Shabbat a זימן גרמא מצוה.

All time-oriented commandments require making a fundamental הבדלה which separates Av time-oriented commandments which require כוונה from toldot קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות שלא צריך כוונה. להבדיל בין מלאכה מן עבודה

Am a yid attempting t’shuva after coming to Israel in 1991. Rejected the Rambam’s Sefer Ha’Mitzvot in favor of the B’HaG vision of Torah commandments. For a time-oriented commandment example: tefillah; Rambam’s introduction rejects the B’HaG’s order of mitzvot. Let’s focus upon his 5th positive commandment – tefillah. The B’HaG learns the opening Mishna of ברכות – that קריא שמע תפילה דאורייתא. The Rambam, based upon the criticism made by the RambaN, ruled that tefillah Shemone Esrei דאורייתא.

A fundamental error on par with his error concerning forced קידושין על ידי ביאה with a young minor child who lacks the mental maturity to understand the “k’vanna” of the time oriented mitzva of קידושין. This fundamental flaw in the Sefer Ha’Mitzvot which divides the תרי”ג מצוות into positive & negative commandments and ignores Av tohor time-oriented commandments an error that makes his scholarship totally treif. On par with his perversion of 4 part inductive logic פרדס – the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva, Yishmael, and Yossi Yossi Galili. Assimilated Rambam relied upon the 3 part deductive syllogism logic of Plato and Aristotle; Rambam blew out the lights of Hanukkah and caused the Jewish people a tragic ירידות הדורות, Israel forgot the Oral Torah as the Hanukkah blessing in the bencher testifies.

His statute law code utterly worthless when learning the Gemara. The example of the opening sugya of קידושין brings the common law precedents of etrog and כוי. To understand the limitations of the 3 ways a baal acquires a woman as a wife which do not apply to a young girl due to her lack of maturity – similar to etrog. Rambam’s statute law (assimilated to Roman statute law which organized law into categories), none of the super commentaries starting with the כסף משנה/Karo caught his fundamental error.

Talmudic common law (court-room judicial law) brings precedents (בניני אבות) which re-interpret (משנה תורה-common law) the intent of the language of the Mishna based upon a completely different perspective. Like the Front/Top\Side views of a blue-print permits the קבלן to construct a 3 dimensional building from a 2 dimensional blue-print. The Rambam erred when he ruled that ביאה achieves קידושין even in a young child who lacks the mental maturity to understand how a man who rapes her acquires her as his wife.

In short the halachic rulings made by this assimilated Jew utterly treif. In 1232 the Rabbis of Paris/Baali Tosafot agreed with the court of Rabbeinu Yonah in Spain and placed the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam. 10 years later the king of France together with the Pope decreed the burning of the Talmud in France. Rabbeinu Yona duplicated the error wherein the two warring brothers, Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, invited Roman general Pompey into the walls of Jerusalem to resolve their dynastic dispute. The Hasmonean kingdom fell without even a whimper. What a disgrace.

Unlike the Tzeddukim who lost the Hannukah Civil War, Karaite Rambam won the identical Civil War wherein Jews forgot the Oral Torah פרדס logic system; the Talmud compares to the warp\weft of a loom – halacha/aggada. דרוש ופשט affixed to the Aggada which makes a drosh onto T’NaCH prophetic mussar (T’NaCH like the Talmud a common law legalism); רמז וסוד weave prophetic mussar “p’shat” determining the k’vanna of halachic mitzvot. The B’HaG rules that raising mitzvot to Av tohor time-oriented commandments makes these rabbinic mitzvot into דאורייתא commandments.

This sh’itta of learning “acquired” from Rav Aaron Nemuraskii a talmid of rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv. Rabbi Nemuraskii did not teach this sh’itta of learning to his sons because he feared they would suffer isolation and disgrace. Rabbi Elyashiv did not teach this sh’itta to his sons Moshe and Binyamin, both of whom danced at my wedding, I suspect for the same exact reason. As a person attempting to remember the ways of my forefathers ie t’shuva, the risk of isolation and disgrace much more far removed.

Hanukkah clearly a post Torah rabbinic commandment. That’s if a person “shoe boxes” Torah commandments into Moshe commandments and post Moshe commandments as the Rambam did. This latter רשע totally assimilated like the Karaim and before them the Tzeddukim; all these religious sects or leaders believed and embraced as the Primary basis of their faith absolute trust and acceptance of ancient Greek Philosophy over the secondary Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev. The Rambam no different from those earlier/contemporary Jewish cults and/or sects who deny the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Obviously this includes the writers of the New Testament.

Rabbi Akiva taught a kabbalah touching the Oral Torah revelation at Horev which defines it as a rational inductive reasoning logic system. Its known as the פרדס four part inductive comparison logic which measures Case/Rule cases to other previous judicial Case\Rule cases – precedents — בניני אבות. Judicial common law establishes law through courtroom rulings rather than cult of personality authority figures or legislative law. One of the central meanings of משנה תורה – Legislative Review.

The scholar known as the B’HaG, the last generation of the Talmudic scholars which preceded the Reshonim talmudic scholars. Gaonim 600 to 950CE. Reshonim 951- 1450 CE. The Rambam published his Yad Chazakah statute law halachic code in about 1185. In context, the Rabbeinu Tam – the leader of the common law Baali Tosafot French school of Talmudic scholarship – he died prior to the Rambam publishing his assimilated abomination code of halachic statute law.

The Book known as Sefer Ha’Mitzvot the Rambam wrote as an introduction to his puke Yad narishkeit. In that book he classified the 613 Torah commandments limited strictly to the language of the Written Torah; akin to how Orthodox Xtians interpret the Creation story of sefer בראשית. The Rambam rejected the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s 4 part פרדס inductive logic format in favor of Plato and Aristotles 3 part syllogism deductive logic philosophy.

The B’HaG preceded the Rambam by about 3 generations. As one of the last of the Gaonic school of Talmudic scholarship in Iraq, he too introduced his common law halachic codification הלכות גדולות, by first addressing Torah commandments. The B’HaG greatly influenced, even dominated the early Reshon – the Rif – and how he organized his common law halachic code. The Baali Tosafot approved of the court of Rabbeinu Yonah’s ban of נידוי upon this early Spinoza Rambam; in 1232 the rabbis in Paris place the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam. The Rif, two generations before the Rambam published his Greek/Roman statute law halachic perversion.

The B’HaG’s “sefer Ha’Mitzvot” unlike the assimilated puke Rambam’s travesty codification of the so called 613 Torah commandments, which froze these commandments into, so to speak, an ice tray having two rows: positive and negative commandments. The Rambam failed to grasp the Av priority of tohor time-oriented Torah commandments!

The B’HaG understood that if a T’NaCH\Talmudic scholar possessed the wisdom to elevate secondary commandments which do not require k’vanna to Av tohor time-oriented commandments which absolutely without exception require prophetic mussar as the k’vanna; then this special type of Av commandments possessed the power to make an aliya, to raise rabbinic commandments out of the din of g’lut, unto Torah commandments observed in ארץ ישראל in all future generation redeemed from the Torah curse of g’lut. This the “substance” rather than the “form” of Torah commandment observance has the power to raise rabbinic mitzvot unto Torah commandments.

The Rambam puke – being a totally assimilated Jew clung to Greek philosophy rather than a scholars of the kabbalah of rabbis Akiva, Yishmael, Yossi Ha’Gallilee – the great Tannaim (scholars who preceded Rabbi Yechuda’s codification of Great Sanhedrin judicial rulings known as the Mishna). This “rabbi” who betrayed the substance of Rabbinic Judaism – teachers of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev, who accepted the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven from the P’rushim – the Rambam’s complete and totally treif learning compares to the New Testament abomination.

In conclusion: All time-oriented mitzvot are Av tohor commandments. Av mitzvot require כוונה, and the כוונה defined by prophetic mussar, not by the mechanistic performance of the act. Toldot mitzvot (קום ועשה / שב ואל תעשה without kavanah) rely on the Av-mitzvah to give them meaning by functioning as precedents within the language of the Written Torah.

An example of elevating rabbinic to Torah commandments: Torah allows Sanhedrin to determine months — a human action becomes the Torah’s time. If a rabbinic commandment is aligned with an Av time-oriented mitzvah and framed through prophetic mussar, it ascends from din derabbanan to din d’oraita.

The Rambam’s code, which freezes Sinai into a dead text divorced from the living Sanhedrin. Chanukkah as a Torah commandment categorically rejects Hellenistic assimilation. The establishment of both Chag Purim and Chanukkah – an act of Sanhedrin court authority. Once Ḥanukkah attaches itself to the Av-mitzvah of Hoda’ah on national geulah, its status automatically becomes דאורייתא — not because its lights – ancient, but because its kavanah dedicates a Jew to only interpret the Written Torah through פרדס Av-tohor time-oriented commandments.

The Oral Torah functions as a common-law constitutional system (פרדס), NOT some Greek statute. A Torah obligation national oath brit commitment to pursue judicial justice within the borders of our Homeland, to make fair restitution of damages inflicted upon other. The substance and reason of the first Sinai commandment.

Eisengesis vs. Exegesis

Exegesis, a disciplined approach focused on extracting meaning from a text through careful analysis through Oral Torah פרדס inductive reasoning. Eisengesis, on the other hand, replaces the kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic, as taught by rabbis Akiva, Yishmael, and Yosse HaGal with Plato\Aristotle 3-part syllogism deductive logic. Exegesis scholarship includes looking at cultural, historical, and linguistic contexts to uncover what the author intended to convey. Meaning, learning the T’NaCH texts viewed from the perspectives of Jewish culture, customs, and accepted practices – called minhagim. Exegesis schlarship simply crucial in Torah Constitutional studies. It promotes deeper, more accurate understandings of exactly how the Jewish people understand and interpret sacred texts.

Examples of Eisengesis: The Nicene Council which introduced with the power of established church dogma the creed of Trinity belief as “the mystery of Monotheism”, Illustrates the process of interpreting a text, specifically how the New Testament interprets the Hebrew T’NaCH, based on the interpreter’s own biases and preconceptions. Perspective: Subjective; the writings of Paul his subjective beliefs and clear ideologies. A sample of Paul’s skewed eisengesis, his declaration that circumcision ceased being a mitzva from the Torah. His declaration of JeZeus as the son of God; his substitute theology which prioritized “original sin of Adam” and replaced the Universal theme of the Torah of blessing/curse – life/death = g’lut\exile. Paul’s eisengesis requires the resurrection of JeZeus to atone for Adam’s original sin.

Approach: Reads into the text and imposes meanings that may not be supported by the text itself. Torah a Case/Law common law system. Paul’s unilateral declaration that “Goyim are not under the Law”. Paul’s unilateral declaration that “Goyim are not under the Law”; an absurd declaration because Goyim universally rejected the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore of course ‘Goyim not under the Law’? So why make this obvious declaration when Goyim never accepted Torah common law. Answer: Paul substituted the dominant Roman statute law for Jewish common law. Goyim only knew Statute law. Therefore they simply and falsely assumed that “not under the law” referred to the statute law with which they were intimately familiar.

This distinction highlights how cultural and legal backgrounds shape understanding of T’NaCH Constitutional texts understood as biblical religious texts. The conversion from Jewish common law to Roman statute law reflects the complexities in early Christian thought regarding “the Law”; it implies that belief in JeZeus grafted them into the Chosen Cohen People. An utterly false idea. Paul rejected keeping the commandments; circumcision, kashrut, tohor & tuma etc. These key central concepts of T’NaCH Constitutional common law became totally alien to Xtian beliefs and their Av tuma avoda zarah religion.

In particular, the propaganda of Paul completely subsumed and ignored the key Torah theme that HaShem brought Israel out of Egyptian slavery to bring them in to conquer the lands of Canaan as sworn unto the Avot as the eternal Cohen people inheritance lands. This substitute theology post the JeZeus false messiah theology impacted Goyim to prioritize being saved by the blood of the lamb rather than conquer and rule the oath sworn lands with righteous judicial common law justice which dedicates to make fair restitution of damages. The First commandment of Sinai the New Testament totally negates. Goyim by definition live in lands outside of Israel. Whereas Moshe brought Israel out of Egypt to rule Canaan.

Outcome. The introduction of the “New Testament” imposed an immediate void upon the Hebrew T’NaCH, now labeled as “Old Testament”. That Xtian religion share more in common with Muslim strict Monotheism than the T’NaCH local God linked directly to the oath sworn lands; the God of the chosen Cohen People. The NT totally obliviates the concept of the chosen Cohen People, replaced by believers in JeZeus being saved from burning for eternity in Hell. The T’NaCH concept of “the devil” metaphor (משל\נמשל) inference דיוק logic of reading T’NaCH texts refers to the Yatzir Ha’Raw within the heart. Not to some imaginary king of Demons who got expelled from Heaven following a failed rebellion against God.

Applications: Blood libels, ghetto gulag imprisonment for 3 Centuries duration till the French revolutionaries & Napoleon expelled the Catholic church from its co-rulership of the French monarchy; the American revolution separated Church from State. Church dogmatism declared Jews as cursed and the spawn of the devil; condemned to walk the face of the earth as despised refugees. This theological narishkeit culminated in the Shoah where Nietzsche declared prior to WWII that God was dead.

Rambam changed T’NaCH mussar – common law and Talmudic halachic – common law, unto Roman statute law. Two day and night – different legal systems. Truth,,, the Torah defines as path/halacha. The Rambam statute law halacha took Yiddishkeit completely of this משנה תורה common law path דרך.

Not only the court of Rabbeinu Yonah imposed the ban of נידוי upon this non Jewish רשע; just as a Ger Tzeddick becomes a “new creation” so too the רשע – the ban of charem makes that רשע into a non Jewish Goy. In 1232 the rabbis of Paris agreed with the Court of Rabbeinu Yona in Spain and likewise imposed a נידוי ban upon Maimonides. 10 years later the King of France together with the Poop of Rome burned all the Talmudic manuscripts in Paris France. In 1306 all Jews expelled from France. This permanently destroyed the French Rashi/Tosafot Schools of Talmudic common law scholarship!

Jewish rabbinic revisionist history pretends that a majority of the Baali Tosafot despised the Rambam as a רשע. Only twice in the whole of the Tosafot commentary upon the Talmud does the Baali Tosafot quote an opinion on halacha made by Maimonides. Both times the Baali Tosafot disputed that opinion as valid halacha! After the disaster in Paris 1242, 10 year after the Baali Tosafot placed the ban of נידוי upon Maimonides, Rabbeinu Yonah’s attempt to remove the books of the Rambam from rabbinic literature, comparable to the writings of Spinoza, collapsed. The Rambam Civil War blew out the lights of Hanukkah!!!!!

A Jewish Civil War which predated by at least a Century the rise of the New Testament abomination. Maimonides took up the revolt led by the Tzeddukim and later Karaites – both of whom rejected the Oral Torah as defined by the kabbala of rabbi Akiva’s 4 part פרדס inductive logic system. Both sects of Judaism preferred to assimilate and embrace the ancient Greek 3 part syllogism deductive logic model.

Statute law does not and cannot understand the Talmud. Read the statute law halachic codes of the Rambam Tur or Beit Yosef/Shulkan Aruch — tits on a boar hog! These statute law codes do not instruct how the Gemara halachic precedents interpret the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna! Not so the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh common law halachic codes! The latter understands that the Gemara halachic ruling serve most essentially as precedent to re-interpret – משנה תורה – the language of the Home Mishna. The statute halachic codes do not have the least bit of a clue which Mishna the Gemara halachic rulings serve as precedents. Statute law does not stand upon the foundation of precedents as does judicial common law.

Shalom and Howdy from Israel. As a Jew I am an atheist praise the Gods. Theology and Creed based belief systems an abomination to me. Torah faith defined as the pursuit of judicial justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted. Torah law – a judicial common law system. The idea that the State pays the salaries of judges and prosecuting attorneys – bribery. Revolutionary America despised the vertical Star Courts whose bought and paid for judges justified and validated British impressment of American sailors, stolen off of American ships on international waters…The behavior of the American courts toward Trump before and after he won the election – day and night difference! What a total disgrace, proof that the American judicial system totally corrupt together with Nancy Pelosi and her ilk who made 100s of millions from insider trading! Forced to resign in disgrace from Congress, but that hardly qualifies as justice.

Torah defines “love” as ownership. A man cannot love that which he does not own. The Talmud interprets love through theft of his property. It teaches the mussar that a person attaches a portion of his soul to his owned property. “Life liberty and property” to keep this in an American context. Torah common law learns “love” through the mitzva of קידושין. Marriage – a man acquires his wife! But a woman simply not a slave or a whore – which can be bought and sold! So what does a man “acquire” through Cash, Contract, or Sex?

Torah a common law legal system. Common law stands upon the central premise that it requires similar Case/Rule precedential judicial rulings. American literature 101 calls this “Compare and Contrast”. The opposite of marriage – divorce. קידושין כנגד גט. A evil man who divorces his wife but treacherously refuses to give her her “Get”/גט makes this woman a “jailed”/agunah woman. This woman if she has a child from another man without her “get” births bastard children. How does this legal condition qualify as being – at all fair and just?

A superficial reactionary reading of the language of the Torah/Talmud – known as פשט – has no explanation. Hence rabbinic Judaism stuck in a טיפש פשט bird-brained box thinking unjust legal system! This type of law known as חוקים. Torah common law – judicial courtroom law based upon precedent similar Case/Rule -rulings made by earlier courts. Queer statute law Judaism – utterly perverted.

Torah Law (חוקים) has nothing to do with the absurd-unknowable divine revelation. That’s Xtian and Muslim avoda zarah whose theologies and creed belief systems create their Gods from nothing other than Human belief systems. Mishnaic Common law originated from human experiences and societal needs rather than some pie in the sky divine angelic command like Muhammad’s Koran. Mishnaic common law – Court room judicial rulings.

What does “derived from oral traditions/Oral Torah even mean? The kabbala taught by rabbis Akiva and Yishmael and Yossi HaGalilee פרדס ומידות. Herein defines “Oral Torah”. פרדס not a mystical interpretation but rather a 4 part inductive reasoning logic system. Its stands separate and apart from Plato and Aristotlte’s 3 part syllogism deductive reasoning logic system.

Unlike the syllogistic method of deduction which dominates Greek philosophy (i.e., moving from general principles to specific conclusions), Pardes employs a fluid inductive comparative analysis approach. This means that insights, derived from similar precedent Case/Rule judicial rulings. As a loom has a warp – weft, the Talmud has halacha – aggada.

The latter entails making a דרוש\פשט of T’NaCH prophetic mussar, which the Talmud, which means learning, cleverly weaves through רמז\סוד transforming toldot-secondary commandments & halachot – which do not require k’vanna – unto time-oriented commandments which do require k’vanna. Raising the status of rabbinic halachot to Torah time-oriented commandments defines how the Talmud/Oral Torah halachot – ritual religious observances – qualify as commandments from the Torah revelation at Sinai. Hence the reason why Oral Torah requires common law judicial precedents. Time not determined by a clock but rather prophetic mussar k’vanna. A fundamental רב חסד מאי נפקא מינא.

גופא, which means returning back to the original discussion following a digression. What does a man acquire through the “action” of קידושין? He acquires title to the woman’s “Nefesh O’lam Ha’Bah soul. What does this mean? Answer: her future born children. Based upon the precedent of Avram’s complaint to HaShem: ‘What can you give me seeing that I have no children to inherit my wealth’? This question defines the oath alliance sworn – commonly known as the brit between the pieces, as found in Parsha לך לך – the 3rd Parsha of the Book of בראשית. Upon this bedrock foundation stands the Torah mitzva of both קידושין וגט. We have completed the circle.

Why are the children which an Agunah woman births considered “bastards”? The mitzva of קידושין the man swears a Torah oath before two witnesses and a minyon of 10 men (like the 10 spies in the days of Moshe, or the 10 plagues or the 10 commandments etc – meaning a public event). Swearing a Torah oath/brit cut upon the soul of a man. What defines the soul of a Man? Answer: His children. The birth of his children, understood as his portion in O’lam Ha’bah!

But that רשע who refuses to give his ex wife her “get” too faces a horrific בנין אב precedent! Just as the גר צדק/convert qualifies as a “new creation” so too the Court has the power to impose the ban of נידוי/cherem upon this רשע which makes him a “new creation” – not Jewish. Race or DNA do not determine the Jewishness of a child. Similar to how the ticking of time on a clock likewise does not shape nor determines time-oriented commandments! Only the mother determines the Jewishness of any child born in this world. Hence the court can retroactively annul the original קידושין and issue a גט to this chained woman permitting her to marry a far more worthy man.

The language of the קריא שמע, law essentially interprets language, בכל נפשך – specifically “contract law”. Torah understood as a contract and not a theological creed belief system. Hence the wisdom of the Oral Torah it interprets the contract of the Written Torah oath brit alliance through out the generations. Interpretation of texts fluid like the falling of rain in its due season. פרדס inductive logic a dynamic rather than static syllogism deductive reasoning model. The skill required to design moving parts like as in an internal combustion engine, a completely different engineering skill than designing a fixed bridge which spans a river.

The concept of Ancient Consciousness Engineering involves understanding how ancient cultures perceived and interacted with the divine, particularly through the art of building and construction. This perspective often highlights the spiritual and symbolic dimensions of architecture, emphasizing how structures reflect the consciousness and beliefs of the societies that created them.

Buildings often incorporated symbols that represented gods, myths, or cosmological theories. For instance, Egyptian temples were aligned with celestial bodies, reflecting the connection between the divine and the cosmic order. Structures like temples or pyramids were often seen as physical manifestations of divine plans, mirroring cosmic structures. The layout of cities and monuments was frequently designed to reflect mythological tales or the lives of deities.

The scale, orientation, and materials used in construction often reflected social hierarchies and religious beliefs. Larger, grander structures typically represented higher spiritual significance or authority. Temples like the Parthenon were dedicated to specific deities and were built to embody their attributes and myths, serving as a focal point for worship and community.

Shlomo’s reign occurred during a time of extensive interaction with neighboring cultures (the Goyim), whose worship practices involved building grand temples dedicated to their gods. This context shaped Solomon’s approach to architecture and spirituality. Shlomo deluged with foreign wives, starting with the daughter of Par’o. Many ancient cultures valued grand temple architecture as a reflection of their gods’ majesty. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Mesopotamians built magnificent structures to honor their deities.

His construction of the Temple was a pivotal ירידות הדורות moment for Judaism. The בית שני Talmud response to king Shlomo’s avoda zara which so dominated later generations, beginning with Ezra’s rebuilding of a 2nd Temple avoda zara abomination. The Talmud Bavli prioritized the בית המקדש not as a building of wood and stone. It interpreted the Torah construction of the Mishkan as only a משל.

The anointing of the house of David as Moshiach likewise a משל through which the prophet Shmuel interpreted its נמשל response to the rebellion of Israel against the Torah, the anointing first Shaul and later David as Moshiach! Based upon the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan תוחקה mussar rebuke which he instructed both David and Shlomo. Natan saved Shlomo and his mother in the opening Book of Kings. רחבעם ignored the advise given by the elder advisors of Shlomo just as Shlomo did the exact same with the תוחקה mussar rebuke wherewith the prophet Natan commanded Shlomo not to build the בית המקדש but rather prioritize building the establishment of a Federal Sanhedrin common law court system; based upon the p’suk: צדק צדק תרדוף.

The Talmud comments on the consequences of avoda zara associated with Shlomo and later generations, emphasizing the need for prioritizing Courtroom common law justice over Pie in the Sky theological beliefs in Gods, associated with Shlomo and all later ירידות הדורות generations. Prophets like Natan admonished Shlomo regarding his actions, instructing him to focus on establishing a system of justice (Federal Sanhedrin) rather than solely on temple construction.

The anointing of David and later Shlomo as Moshiach reflects a broader narrative regarding leadership and adherence to Torah centered upon the pursuit of judicial justice based upon the memory of judicial injustice before the Court of Par’o and the מוסר תוחקה which Yitro rebuked Moshe immediately after Israel gained our National freedom from Par’o and Egypt. Israel came out of Egypt in accordance with the oath brit sworn to the Avot concerning the eternal inheritance of this land. HaShem brought Israel out of Egypt with the k’vanna that Israel would rule the land with righteous judicial justice – fair restitution of damages inflicted.

Xtianity and Islam, their av tuma avoda zarah prioritizes belief in God – just as does assimilated Rambam’s 13 essential beliefs! In point of fact, the Torah commands no belief in God or Gods. Its this distinction which separates the revelation of the Torah at Sinai from belief in av tuma avoda zara Gods – based upon Creeds, theologies or Angelic revelations! Therefore Prophets like Natan and all other prophets thereafter admonished Shlomo and all the kings of Yechuda and Israel – regarding their failure to prioritize judicial justice through common law courtrooms. The mussar תוחקה of all NaCH prophets therefore instructs both Shlomo and all generations of our Cohen people thereafter, to focus upon ruling the oath sworn lands of the chosen Cohen people with justice – Federal Sanhedrin – common law justice.

The prophetic mussar rebuke of Cain & Abel serves as the יסוד upon which stands the Torah revelation of the Mishkan with its required korbanot dedications. The central Torah theme: Who merits as the Chosen Cohen, initiated through the murder of Abel by his older brother following the korban dedications made by both sons of Adam HaReshon. Cain offered as his korban – a barbeque unto Heaven. Abel dedicated his korban to אל מלך נאמן – God the faithful King … Faith understood as meaning fair judicial justice. Hence the prophet Shmuel interpreted the נמשל mitzva of Moshiach based upon the משל mussar taught through the commandment of the Mishkan together with korbanot.

Moshe, the greatest of all Torah prophets commands prophetic mussar. Hence all other NaCH prophets – they too command mussar rebukes. Mussar defines all prophetic revelations recorded in the literature of the T’NaCH. Witchcraft and/or Goyim prophets like Bil’aam – their av tuma avoda zara predicts the future. The NT framers, they depicted their imaginary false messiah JeZeus as a person/God who fulfilled the words of the prophets. Hence the NT framers redefined T’NaCH prophets including Moshe Rabbeinu as witches because witches foretell the future.

C. S. Lewis, the moral coward, never denounced the church guilt for the Shoah. Lucy Maud Montgomery, was a Canadian author best known for her classic novel Anne of Green Gables, published in 1908. L.M. Montgomery passed away on April 24, 1942. Church’s silence during the Holocaust (Shoah), coupled with the Catholic Rat Lines that assisted Nazi War criminals to flee justice by hiding in S. American countries and the post WWII Polish pogroms! This has led to discussions about the responsibilities of faith leaders and the impact of moral cowardice in the face of atrocity. Lewis and Tolstoy both failed to address the war crimes committed by their people in their life times. Tolstoy failed to condemn the Czarist Pogroms of the 1880s and the secret police forgery: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

L.M. Montgomery, while primarily focused on themes of childhood and community in her novels, lived during a time that contained its own set of moral struggles, including the events of World War II. She never publicly condemned the 1938 pogrom: Night of Shattered Glass. The failure of figures like Lewis and Tolstoy to address grave injustices raises questions about moral courage and the obligations of public intellectuals. The Church’s silence and the concealment of war criminals spotlight the responsibilities of faith leaders in the face of atrocities.

C.S. Lewis labeled a “moral coward” for his silence regarding the Church’s role during the Holocaust. The lack of denunciation of institutional wrongs at a time when moral clarity was crucial exposed the truth of his moral spinelessness. Similarly, Leo Tolstoy’s inaction regarding the Czarist pogroms and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion reflects a pattern of moral evasion. L.M. Montgomery’s literary focus on childhood and personal growth didn’t typically address societal issues.

The silence of various Christian denominations during the Holocaust, specifically the Lutheran support for Hitler’s Nazism, coupled with actions like the Catholic Rat Lines, raises critical questions. The failure to confront and condemn atrocities reflects a broader moral cowardice among faith leaders. The concealment of Nazi war criminals illustrates a deep conflict between moral teachings and institutional actions. Pope Pius XII permitted the Nazis to murder the Jews of Rome. What is the responsibility of public intellectuals in speaking out against injustice? Should their focus include social or political obligations? How should churches and faith institutions hold themselves accountable for past inactions?

Authors and intellectuals are often perceived not just as commentators but as moral agents who can influence public opinion and action. Navigating the balance between personal beliefs and public responsibility poses complex ethical questions, particularly during times of upheaval. Religious and social institutions need to confront their past in order to guide future actions and regain credibility. Institutions must not only teach values of justice and ethics but also demonstrate commitment through action, particularly in contexts of societal injustice. These reflections challenge both individuals and organizations to consider the implications of their actions (or inactions) in the face of moral crises.

Did not write a commentary on the political content of the Obliviousness article. Rather my commentary transposes the structure of Obliviousness into a Torah-based, oath brit, judicial reading. The relationship works on the level of intent, not topic. As an Israeli my world completely different than an American perspective. The American society ruled by Power rather than justice. The Courts – utterly and totally corrupt. The contrast of Trump out of power and Trump as President – Night and Day different. The two assassination attempts and the political assassination of Charlie Kirk define the deep fractures of American political insanity.

Obliviousness — Society is falling apart because institutions have abandoned accountability.
Power replaces justice. Systems that should deliver fairness instead deliver corruption, secrecy, and self-serving elites. The public is deceived by structures that look like order (government, churches, media) but conceal rot. The consequences are systemic: shutdown, corruption, violence, failed leadership, manipulation of justice, tribalism. America exists as a nation on the verge of anarchy and collapse because justice – an utter joke. Obama Clinton and the Intelligence Agency heads have yet to stand trial for treason. Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Waters likewise have never stood trial for the charge of treason.

The Israeli Torah perspective: ancient kings abandoning צדק צדק תרדוף and falling into avoda zara. Oblivious shows what happens when a society replaces justice with spectacle, belief systems, and personality cults. While Justice Pursue argues that this likewise occurred under king Shlomo and Yeridas HaDorot of g’lut rabbinic Judaism which assimilated to Roman statute law and abandoned Torah as judicial common law. The Temple becomes a theological object (avoda zara) rather than a metaphor for judicial structures. Belief replaces courtroom justice. Theology replaces the oath alliance expressed through judicial common law. Power (kingship) replaces federal Sanhedrin.

My comment reads Oblivious as a modern example of the ancient pattern of civilizational decline caused by abandoning common-law justice. Elite corruption & hidden crimes (Epstein / Obama, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Waters, CIA, FBI, NSA Heads). Shlomo’s foreign alliances, wives, temple grandeur → political rot → prophetic rebuke; Justice Pursue interprets this modern collapse as the same pattern the prophets condemned.

Citizens suffer because leaders reject accountability — Prophetic critique: kings of Yehuda rejected תוחקה and צדק. Just as Oblivious describes democratic institutions failing their people; Justice Pursue argues that ancient Israel fell for the same reason. Party loyalty and personality cults replace honest governance. Avoda zara: divine right of kings replaces common-law rank-and-file judicial authority – the foundation upon which the American Republic stands. Oblivious sees American politics becoming a cult of personality. Justice Pursue says: this is literally the biblical definition of avoda zara.

Collapse of public trust; no one believes institutions anymore. Natan the Prophet’s warnings: society cannot survive without justice. All NaCH prophets’ focus prioritized not theology/Democracy, but legal structure. The article Obliviousness – The same spiritual mistake that the Torah warns about. A society becomes idolatrous when it substitutes belief, symbols, or buildings for courtroom justice. America today Washington has replaced Justice. Oblivious replaces justice with conspiracy narratives, personality cults, theocratic rhetoric, media mythologies, spectacle politics.

Ancient Israel did the same when it replaced the federal Sanhedrin, mussar rebuke, case law with statute law, Temple fixations, kings, theological dogmas, Greek-style creed systems (Par’o, later Rambam’s 13 ikarim). There is no civilization without צדק צדק תרדוף. Therefore my commentary functions as the נמשל to Oblivious as the משל. All civilizations collapse when they abandon common-law justice for belief systems (avoda zara). Justice Pursue reveals the ancient consciousness engineering behind the pattern of national decline.

Everything you observe in modern America – the Oblivious Article – the same pattern that destroyed ancient Israel and every empire thereafter. It is the structural sin of replacing justice with belief, power, and symbols. Torah and prophecy diagnose the disease at its root.

The Talmud rejects the Xtian simplistic reading of the Jewish Torah. Israel only accepted the opening first two commandments until Moshe came down from Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf avoda zarah wherein the ערב רב שאין יראת שמים translated the Spirit Name to a profane word “אלהים”.

Why the repetition of the so called 10 commandments in the Books of Sh’mot and D’varim? Torah a common law legal system. Paul’s declaration: “Goyim you are not under the Law” morphed Jewish common law with Roman statute law. Wrong – big error of Xtian theological propaganda. Common law stands upon the foundation of precedents. The repetition of the so called 10 commandments emphasizes through this central repetition the remembrance of coming out of Egyptian slavery as commanded in the acceptance of the Yoke of Heaven commandment known as kre’a shma. שמע ישראל ה’ אלהינו ה’ אחד.

Churchianity reads this as Monotheism. Again dead as a doornail – Wrong. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. If only One God then no need to forbid the worship of other Gods. The entire Torah revelation hinges upon these opening first two commandments, which Israel accepted before the sin of the Golden calf word translation av tuma avoda zara.

The bible translation ignores the first commandment. The translation of the 1st commandment Spirit Name to a word defines the sin of the Golden Calf … the 2nd Sinai commandment. Just that simple, no fancy dance’n.

Notice that the שמע employs 3 Divine Names. Only the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev does another verse ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון וכו — the revelation of the Oral Torah 13 tohor middot — like the שמע, this verse too employs 3 Divine Names in succession. Within the entire literature of the T’NaCH, these two verse stand totally unique.

This has nothing what so ever to do with the Nicene Creed theology of 325 hocus pocus father, son & holy ghost pie in the sky creation of Gods through theology. The Book of בראשית where the 3 Avot swore an oath brit alliance concerning the future born birth of the chosen Cohen people. This first Torah Book introduces “how” this brit sworn to the Avot achieved.

Acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven requires that ALL down stream generations remember the oaths which the Avot swore to cut a brit alliance with HaShem – upon their World to Come/Olam Ha’Bah souls – the birth in all future born generations of the chosen Cohen people. Created not through sex but rather through observance of tohor time oriented commandments. The Book of בראשית introduces this unique type of Torah commandment.

The Nazis av tuma accused Jews of being a “race”. The Book of בראשית teaches otherwise. The Cohen people live from generation to generation through Jewish observance of time oriented commandments … קריא שמע an example of time oriented commandments which the Book of בראשית introduces with the משל of the Creation of the Universe in 6 days.

Torah instructs through משל\נמשל. Torah does not define faith as belief in this Trinity God or that strict Monotheism Allah God; it does not link faith to belief in the Greek Gods of Mt. Olympus or the multitude of Hindu Gods etc. The arrogance of Monotheism presumes that believers in Allah as the only God can negate the peoples of Asia and their belief systems!

The precedent of Moshe standing before the Court of Par’o on the matter of the Egyptian overlords beating the Israelite slaves, over their failure to meet our quota of brick production when Par’o withheld the required straw … coupled with Yetro, Moshe’s father in law, who rebuked Moshe over his failure to establish courts of law; upon these two essential Torah precedents of common law, stands the commandment – according to all the prophets of the NaCH – for Israel to invade and conquer Canaan. Specifically: To rule the conquered land with courtroom judicial justice as the Torah act of Sinai faith. Justice where the common law court dedicate to make fair restoration of damages inflicted upon others. That’s the entire Torah NaCH Mishna Gemara Talmud Midrashim and Siddur – just that simple. No fancy dance’n.