealing the Gemara! Once the Talmud sealed, it became the fixed masoret for all generations of Israel. Hence just as the sages in both the Mishna and Gemara relied on the rabbinic kabbalah of middot so to all generations of Israel could employ a middah employed on a dof of Gemara and by means of a Kal v’homer use it to re-interpret another sugya of gemara!

The situation of David and Uriah according to Shabbat 56a and Sanhedrin 107a.: “כל האומר דוד חטא אינו אלא טועה”. Batsheva is at least a safek eshet ish, possibly already divorced on condition, which softens the accusation of full-fledged adultery. Tosafot wrestle with the details of this in Bava Metzia 59a. So already in Chazal, the legal axis is not “David skipped a Sanhedrin trial,” but “Uriah was halachically liable as a rebel, and Batsheva’s marital status was halachically complex. However the Talmud clears David but fails to address the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach. Based upon the anarchy and chaos post the generation of Yeshua who conquered the land and established the Yovel through keeping Pesach and brit melah – the sign of the brit of liberty which HaShem and Avram cut at the brit of pieces, once David achieved piece in the land, then his Moshiach anointing required that he establish first the Yovel and then the Temple (not a building of wood and stone), but Federal common law courts like the spokes on a wheel as visioned by the prophets – Jerusalem as the central hub and the cities of refuge as the small sanhedrin spokes.

Clearly the prophet Yermia conditioned a blessing from g’lut to keeping the Yovel. The mitzva of Moshiach a mitzva from the Torah, not the later prophets. The 13 tohor middot (“אל רחום וחנון”) in g’lut liturgy in the Jewish state institutional design which the prophet Yermia referred to as ברית חדש; to make the middot of HaShem the DNA of courts, land tenure, debt release, refuge, and royal power etc. To ensure that no din melech exists without Sanhedrin משנה תורה legislative review.

Yovel defined through the opening mussar Books of NaCH

Kedesh – one of the six cities of refuge – located in the territory of the Tribe of Dan. Shimshon acted as a judge during his lifetime, but did not sit as a judge within Kedesh. Rather he served as a judge embodied to resolve the inter-state conflict between Yechuda/Shimon against Philistine dominance and oppression. This implies that while the wars remained that Israel could not keep the Yovel. This would explain why not till king David destroyed the Philistines from off the land, that Israel could only there after keep the Yovel.

Why did king Shlomo confuse building a cathedral of wood and stone rather than establish the Federal Sanhedrin court system as the Torah constitutionally בית המקדש? Confusing the priorities of constructing a Central Place of worship for the Torah mandated Sanhedrin court system – a fundamental av tuma avoda zarah. The revelation of the Mishkan at Sinai centered not on leather skins and gold plated vessels but rather תורה לא בשמים היא. תפילה הדבר שבלבב.

The prophetic mussar of Natan rebuked David over Uriah not brought before a Sanhedrin court. The mussar of the prophet Natan employed “the blood on David’s hands which caused the curse of eternal civil war within the house of David. Just as king Shlomo ignored the elder advice of Natan concerning construction of the בית המקדש so too Rehova’am placed no weight upon the advice given by Shlomo’s elder advisors.

No prophetic commandment to build a House of Cedar. A direct Torah commandment to righteously pursue justice among our people. King Shlomo did not pursue justice, he prioritized pursuing women. Torah defines faith as pursuit of justice. Avoda zarah defines faith as belief in some theological creed which shapes and defines the Gods worshipped in other societies and religions. The mitzva of Moshiach, a wisdom time-oriented positive Torah commandment to rule the conquered land of Canaan with justice. Confusing the reactionary death of Uriah with the strategic error – David’s failure, once shalom ruled in the land, to affix and establish 1. The Yovel and 2. The Federal Sanhedrin Court system.

Hence the prophetic mussar of Shoftim/Shimshon functions to show how AFTER the first generation of Israel conquered the land and established the Yovel – starting with Yehoshua keeping Pesach and brit melah – both Torah mitzvot directly linked to keeping the Yovel – and established the Six Cities of Refuges/small Sanhedrin Federal court system which ideally judge Capital Crimes cases among and between the 12 Tribes of our people.

The Talmud teaches, during the first 6 years of the wars of invasion Israel did not keep koshrut. The language 6 years לאו דוקא. Not till king David did Israel fully conquer the land of Canaan. As such assuming that king David understood the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach, when he commanded Shlomo to build the בית המקדש – based upon the mussar rebuke of Natan/2nd Sinai commandment – David called upon his son to establish the Yovel and permanently affix the Sanhedrin Federal Court system of the Republic of 12 Tribes.

The av tuma avoda zara of king Shlomo, no different from the generation that ruled Israel after the generation of Yehoshua passed. King Shlomo serves as a פרט to the כלל, of Israel pursuing avoda zarah rather than righteous justice among our people within the borders of the eternal inheritance lands of the chosen Cohen people. NaCH prophets command mussar – they do not teach history. This mussar by Natan’s interpretation of the 2nd Sinai commandment equally applies to all Israelis now that our people has conquered once again the land of Canaan.

The Book of בראשית introduces Av wisdom commandments called תמיד מעשה בראשית\זימן גרמא מצוות. Avoda zarah worships the chosen God of a particular Creed/theology belief system. Justice לא בשמים היא – the revelation of the Torah at Sinai לשמה. A man does not wake up from out of the blue and the pursuit of justice burns hot in his blood. Yovel justice first and foremost domestic, within and among the society of our people. Yovel means absolutely nothing to Goyim who never came out of the judicial oppression of Egypt!

The revelation of the Mishkan at Sinai compares to fruit which has an external klippah. The בראשית mussar which rejects the korban of Cain, the identical mussar where the Fire from Heaven consumed the strange fire of the two sons of Aaron. Korbanot as a barbeque to heaven a direct Torah abomination. Korbanot as a wisdom time-oriented positive commandment which requires prophetic mussar that interprets Oral Torah middot which chazal labels as מלכות לשמה as the dedication of the Yatzir Ha-Tov spirits within the heart as Torah wisdom which chazal labels as k’vanna.

Avoda zarah – the tuma middot of the Yatzir Ha-ra within the heart – confuses form for substance. Not the revelation of the Mishkan at Sinai. But the vision that the tohor middot spirits of the שם השם breath life within the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of our people who live within the Yovel lands of conquered Canaan. The avoda zarah of king Shlomo prioritized the tuma klippah of constructing a House of wood and stone and despised the dedication k’vanna of Oral Torah spirits/middot within the Ya’tzir Ha-Tov hearts/לבב of our people. The spelling לבב teaches the משמע mussar that the tohor spirits of our people live within our national hearts.

The יסוד of faith stands upon יראת שמים. Av tumah avoda zarah worships Gods in the Heavens. Torah faith does not exist in the heart of any man who despises the burden of obligation to protect his ‘Good Name’ reputation. Avoda Zarah prays to Gods in the heavens to cover and conceal the sins which profane this world. Justice לשמה pursues fair restitution of damages inflicted upon others among our people.

Just as Jefferson’s ‘Bill of Rights’ apply only to citizens of the American Republic. So too and how much more so judicial justice stands upon keeping the Yovel within our homeland. Yovel as a mitzva does not apply to Goyim in any land or country across the Planet Earth. The ‘son of God’ or ‘Arab prophet’ can proclaim declarations in ancient Harry Potter books of fiction. But where was JeZeus during the Shoah? Where was Allah during the murder of Ali ibn Abi Talib … the disgrace of ’48 Nakba? Fiction stories tell a good narrative that many fervently believe. But ‘fear of heaven’ confused as ‘fear of God(s)’; goyim theologies of fiction do not prioritize Torah constitutional Sanhedrin common law courts.

Mikdash has no meaning by its ornate or ritualized ‘forms’ alone. Any more than a dead body buried in a grave has life. Sanhedrin courtroom common law breaths the Oral Torah tohor spirits, first heard at Horev on Yom Kippur, which move and inspire Men – to pursue and rule the land through justice; meaning fair compensation for damages inflicted upon our people. Natan’s rebuke over Uriah, not primarily about adultery and murder—but rather bypassing the Sanhedrin, acting as a “cult” king -oblivious to the k’vanna mitzva of moshiach. The latter always chooses architecture, aesthetics, and ritual over Yovel, Sanhedrin and mishpat justice.

The Torah blessing/curse brit absolutely and most fundamentally requires that bnai brit Man accepts responsibility for his actions in this world. Avoda zarah trumpets ideal life in the world to come. Any talk of Mikdash, geulah, or “Jewish values” without a serious project of Yovel‑rooted justice and a binding Sanhedrin‑like legal framework repeats Shlomo’s av tuma avodah zarah.

Confusing ועשו לי מקדש as Shekinah as absurd as declaring the Universe created in 6 days! The בראשית Creation aggada introduces wisdom time-oriented commandments through the משל of creation. Literally believing Genesis – a theological fabrication known as religious rhetoric.

Torah constitutional doctrine of the 2nd commandment

Prophetic mussar interprets the k’vanna of 13 Oral Torah middot Spirits which Moshe heard at Horev following the calf abomination! To do this requires common law precedents which compare a NaCH sugya with a similar but different NaCH sgya/ot which contain the exact same order of Oral Torah middot. To interpret Oral Torah wisdom spirits – the rhetoric of the NT does not teach these wisdom skills.

The NT—Paul included—does not present itself as a rabbinic legal interpreter of Mosaic Oral‑Torah middot or as engaging in NaCH sugya methodology; it operates with different “avoda zarah” categories and interpretive aims which promote not only a false messiah but JeZeus is God and dress this theology as prophesy fulfilled. The Pauline religious rhetoric flat out fails to differentiate statute law from common law. Paul and the NT do not use rabbinic sugya methodology or the formal “middot” precedent method; the NT introduces Greco‑Roman rhetorical forms, typology, & citation to foist the lie that any son of man/God can fulfill the words of the prophets – straight up avoda zara.

A crystal clear example: the concept that a married woman could conceive through “virgin birth” the son of God; Hercules serves as a classic example of this av tuma avoda zarah. Paul’s letters repudiated brit melah but ignore the bi-polar kiddushin/get commandment from the Torah which the catholic virgin birth invalidates.

The NT ignores the Torah commandment of Yibum where a man who dies without children the brother has a mitzva to marry his brothers’ wife – the story of Yechuda and Tamar. This latter example serves as evidence that just as the Torah commands divorce through get, equally so kiddushin the mitzva of transferring “title” to the baal that he will father the children of that union. In cases of divorce, get required which returns “title” back to the woman such that she can marry through kiddushin another Jew.

This Torah implied backdrop (דיוק) the gospel narratives of Mary totally perverts. Paul as a student of Rabban Gamliel would most definitely known this fundamental Torah דאורייתא fundamental. His ‘not under the law’ rhetoric likewise conceal fundamental Torah commandments! Just as speaking “tongues” has no T’NaCH precedent so too the Pauline hype “not under the law” fails to differentiate Torah commandment of the status of a bastard son!

The Pauline letters and later Gospel false messiah stories, establish an entirely new religious substitute theology belief system by which the later church introduced its NT\OT perversion as the opposite of accurate. Goyim simply do not compare to a grafted Kilayim (forbidden mixtures) as Paul suggests. Based upon the T’NaCH example of Ruth the ger tzeddick process rigorous.

This day night divergence a historical fact. Does the Harry Potter false messiah gospels expose a Roman attempt to promote Jewish civil war among the already violently divided Jewish sects prior to the outbreak of the 66 Jewish revolt? Does Paul in turn function as an agent provocateur tasked by Rabban Gamliel to infiltrate and push-away and undermine the influence of this new heretical sect by preaching circumcision not a Torah commandment for Goyim in Damascus; while preaching to Romans to come worship the Son of God king of the Jews in the city of Rome. Impossible to know. Only that the writings of Paul clearly different from the other NT writers. And in point of fact, Paul’s “method” closely resembles to that of Yechuda Maccabee in his revolt against the Syrian Greeks.

The famous Israeli spy Eli Cohen, like Paul – publicly executed. Spies by definition rely upon duplicity rather than making bold declarations to the enemy that they seek the destruction of that opposing enemy state. Consequently, there exists no physical evidence that Paul operated upon a secret agenda. Nonetheless the Pauline propaganda as codified in the NT did greatly contribute to the overthrow of the earlier Greek and Roman Gods. As such, this speculation as believable as Zeus giving birth to Hercules as a belief system.

Whereas T’NaCH serves as common law which operates independent (as humanly possible) of any and all theological belief systems; for example the Talmud never once brings the 1st commandment שם השם. The NT\OT stand upon the Greek rhetoric bedrock of sand/fuzzy logic wherein the mobs believe language as inspired even though they do not understand that “tongue” – such as practiced in all Pentecostal churches; Xtianity and later Islam – both theological belief systems by the core. Whereas the Torah faith of justice rejects “belief” as something akin to accepting a bribe.

Rome’s Achilles heel, Egypt the primary source of cheap bread. A unified Jewish revolts in Alexadria Egypt and Judea which expelled Roman legions from their home base in Syria – represented a nightmare threat to the known Roman empire.

What proves the definitive fraud of both church and mosque the “by their fruits you shall know them” slander libel taxation without representation ghetto gulag Inquisition mentality which produced the Nazi Shoah.

Torah as prophetic common law, trains the chosen Cohen people in the conquered land of Canaan to riteously pursue justice in remembrance of the judicial corruption of ancient Egyptian vertical courts which obeyed Par’o. Both NT/Islamic cult of personality belief-systems replace justice with mythical Gods not know to the Torah NaCH and Writings. Such foreign Universal God rhetoric, exercised through racial KKK – power structures, whose fruits for Am Yisrael utterly catastrophic down through the Ages. So cruel, that any attempt to dress them garments of nevu’a language, the very wolf dress in sheep garments; itself, both NT and Koran define the 2nd Sinai commandment. As such, when will Israel expunge this cancerous avoda zara from within the Jewish state? Starts with the rigid rejection of rhetoric slogans of belief in God – Jewish, Xtian, or Muslim. The righteous pursuit of justice defines the Constitutional Zionist Republic which mandates a Federal lateral common law judicial system which regulates akin to a bureaucratic regulations statute law, starting with belief in a Universal montheistic god in heaven.

Interpreting the 2nd Sinai commandment “expunging avoda zara” not limited expelling foreign Goyim churches and mosques or even synagogues! Rather expelling the very idea that the State may coerce belief at all. Tzedek, tzedek tirdof the top dog (so to speak) of Zionism/Jewish self-determination.

The resurrection from the dead: The rise of the Jewish state following 2000+ years of exile.

Hebrews 12:2 the ultimate substitute theology which the Roman forgers and counterfeits attempted to cause Israel to forget the Torah no different than as did the Syrian Greeks, approximately 100 years earlier! Clearly, no Xtian “believer” dressed upon in the costume of a “scholar” has ever weighed this possibility; due to the simple facts that believers hold: Don’t confuse me with the facts! I have my religion!!

The early church rewrote or reinterpreted Hebrew scripture to replace Torah with a new “substitute” religion, similar to the Seleucid attempt under Antiochus IV – a form of supersessionism — the idea that the Church replaces Israel. They loved assimilated Alexandrian Philo and the Roman Kapo Flavius Josephus. The latter’s book Antiquities 18.63–64:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of people who accepted the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate condemned him to the cross, those who had first loved him did not cease. For he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other marvelous things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

The priest most often accused of having forged or interpolated this paragraph – Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century); after Xtianity became the Roman Empire’s favored religion (4th century). Xtianity as the state religion of Rome censored all manuscripts; scribal alterations in monasteries could spread modified readings. The church lost this power with the 15th Century invension of the Gutenberg printing press. But even contemporary scholarship generally agree the this double D-cup insertion came via Eusebius’ quotations which later monk scribes inserted into the actual texts. In 1971, scholar Shlomo Pines highlighted a 10th-century Arabic version of the text by the historian Agapius, which lacks the overtly dogmatic Christian interpolations, suggesting a neutral original baseline text existed before Roman scribal alteration.

Xtian “tripe rhetoric\propaganda” declares – the good noise gospel: “JeZeus fulfilled the words of the prophets”! Despite never such similar language anywhere across any of the Hebrew T’NaCH sealed masoret Books; which the Church first thing, once the State religion of Rome – discarded and cast upon the dung heaps of History. Order the opening central theme of the בראשית aggadah story of creation.

The Torah ‘order’ based upon a clear פ – ס \ chapter – subchapter system which the later Books of both Prophets and Holy Writing likewise obey. This Order akin for the sace of a physical comparison to a “Fach/space-gap” — a compound term used in architecture, preservation, and building-technical contexts to describe the intentional or resulting gap between two built elements or between a building element and an adjacent space. What separates a NaCH sugya from another NaCH sugya? A space-gap.

The treif bible church translations and koran false prophet (((Neither forgery understands the Torah concept learned directly from Moshe Rabbeinu that prophets commandment mussar to all generations. Prophets do NOT foretell the future; herein separates the mystic Book of Daniel from the Books of the Prophets!))), organized around alien and utterly foreign chapter\verse substitute order or poetic stanzas.

This change of Order compounded with the insertion of word based Names of God like JeZeus or Allah. Both foreign alien counterfeit substitute religion belief in “their” Universal Monotheistic God(s) over Torah common law as faith – תורה לא בשמים היא. Changing the order of texts produces radical consequences God does not mean nor refer to Dog. ברית does not compare to covenant because the former requires שם ומלכות – meaning the oath dedication of Oral Torah middot spirits לשמה which both the church and mosque emphatically deny that such spirits even exist! אהבה does note remotely compare to agape love. משפט צדק defines justice – common law courts ruling fair compensation of damages – does not compare to Paul’s addiction to Jezeus who atones for the eternal guilt trip of Adam’s original sin. A גר צדק does not remotely resemble to a Pauline uncircumcised Philistine; despite the church and the mosque huge as Goliath!

The radical change of Shaul the talmid of Rabban Gamliel HaNassi to Paul – exceptional. Paul’s writing preandidate the gospel texts themselves. A dog without a nose, even that animal could smell the coming revolts first in Alexandria Egypt and later in Judea! The Hanukkah model of how Yechuda Maccabbee defeated and achieved victory over the Syrian Greek empire clearly both Gamliel and the generals of Rome weighed and considered. Any interpretation of ancient history which ignores this fundamental precedent – not serious scholarship.

Shaul as a talmid of Gamliel traveled to Damascus and get’s stoned! That red flag together with the “stoning of Stephen”, two primary witnesses that something stinks in Denmark! Both men according to Torah law would require a trial before a city of refuge small sanhedrin court. The Goyim manner of “stoning” a direct Torah violation! The Talmud deliniates 4 separat types of death penalty. Stone people on the street without a Capital Crimes trail, no connection to any of the 4 types of Capital Crimes death sentences.

That Paul got up and walked to Damascus on his own power strongly indicates the “stoning” a set-up which would permit him to infiltrate the Xtian camp as a fellow converted believer! In Damascus Paul preached “not under the law” “circumcision” not a commandment for Goyim. In Rome Paul preached “worship JeZeus the son of God” when Romans worshipped Caesar as “the son of God”. Both cases suggest that the intention of Paul to inject a form of Monotheism into Roman society to promote Civil War!

The Roman counterfeit of JeZeus through the gospels promotes a false messiah dogmatism aimed to promote the many and hostile sects already fighting among themselves to further splinter and divide. “Divide and conquer” a gospel famous term of reference.

The earliest gospel of Mark – written in Rome about 70 CE. This gospel profoundly suspect. Simply because the destruction of Herod’s Temple – NEWS! The killing of a criminal through cruxifiction – common/NOT NEWS. Paul as a deliberate Sanhedrin/Gamliel agent! Based upon Yechuda Makkabbee declaring his loyalty to the “real king of Syria”. Just as Yechuda sought to undermine (shatter the ethical containment force) the government of Antiochus IV, so too Paul, based upon this model sought to do the same within Rome itself.

This idea that revolution requires shattering the ethical containment force of a civilization, perhaps the “soul of the people” requires two fundamental legs to stand upon. 1) Reject the current government order. 2) Reject the religion of the current government order. Examples: the American Revolution established citizens having rights vs. serfs as slaves. The French revolution rejected both the king and the Catholic church replaced by the church of reason! The Bolshevik revolution, modeled itself after the French revolution. Lenin and Troskii both rejected the 300 year Czarist regime together with the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Nazi revolution too rejected the British French dictated peace together with its imposed democratic government. Likewise the Nazis utterly despised the church and favored the Arian ancient religions. The Iranian revolution too rejected both the Shah and western liberal values.

Bottom line: Post Shoah NEVER AGAIN. Goyim racism as expressed through both “Jewish Problem” and “Dhimmi”, terminated with the rise and establishment of the Jewish state. Where was JeZeus during the Shoah. Why has Allah suffered defeat after humiliating defeat from the Jews who rule over Arab refugee populations?

Matthew 5 sermon on the mount does not compare to T’NaCH prophetic mussar rebukes which plant within the Yatzir Ha-Tov the tohor middot expressed through social justice, direct admonition, corrective rebukes against national leaders and society in general. The religious rhetoric of the Gospels in general and the Sermon on the Mount in particular describes “the favor of God”, alas the Greek manuscript of God equally employed in avoda zarah!

The JeZeus sermon communicates a superficial concept of humility and mercy totally alien to Torah and NaCH prophets. The fourth Oral Torah middah of רחום\mercy learns from the Torah secondary commandments of slaughtering all the inhabitants of Canaan; putting to death a minor child known as stubborn and rebellious; uprooting the ערב רב assimilated and intermarried Jews which the Torah describes as “Amalek”. Based upon the prior metaphor of Yaacov and Esav wrestling in the womb of Rivka! The Mishna refers to this eternal conflict as בכל לבבך between the two opposing Yatzirot spirits within the heart. The humility of Moshe does not at all align with the JeZeus sermon on the Mount.

The moral cultivation & harvesting of defined tohor Sinai middot. Prophetic mussar directly addresses as the chief purpose of both Moshe and later prophets mussar. Social justice and accountability within the borders of the oath sworn land of conquered Canaan directly affixed to righteous Sanhedrin common law courtrooms.

The Sermon on the Mount has a completely different message; it focuses directly upon individual virtues applicable to all mankind rather than the Oral Torah tohor middot which the church publicly and openly repudiates and denies.

The T’NaCH prophets command, a stark dichotomy of blessings and curses – based on collective adherence to the contrast between the opening first two Sinai commandments. Righteous pursuit of justice (fair compensation of damages inflicted) among the bnai brit people the Torah Constitution mandates directly linked to keeping the Yovel/liberty in the conquered homeland.

The gospel language directly implies the worship of some Monotheistic Universal God. Only the 12 tribes of Israel accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; a tribal god revealed at Sinai who took Israel out of g’lut. All mankind never accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

The word ONE in kre’a shma does not refer to some theological creed monotheistic God but rather that the “children of Israel” accept the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov by which they alone father the chosen Cohen people. Specific to the 12 tribes within the borders of Israel – blessings; specific to the 12 tribes in g’lut – cursed Egyptian like judicial oppression injustice.

The revelation of the Torah at Sinai does NOT mandate some specific theological framework as does the NT gospels. Middot defined both through spirit “substance” and commandment “forms”; a sort of ‘as above so below’ concept of time-oriented Torah wisdom commandments.

T’NaCH prophetic mussar specifically directed to all generations of Klal Yisrael. Herein the Torah itself strictly defines prophesy. Neither the NT nor Koran obey nor even resemble this fundamental criteria of nevuah.

Covenant a Goyim translation for ברית. To what does this translation – worship of words compare? To a brain surgeon cutting out a tumor while wearing 30 ounce boxing gloves. The NT Theos God applies only to the Gods of Mt. Olympus worshipped by both the ancient Greeks and Romans. Greek, Roman, NT ideas of justice directly compare to Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian ideas.

Oral Torah רוח הקודש middot – spirits NOT words. Despite the fact that the Torah speaks in the language of Man. None the less, neither the language of NT or Koran validates the תורה לא בשמים היא מצוה לשמה. Which permanently distinguishes the revelation of the Torah from all counterfeit avoda zarah Gods. JeZeus prayed to his Zeus in Heaven!

Torah does not communicate any theological religious vision of faith in God above. Torah commands the burden of pursuing righteous courtroom justice within the borders of the oath sworn land inheritance of the chosen seed of the Avot.

T’NaCH prophets do NOT “preach” faith. Rather they serve as the police enforcers of Sanhedrin אלהים justices courtroom rulings. Prophets in this fact compare to Amoraim halachot brought as precedents to interpret a specific Misnaic language viewed from a fixed eye-witness perspective; akin to the witnesses who describe seeing the new Moon. Later NaCH prophets alway make a משנה תורה to interpret Torah commandments in order to ascertain the k’vanna of these commandments as wisdom mitzvot\time-oriented. Judicial enforcement within the jurisdiction of Sanhedrin common law courts does not remotely compare to spiritual preaching of morality; the latter directly compares to the UN and the post Shoah Popes of Rome.

Make Mishlei 10:1 as the פרט‑datum, use the listed middot (binyan av mi‑katuv echad, gezerah shavah, klal‑u‑prat/prat‑u‑klal, semuchin, davar ha‑lamed me‑inyano, and kal va‑chomer) to read Ezekiel 18:21–32, Joel 2:12–14, and Hosea 6:6 together, and show how that chain supplies a determinate kavanah for one of the tohor middot (I’ll privilege “רחום וחנון / merciful‑and‑gracious” as the target middah). [Weigh through inductive comparative reasoning Ezekiel 18 (esp. 18:21–32), Joel 2:12–14, Hosea 5:8- 6:10 (esp. 6:6) and Yoel 2:1-14 (esp. 12-14). ]

Gezerah shavah shared inductive logic which compares שׂמחה/תּגונה, חיה/מות, צדק/תּשׁוּבָה. Methodologically: the middot chain permits reading a “sapiential aphorism”/”knowledge as power” – an anthropic model that prophets test, qualify, and transform into the oath brit obligations; the prophets’ sugyah then supplies the precise kavanah content for an Oral‑Torah middah (here, “רחום וחנון”), which the Gemara may incorporate as the operative intent for halakhic religious rituals.

Mishlei 10:1 furnishes the human analogy; Ezekiel/Joel/Hosea supply the prophetic mussar and hope; together they yield a determinate kavanah: t’shuva – must remember the oaths sworn by the Avot לשמה (opening verse of kre’a shma) to cut a brit as the eternal fathers of the chosen Cohen seed and invoke רחום which מגן אברהם the chosen seed of the Cohen people from being utterly destroyed at the moment of Anger for Golden Calf like avoda zara throughout the Ages and generations.

T’NaCH a common law legal system which commands mussar. Prophetic mussar stands upon “understanding” Oral Torah Horev-רוח הקודש middot k’vannot as the duty of the heart ברית חדש\מלכות לשמה. A blessing requires שם ומלכות — understood as a תולדה of the Torah oath brit sworn by each of the Avot; which permits the generations of Israel to dedicate, similar to a korban on an altar, a tohor middah as dominant within the Yatzir Ha-Tov, כנגד av tuma middot embraced by the Yatzir Ha-Ra. Herein understands the eternal Civil War struggle within the heart, as the metaphor of Yaacov and Esav wrestling within the womb of Rivka.

The 32 middot of Ha-Galilee interpret the weft – aggadic portions of Talmudic scholarship. Whereas the 7, 10, 13 middot of Hillel, Akiva, and Yishmael interpret the warp – halachic protions of the Talmud. These two opposing sets of middot, they remind me of the Stars & Bars of the Confederate war flag. Herein an attempt to summerize the sh’itta of my Rav, Aaron Nemuraskii who learned it from rabbi Shalom Elyashiv which learns both T’NaCH and later Talmud as two opposing threads in the revelation of Torah common law at Sinai.

Post the sealing of the Sha’s Bavli, the Soveraim made final editorial decisions, and the Gaonim wrote t’shuvot to questions asked how to understand religious halachic observance practices that the Talmud established throughout the g’lut – that Jews should follow. Toward the end of the Gaonim leadership of g’lut Jewry, Muslim armies conquered Spain and released the Hanukkah Civil War genie out of its imprisoned bottle.

The church about the time of the Nicene creed – supplanted the Greek/Roman Gods with their belief creed-new Universal God. Dominant, the church fathers now banned the ancient Greek writings which ruled the Greek and Roman empires through theological belief systems. Then the apostle Paul introduced this new religion, which eventually cast those old Gods upon the dung heaps of history, much like the Old Testament attempts to treat the Hebrew T’NaCH.

The Romans referred to Jews as atheists. Torah defines faith as “pursuit of righteous justice” based upon post Sinai כלל: תורה לא בשמים היא. The genius of Greek mathematics and philosophy, the Muslim conquest of Spain re-opened Jewish Civil War wounds. The kapo Tzeddukim av tumah spirits, once more rose from the dead and dominated the known world – inclusive of the Arabian empires together with the Roman church.

Rav Nemuraskii instilled within my heart a love for the B’hag, Rif, Rashi Chumash p’shat, and Baali Tosafot\Rosh common law commentaries to the Talmud. The criticism made by the Baal HaMaor upon the Rif common law code together with the B’HaG prioritization of Av Torah wisdom commandments – defined as time-oriented mitzvot served as the primary models by which we studied the Talmud together with Rashi’s common law commentary to the Chumash.

Both rabbis Elieshiev and Nemuraskii prioritized publicly teaching the Talmud as religious halacha text, common across all Yeshivot. But privately rav Nemuraskii differentiated the Talmudic model as a prophetic vision to the times when Jews terminated our g’lut and conquered our homeland once again, based on Moshe leading our people out of slavery to do the same. This Talmudic Framers “vision” totally repudiates both NT and Koran revisionist history avoda zarah. The Sages during the framing of the Bavli Gemara introduced an additional blessing to the Shemone Esrei to emphasize this basic fundamental distinction.

Later a young 18 year old Talmudic scholar harshly criticized the common law Rif code, (the Baali Maor) due to even the appearance similar to Roman statute law codes. The Talmud catagorically rejects Greek/Roman statute law legislation; Talmudic scholarship obey the culture and customs established by T’NaCH mussar common law courtrooms.

The Rambam statute law codification fully validates the Baali Maor’s criticisms made against the Rif; despite the critical need by g’lut Jewry for a simplified “Kitzur Shulchan Aruch”; centuries before the church imposed the three Century ghetto gulag war crimes upon all Western European Jewry, the evil eye of church fathers banished ancient Greek texts unto genizah ghettoes. The Muslim invasion of Spain triggered another bitter P’rushim vs Tzeddukim like Civil War.

The ‘Golden Age of Spanish Jewry’ witnessed horrific Jewish av tumah assimilation and intermarriage. Ibn Ezra’s son converted to Islam. Rambam’s statute law halchic code exploded into an international Jewish Civil War following his death.

Assimilated Spanish Jewry, lead by the Rambam and opposed by the French rabbis, the Baali Tosafot, pitted the Tannaim פרדס common law against Tzeddukim supported syllogism statute law – the dog returned to eat its own vomit – only this time g’lut Jewry embraced the T’zeddukim & they rejectioned the פרדס Oral Torah kabbalah of rabbi Akiva. Despite the fact that the Rambam himself despised the Karaim as abhorred heretics!

Greek\Roman statute law rejects outright T’NaCH/Talmudic courtroom common law just as Rambam’s code prioritized religion over the vision of a reconquered homeland wherein FREE Jews keep both Yovel and Sanhedrin common law courts – both Capital Crimes and Torts! Even the RambaN who harshly opposed the Baali Maor in his Milchimet HaShem, validated that g’lut Jewry despair simplified religious mitzvot codes; not for the sake of doing mitzvot but rather that g’lut Jews practive doing “mitzvot” … such that when they return to the conquered land of Canaan, that they will know that the pursuit of justice defines Torah faith.
 
עין טוב – judge your people in the scales of merit interprets the k’vanna of the middah of חנון. The middah of רב חסד, by contrast, the skill to understand and discern a matter contained within another – Like from like – such as מלאכה from עבודה. Hence the B’HaG code of Torah mitzvot employs קום ועשה and שב ולא תעשה מצוות as בניני אבות to derive the k’vanna of time-oriented wisdom commandment which require the dedication of tohor middot discerned one from the others – no different from the distinct 13 middle blessing within the chol Shemone Esrei.

The B’HaG, part of the last generation of the Gaonim scholars. Writes a chiddush that the lights of shabbat and Hanukkah a mitzva from the Torah. This chiddush, its what separates dynamic פרדס inductive logic from Rambam’s static deductive Greek assimilated logic. A 1000 years previous Jews fought a Civil War which pitted the assimilated Tzeddukim sons of Aaron against the P’rushim who passed down the Oral Torah/פרדס kabbalah to rabbi Akiva, Hillel, Yishmael, and Yossi HaGalilee. This rabbinic tradition separates how to learn the warp halachic sugyot of the Gemara precedent search/common law\ on how to interpret the language of the Home Mishna viewed from different “trial witness-like, but different” perspectives.

Common law a judicial legal system rather than a legislative statute law system of legal jurisprudence. משנה תורה means both common law and likewise ‘legislative review’. The weft Aggadic threads of Talmudic comman law make a drosh comparison of similar but different sugyot throughout the NaCH prophets to ascertain prophetic mussar k’vanna. The woven Talmudic garment “creates” wisdom/time-oriented Av commandments from the soil of positive commandments and Talmudic halachot which in and of themselves do not require k’vanna.

Contrast British common law courts. Statute laws imposed by the British Parliament in London – they define the Constitution of England. Hence the British common law court system cannot overrule a law passed by Parliament like the US Supreme Court can rule a law passed by Congress and the President as “unconstitutional”.

King David, the Tannaim in as recorded in the Yerushalmi Talmud, debated whether he established conquered Damascus as a ‘city of refuge’. Clearly king Shlomo rejected a Sanhedrin Federal Court system! All the kings thereafter both from Yechuda and Israel never once make reference to Sanhedrin common law courtrooms anywhere in the T’NaCH. The Yerushalmi in Makkot discusses the number and scope of cities of refuge and preserves tannaitic disputes not found in the same form in the Bavli. This debate concerning David’s conquest of Damascus connected to the broader sugya of כיבוש דוד and the status of סוריא (Syria conquered by David), touching the permissibility to expand the Cities of Refuge from the Torah established 6 to 9.

I asked this very question to the Rosh Yeshiva and he confirmed that the reading of the D’varim 19: ויספת לך עוד שלש ערים על השלש האלה, implies its permissible to expand the original Six cities to Nine cities. If Damascus became part of Israel through David’s conquest, would institutions dependent upon territorial sanctity—such as cities of refuge, tithes, shemittah, and courts—extend there? Pro–כיבוש דוד (David’s conquest has legal force): Rabbi Akiva Rabbi Yishmael (in some versions) Rabbi Meir. Anti–כיבוש דוד (Syria does not fully attain Land status): Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Shimon.

What distinguishes the cities of refuge from the Great Sanhedrin\Mishkan Shiloh/Temple Yerushalim\, the later has jurisdiction only within the Torah established borders of ארץ ישראל whereas the Small Sanhedrin, by definition a place of exile for accidental deaths, stands on the borders of the conquered lands of Israel. The land dedicated to the chosen seed of Avraham expansive to include Iraq!

Under such a model, the city of refuge is not primarily a sanctuary; it is a frontier judicial institution; the spokes of the Merkabah wheel whose central hub Shiloh or the City of David – a Federal Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Court system. Many classical authorities distinguished between the promised borders in Bereishit (“from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates”) and the territory actually settled under Yehoshua. Hence the Yerushalmi debate concerning the status of Damascus. A debate about the relationship between central authority and frontier jurisdiction within the Torah’s legal system. The cities of refuge are uniquely positioned to reveal that distinction because they are the one institution whose number the Torah explicitly authorizes to increase when the borders increase.

Moshe Rabbeinu according to rabbi Meir imposed a תנאי כפול upon the 21/2 tribes in קידושין. Those 3 cities of refuge serve as a precedent to the issue of king David’s conquering Damascus. This famous interpretation by rabbi Meir included in קידושין due to this wisdom commandment. The קידושין\גט diode relationship where both mitzvot exist, like shabbat and Moshiach, as time-oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as its ברית חדש k’vanna within the heart. All time-oriented av Torah commandments – a matter of the heart – like תפילה. All wisdom commandments (דאורייתא או דרבנן) require prophetic mussar as their definition of Oral Torah tohor middot (מלכות לשמה). Specifically wisdom commandments swear a Torah oath (שם ומלכות) based upon the תולדות relationship which ברכות have with Torah brit oaths.

The primary בנין אב/precedent – תמיד מעשה בראשית. The Aggada בראשית creation story not understood through a טיפש פשט literal reading of the words of the בראשית aggadah! Rather the Torah opens with the introduction of Av Torah commandments – by means of this aggadic story of creation – known as time-oriented commandments. תולדות קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות do not require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna; they exist as “forms” or ritual observance of commandments. The aggadic story of Cain proves that the Torah rejects ritual commandments\barbeque to heaven/ – as the primary Torah commandments. Rather, these secondary Torah commandments serve as precedents (together with halachot in the Talmud) whereby the generations of the chosen Cohen people – through wisdom – can make an aliyah of תולדות מצוות unto אב טהור זמן גרמא מצות.

What stands Torah Constitutional common law apart from the av tumah avoda zarah “daughter religions” … the latter presented as historical facts; the former absolutely depends upon Israel keeping the Pesach Yovel as did Yehoshua when he crossed the Jordan river with Reuven Gad and Menashe as the tip of his invading spear! Contrast the next generation which abandoned the Torah as the Constitutional mandate of the land and worshipped avoda zarah. Clearly during the times of the בית שני the Talmud records that the Yovel never observed. The issue at hand, did king David throughout his reign keep the Yovel and establish the Federal Great/Small Sanhedrin Federal Common law court system?

What’s clear, that king Shlomo judged the Capital Crimes case of the two whores and dead new born child in his own court rather than before a Sanhedrin court! All the kings of rebellious Israel never kept not the Yovel nor the Sanhedrin Federal court system. Did any king of Yechuda, prior to the Bavil g’lut keep Yovel and a lopped of Sanhedrin court system? The avoda zara of king Shlomo did not occur at the end of his reign but at the beginning when he ignored the prophetic mussar Natan commanded David not to copy the ways of the Goyim and construct a Cathedral/Temple! From day one Israel warred against the nations of Canaan. Therefore “blood on his hands” directly refers to king David’s failure to judge Uriah before a Sanhedrin Capital Crimes court!

The chiddush offered here that the classic טיפש פשט literal understanding of pushing off building the Temple to David son, compares to a screen door on a submarine! Clearly by the time of Yermia the kingdom of Yechuda rebelled to keep the Yovel. What significant, Yovel/Pesach\Freedom the fundamental condition to establish Sanhedrin Federal courts over the 12 Tribe Republic. After the kingdom split into Civil War consequent to the Natan curse upon David and exemplified by Shlomo confusing building a Cathedral copy of how Goyim worship their Gods like later kings copied how Goyim constructed their altars, did king Shlomo keep the Yovel. IF king Shlomo did not keep the Yovel, prior to the permanent split that occurred in the reign of his son at Sh’Cem, THEN no king of Yechuda kept the Yovel. NO Yovel No Sanhedrin Courts, other than the korban of Cain like the Sanhedrin court Nepoleon established in Paris.

Therefore, what distinguishes both NaCH and Talmud as “PROPHETIC” … both this and that address all O’lam Ha’bah future born generations to re-conquer the homeland, establish the Yovel in the land, make the Written Torah the Constitution which mandates specifically the Federal Sanhedrin court system over the 12 Tribes of the Republic. This reality has yet to occur. The daughter religions of av tuma avoda zarah declare a revisionist history and seek to impose their substitute theologies upon all humanity. Torah has yet to function as the written Constitution of the chosen Cohen Peoples’ Republic.

The Core revelation of the Torah at Sinai לשמה – תורה לא בשמים היא. Who then constitutes as כה אמר אלהים? Justice לשמה not in the heavens but dependent upon righteous court justices – אלהים. Therefore the prophets command their mussar in the name of the Sanhedrin court. Tehillim 82: אלהים נצב בעדת אל. The prophetic language כה אמר השם, inseparable from the restoration of righteous lateral common law Sanhedrin courts. Did any Davidic king after David actually maintain a functioning Yovel-based constitutional order over all Israel? That evidence certainly supports the argument that the constitutional ideals of Torah were only partially realized in the monarchic period. Without the Written Torah as the Constitution, then no Torah mandate for the Yovel. No Yovel no Tribal Republic with משנה תורה Sanhedrin legislative review over statute law imposed by either tribal judge or later kings!

The form/substance – holy\most holy divide: Mishkan\Temple “FORM” vs. the נמשל “SUBSTANCE”, the kabbalah of Shekinah based upon: ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם. Which rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi interpreted the tefillah אורייתא – קריא שמע – בכל לבבך\כם as the Yaacov vs Esav spirits which wrestle within the heart of bnai brit Cohen Israel. Rabbi Yechuda employed the משל\נמשל of Yatzir Ha’Tov which eternally in all generations wrestles against the tuma spirit his Mishna refers to as Yatzir Ha-Ra. Herein defines the prophetic mussar of the prophet Yermia’s ברית חדש which stands upon the מעשה בראשית aggadic metaphor story of the wisdom time-oriented commandment – 6 days of Creation and one day of not doing מלאכה. Therefore impossible for cursed g’lut Jews to observe Torah mitzvot לשמה – based upon the 1st Sinai Commandment wherein g’lut Egypt – לאו דוקא.