The 10 plagues judged the Gods of Egypt. Elijah confronted the priests who worshipped Baal! The notion that the Torah commands monotheism confuses Islam with Torah. Flat out just that simple. The Talmud states that the Goyim rejected the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Goyim do not worship their own Gods? Of course Goyim worship their own Gods. Since Goyim do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, therefore Goyim by definition worship other Gods.

Many societies have their own deities and religious systems, which can be seen as a form of polytheism. Hinduism clearly proves that Islamic monotheism – false. The seven mitzvot bnai Noach refers to gere toshav temporary residents living within the borders of Judea. It does not teach the absurd notion of some Universal God. Islam teaches this avoda zarah.

For a ger toshav to violate one of the 7 mitzvot – this qualifies as a Capital Crime/death penalty offence. Only a Sanhedrin court could judicate a Capital Crime/death penalty case. The jurisdiction of all Sanhedrin courts, only within the borders of Judea. Hence the absurd notion that the 7 mitzvot Bnai Noach applies Universally to all Goyim, simply pie in the sky bat shit crazy. The Torah in the Book of D’varim defines two types of Goyim; the ger toshav in mesechta Sanhedrin and the Nacree/Canaani in Baba Kama. Concerning treif meat the Book of D’varim writes: permitted to give the treif meat to the ger toshav or sell the treif meat to the Canaani. The Talmud defines the Chumash. It does not rule independent from the Written Torah Constitutional Mandate. Mesechta Sanhedrin whose Aggada addresses the 7 mitzvot bnai noach therefore refers to the ger toshav of the Torah. Mesechta Baba Kama whose Halacha rules that an Israel exempt to pay damages to a Nacree for damages inflicted upon his goods or person – this mesechta refers to Canaani in the Book of D’varim. Therefore the idea that Ger Toshav/Bnai Noach refers to all Goyim in all lands, utterly absurd.

Therefore its patently false for anyone, especially Goyim or even later Jews, to declare that Torah commands belief in a Universal God when the Talmud teaches that only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai and that both Yishmael and Esau rejected the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. That Goyim living in Goyim lands – if they profane the 7 mitzvot bnai noach – that a non existent Sanhedrin can put them to death for violating these 7 mitzvot while these Goyim live under the court authority of their own nations! Therefore Torah does not command monotheism. Monotheism profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment.

מחילה purges the trangression offense but it still leaves a stain like as does wine spilt upon a white garment. תשובה actively requires remembering the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov wherein they cut an oath brit alliance with HaShem through tohor time-oriented Torah commandments to eternally create יש מאין the chosen Cohen people. Nazi antisemitic racists assume that the Jewish people exist as a race; that our DNA determines our Jewishness. WRONG.

The false avoda zarah religions – both Xtianity and Islam worship foreign alien Gods… the 2nd Sinai commandment! T’shuva compares to regret and repentance … this false translation of t’shuva compares to the righteousness of a whore in church following the Saturday night cowboy cattle drive that entered into Dodge City Friday afternoon, where the boys immediately ran to the local whore-house.

T’shuva: process that involves remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot to cut the brit which creates the chosen Cohen people in all and every generation. What specific oaths did Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov swear in order to cut an oath brit Alliance with HaShem that for all generations the chosen Cohen people would live through the holiness of doing tohor time-oriented Av Torah commandments?

The reciprocal nature of the covenantal relationship between HaShem and Avraham. The understanding of oaths in this context is crucial for grasping the depth of the covenant established in the Torah. Avram’s oath back to HaShem understood through prophetic Mussar that He swore an oath through שם ומלכות that the Divine Shekinah spirit would live inside the Yatzir HaTov of his future born (world to come) chosen Cohen people seed.

The phrase שם ומלכות can be interpreted as a reference to the Divine attributes of HaShem. By swearing an oath through these attributes, Avraham acknowledges the sovereignty of God and the importance of aligning his actions with divine mussar Will. The concept of the Shekinah represents the presence of God dwelling among the people. By swearing an oath, Avraham is not only affirming his commitment to God but also ensuring that the Shekinah would reside within his descendants, particularly the Cohen lineage. Consequently the sages in the Talmud instruct: Tefillah a matter of the heart. The false prophet and God JeZeus by stark contrast taught “Our Father who lives in Heaven etc.”

The idea of Yatzir HaTov (the good inclination) suggests that Avraham’s oath involves a commitment to nurturing the spiritual tohor Oral Torah middot first revealed to Moshe at Horev. All the chosen Cohen descendants inherit this Torah education when their fathers dedicate their lives to having children and educating those children through Oral Torah common law. This aligns with the Torah faith which prioritizes the righteous pursuit of justice consequent to Jews damaging other Jews. The Cohen people are chosen to embody and promote ethical behavior or holiness as the pursuit of righteous judicial justice among and between our people.

Prophetic mussar does not limit its instruction to a טיפש פשט – ethical teachings. Rather prophetic mussar defines the meaning and intent of the revelation of the 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe at Horev wherein Jews dedicate their social behavior interactions “in the world to come” – meaning the future – based upon how the Talmud interprets the meaning to tohor middot revealed to Moshe at Horev.

Just as Jews study Torah in order to learn what oaths the 3 Avot swore to cut with HaShem. We likewise study Talmud to understand the fabric warp/weft of the chosen Cohen people customs, cultures, and traditions throughout the Ages. T’NaCH and Talmud, Midrashim and Siddur – they “seal” the cultures and customs the chosen Cohen people socially behave with one another throughout our generations across the Ocean of Time. Hence “time oriented commandments” do not have anything to do with time – understood as a clock that ticks and tocks. Rather time refers to the perpetual observance of a defined culture and custom behavior of the chosen Cohen people throughout eternity. Consequently time-oriented Torah commandments – the Av Commandments of the Torah Sinai revelation.

T’NaCH Talmud Midrash Siddur simply cannot become “Archaic” as the foolish reform rabbis declared in the 19th Century. Any given society must have its defining cultures and customs embraced by that people who make up any given society. The chosen Cohen people, we have cultural traditions which compare to a genetic inheritance while operating completely independent of the Human genetic gnome.

Texts such as the T’NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim, and Siddur play a vital role in “sealing” the cultural practices of the Cohen people. They provide a framework for social behavior and communal identity, ensuring that the values and teachings of the Torah are transmitted across generations. Studying Jewish texts as a means of connecting with the sworn oath alliance brit legacy, first established by the Avot, actively requires – understanding the cultural and ethical fabric of the Cohen people. This Oral Torah approach highlights the dynamic nature of Jewish identity, where tradition and contemporary practice are intertwined across the “Ocean of Time.” Oral Torah shares no common ground with theological creedal belief systems which command believers how they must believe in the Gods.

The opening Av Mishna of קידושין – האשה נקנית, previously shot a bearing through the fixed known points of the opening and closing of the first sugya:  
האשה נקנית מאי שנא (שהוא דומה למאי נפקא מינא? זה אחד מן הי”ג מידות תורה שבעל פה – שנקרא רב חסד.) הכא דתני האשה נקנית ומ”ש התם דתני האיש מקדש.
And compared this fixed point upon my Gemara “Map” to a point which concludes, my error with the closing fixed point of the 2nd sugya of this “Map” Gemara:

 מיבמה שאינה יוצאה בגט יוצאה בחליצה

However, made a mistake, the end of the first sugya of this Gemara on dof .ג wherein the Gemara brings the fixed point location “on the Map” of:

זו אחת מן הדרכים ששוו גיטי נשים לשחרורי עבדים ניתני דברים אלא כל היכא דאיכא פלוגתא תני  דרכים וכל היכא דליכא פלוגתא תני דברים.  דיקא נמי דקתני סיפא ר”א אומר אתרוג שוה לאילן לכל דבר ש”מ.

Now a virgin girl acquired through קידושין simply does not compare not to divorce nor to Yibbum – as concludes the 2nd point on the “Map” of the 2nd sugya of our Gemara.  The issue in question: what exactly does the Mishna language נקנית refer to?  The point of zero disputes the language of the Chumash concerning the acquisition of both slaves and Yibbum widows.  The dispute, which בנין אב sh’itta precedent does the Court accept to make an inductive reasoned conclusion –  “interpretation”.

A common law court – by definition – both the defense and prosecuting attorney submit precedent briefs which support how their respective sh’itta interprets the language of the Torah.  The “acquisition” through קידושין of a virgin young woman, does not compare to how slaves acquire their freedom or widows “acquired” by the brother of their deceased husband.  

So why compare the Case/Rule cases of either this or that to the our case of the acquisition of a young virgin girl?  Herein defines the opening thesis statement question which our Gemara makes on this the Av Mishna of קידושין. 

The scholarship and inductive reasoning required to “shoot a bearing” in Talmudic common law, simply a completely different wisdom than that of reading a novel word for word.  Herein the explanation why the translations made upon both the T’NaCH and Talmud – utterly worthless sophomoric undergraduate inferior learning.

The opening מאי נפקא מינא to האיש מקדש likewise contrasts rather than compares.  A man simply not a woman any more than a virgin “compares” to a widow or a divorcee or a slave.  The study of any literature requires sharpening the skills of “comparison and contrast”.  English literature 101. Our Gemara compares to a topographical military map that has elevation rings.  By shooting a bearing azimuth, likened to the employ of a compass in orienteering.  T’NaCH\Talmudic common law examines precedent cases to other precedent cases in order to reach a conclusive judicial ruling of the case currently heard before the Court.

The Talmud language likewise compares to the warp/weft of a loom.  Wherein the rabbis weave the fabric of culture and custom which defines the society of the chosen Cohen people.  It’s this very scholarship – defining the culture and customs of the chosen Cohen people – which defines the sum total of the entire T’NaCH/Talmudic literature in one sentence.

Contrast the 2nd Sinai commandment – avoda zara.  The Koran prioritized the theological creed known as Monotheism.  Whereas the Torah language of the ערב רב openingly acknowledges, especially through the Av metaphor, sin of the Golden Calf, that assimilated Jews, no different than from Goyim, both this and that worship other Gods.  Intermarriage contrasts with קידושין.  

The Torah oath brit alliance has blessing vs. curse; life vs. death.  Keep the terms of the sworn alliance and live as the chosen Cohen people through the Av commandments known as time-oriented mitzvot, within the borders of the nation of the Cohen people inside the Middle East.  קידושין, like shabbat or Moshiach, a tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.  

The Rambam views Kiddushin as a rabbinic enactment rather than a direct commandment from the Torah. He emphasizes that while the Torah provides the framework for marriage, the specific act of Kiddushin, established through rabbinic authority. He reads the Torah exactly like Xtians “read” their sophomoric bible translations. His Yad attempts to Translate the Talmudic halachot into Hebrew! His utter and total ignorance of פרדס inductive reasoning, his avoda zara replacement theology substituted the Order which Aristotle’s deductive syllogism mandates.

The downstream generations of rabbis failed to understand this gross error and correct it; despite the rebuke made by the Rosh common law halachic code!  The mussar of the Rosh, who followed the vision of the B’HaG\Rif/Tosafot model, rabbinic orthodox Judaism totally refused to hear.  Swept under the rug, the decree of נידוי – not simply limited to the court of Rabbeinu Yonah in Spain – as the post Rambam Civil War rabbis falsely teaches Yeshiva students!  But far more significant, the Rashi\Baali Tosafot common law school in France.  In 1232 the rabbis of Paris imposed the ban of נידוי upon the assimilated perversions written by the Rambam Karaite.

Both this and that “literalist-טיפש פשט” heretics, both read the T’NaCH or Talmud from a strictly literalist perspective.  A simple glance of his Sefer HaMitzvot, which excludes the Torah commandment of קידושין exposes the crud Av tuma avoda zarah which the Rambam perversion worships.  Jews who “obey” halacha as determined by the “cross-dress” Rambam code, walk off the path of the Chosen Cohen oath brit alliance faith – to actively pursue judicial justice which dedicates to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among our chosen Cohen People – who have the burden to rule our brit lands – unlike how Par’o, and his court which judicially oppressed g’lut Israel.

However, the Rashi opening likewise failed to prioritize the central issue of Torah נקנית. The Baali Tosafot delves into the Torah subject of acquisitions and points out that it does not specify, “virgin”. This seems false to me. The Rivka Torah precedent, emphasized her virginity. Rivka serves as the Torah precedent-model for our Av Mishna and its Gemara here. Non the less the commentary of the Tosafot makes a similar “Map” bearing sh’itta as did my commentary. This sharply contrasts with the Rashi dictionary like definition approach to Talmudic scholarship.

The opening Rosh fails to emphasize the contrast between a virgin girl to Avraham’s plot of burial lands. Acquisition of a virgin girl for marriage simply does not compare to the Case of Avraham burying Sarah following the horror of the Akedah. The dismal failure of rabbinic downstream commentaries to connect this Av Mishna to 1. the resurrection of the dead, connected to the death of Sarah. This story serves as a tremendous Torah event. Why?

The mitzva from the Torah of קידושין, a man acquires the נפש עולם הבא of his wife through the future born children which he baal intends through the mitzva of קידושין. Hence this mitzva, directly linked to the brit cut between the pieces wherein childless Avram cut a brit that time-oriented Torah commandments eternally create יש מאין the Chosen Cohen seed of the Avot. This Cohen seed, not conceived through sex and sperm or genetics or race but only through Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.

The Samaritans, Tzeddukim, Karaim – one and all fail to learn Torah common law. Hence they deny the mitzva of the resurrection from the dead found in the language of the Written Torah. Rambam, no different that he too excludes the Torah commandment of קידושין from the Torah! Great and mighty empires have risen and fallen, but the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot live unto all generations! How? Through tohor time-oriented Av Torah commandments which require prophetic mussar as their internal k’vanna.

The Opening first two words of our Mishna holds a Torah commandment “BIG PICTURE” vision. Alas the famous commentators could not see the forest through the trees. It seems to me that every Av Mishna throughout Rabbi Yechuda’s common law Sha’s directly plugs into Torah commandments. ברכות opens with kr’ea shma as tefillah דאורייתא. Shabbat distinguishes between the עשר דיבורות in שמות ודברים.

The chiddushim of the Sha’s Mishna on the Chumash requires immediate address. The contrast between the Chumash and the Talmud a day vs. night obvious distinction. Hence this begs the question, how does the one express the other? The subject of קידושין way down the list of the B’HaG mitzvot דאורייתא priorities. The comparison to Avram acquiring a burial plot with money, what connection to a rabbinic commandment? Hence קידושין like all other “rabbinic” mitzvot, when elevated to tohor time-oriented commandments – their status achieves the aliyah to ארץ ישראל-mitzvot from the Torah! Just as the resurrection from the dead, a mitzva of the Torah – as a tohor time-oriented commandment! How?

The precedent of Avram’s stern mussar to HaShem – “I have no children to inherit my Name”. The cycle of life & death common to all man-kind. What makes the brit cut between the pieces unique? The Torah vision known as time-oriented commandments which both the NT and Koran ignore like they do the revelation of the first commandment Sinai Name – the greatest commandment in the whole of the Torah. The commandment to love God and Man merely a פרט ולא הכלל. This gross fundamental error proves the NT as a Protocols of the Elders of Zion – an utter fraud.

The דאורייתא of the time-oriented mitzva of Moshiach dedicates the Yatzir Ha’Tov spirits of middot to pursue righteous judicial courtroom common law justices within the borders of brit ארץ ישראל. The Pauline “original sin of Adam’s fall from the Garden”, compares to how the “prophet” Natan foisted Shabbatai Tzvi (1626–1676) as a false messiah. The genesis of that avoda zara error, Jews lacked clarity that Parshat שופטים ושוטרים in the Book of דברים understands the latter as prophet “policemen” enforcers of judicial courtroom rulings. Prophets, as agents of the Sanhedrin courts empowered through Torah constitutional mandate to anoint and depose kings! No Sanhedrin court has jurisdiction in g’lut. Hence the theological narishkeit vomited by Natan – not prophetic, most definitely not mussar.

A Torah prophet commands mussar to all generations of the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot. Chag יום הזכרון – a call through the sounding of the shofar for Jews to remember the oaths which the Avot swore a brit with HaShem to father the chosen Cohen seed for eternity. The language eternity implies the language: “resurrection from the dead” by means of a logical דיוק/inference.
____________________________________
____________________________________
[[[ The term kinyan in this context reflects sanctification (hekdesh) — not legal possession (reshut). That’s a key Talmudic distinction upheld in both sugyot and later halachic development.]]] The verb choice language of the Mishna, compares to the required explanation how a korban does not exist as a “barbeque offered up to Heaven”. Both terms of kiddushin and korban make a dedication of “holiness”, through the root verb of ק-ד-ש. Hence just as a the precedent of קידושין serves as a בנין אב which makes a depth analysis interpretation of the “brit cut between the pieces” — made in response to Avram’s complaint “What can you give me, I have no children”, so too all later korbanot dedicated at the Mishkan require swearing a Torah oath. To do this requires swearing a blessing which contains שם ומלכות. Saying Tehillem prayers by contrast, far less “holy” because they do not swear a Torah oath which requires שם ומלכות.

[[[You assert Kiddushin is not daorayta — aligning with Rambam’s supposed “Karaite” misstep — but this, respectfully, misrepresents both Rambam and the structure of Torah law.]]] Incorrect. I דוקא rebuke the Rambam who makes a literal reading of the language of the Chumash (the 5 Books of Torah) wherein he rules the mitzva of kiddushin a rabbinic commandment. I compared this mitzva of kiddushin to the time-oriented Torah commandments of Shabbat and Moshiach. Both Torah commandments not rabbinic commandments.

[[[ But Rambam, in all his philosophical articulation, was never guilty of that. His use of Aristotelian language was functional, not theological. His Yad HaChazaka is an attempt to organize law, not supplant the chiyuv of Mussar or prophetic command. If anything, he created a bridge for minds of his generation to see the inner harmony of halacha.]]] The Rambam replaced the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva/Yishmael’s פרדס\י”ג מידות inductive reasoning which compares a Case/Rule Mishnaic judicial ruling to lower court Baraitot wherein the Gemara employs פרדס וי”ג מידות comparisons of Case/Rule cases “compared” to similar but different Case\Rule cases. The Rambam code organizes his halachic rulings into statute halachic categories. He therein switched Mishnaic/Gemara common law unto Greek/Roman statute law. A direct Torah violation of דברים 12:30-31.

The summation of the entire Talmud – to one sentence: to shape and determine culture and customs practiced by the chosen Cohen people, the Rambam code directly and flagrantly violated. פרדס logic simply not a Greek/Roman syllogism logic any more than Day is Night or Night is Day.

The Hilchot of the Rambam Yad, systematically categorizes Jewish law into 14 books, each addressing different aspects of halacha – based upon the Order attained through Greek deductive reasoning.

This systematic organization of Hilchot into egg-crate/\shoe-boxed – categories sets the Yad completely apart from the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh Hilchot, organized around Mishnaic language. The Order of the Rambam Hilchot uprooted and destroyed all Talmudic points of reference where-from the Talmud, this much later Reshon made his Halachic rulings.

All the commentaries written on the Yad directly address this fundamental flaw. However, the damage already done. Quoting a Gemara source as does for example Karo’s כסף משנה, fails to make the required משנה תורה which makes a re-interpretation of the language of the Mishna which that Gemara comments upon. To correctly understand how to validate the invalid Yad, necessary to affix a Rambam halachic ruling to a similar B’HaG, Rif, or Rosh ruling wherein the latter scholars open, as does my commentary here, back to the language of the Mishna itself.

What does Midah k’neged Midah mean? The concept of “Midah k’neged Midah” (measure for measure) is a fundamental principle in Jewish thought and ethics, particularly within the context of the Torah and later interpretations in the Talmud. This principle emphasizes the idea that one’s actions have corresponding consequences, reflecting a moral order in the universe.

This phrase, divorced from the Torah constitutional mandate which authorizes Great Sanhedrin courts to exercise Legislative Review over the governments of Tribes or even kings of Israel, suggests something akin to an assimilated idea of Karma. Which literally means “action” or “deed” in Sanskrit. It encompasses not just physical actions but also thoughts and intentions. The principle asserts that good actions lead to positive outcomes, while negative actions result in adverse consequences.

Jews in exile often navigate between their traditional beliefs and the surrounding cultures. This can lead to varying degrees of assimilation, which may affect their understanding and practice of concepts like “Midah k’neged Midah.” Jews in exile often face the challenge of maintaining their identity while adapting to the surrounding cultures. This can lead to a reinterpretation of traditional concepts, such as “Midah k’neged Midah,” as they integrate elements from their host cultures. The assimilation of ideas can sometimes dilute the original meanings or lead to new interpretations that resonate with contemporary experiences.

Jews living in exile often navigate the complexities of maintaining their cultural and religious identity while adapting to the surrounding societies. This can lead to a reinterpretation of traditional concepts, including Midah k’neged Midah. The integration of surrounding cultural elements can influence how Jewish communities understand and practice their beliefs. This may result in a blending of ideas, where traditional concepts are viewed through the lens of contemporary experiences and values. This dynamic Midah k’neged Midah directly refers to the conflict between the Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. the Yatzir Ha’Raw within the heart. Specifically it contrast tohor vs. tumah middot! ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון וכו, the revelation of the 13 Oral Torah middot at Horev on Yom Kippur serves as the יסוד meaning of Midah k’neged Midah. Yet g’lut Jews cursed by the Torah curse of not obeying the Torah לשמה, they can not discern one tohor middah from another or even tohor middot vs tumah middot in the eternal struggle of Yaacov and Esau within the womb of Rivka.

Frank Hubeny says:

September 11, 2025 at 11:45 am

The important point to remember, Moshe, is that Jesus did – in fact – fulfill the words of the prophets.

That is why Akiva and company had to alter the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 and move the Book of Daniel from the Nev’im to the Ketuvim section of the Tanach. They wanted to pretend that He didn’t and hide the fact that they knew He did.

So, now that your history has been corrupted, where does that leave you? Is Kabballah enough? Is mussar enough? Are “Case/Rule precedents” enough? It sounds like Akiva sentenced you to perpetual exile.

You can always be grafted back in unless you decide to talk yourself out of it.

Romans 11:23 NKJV – 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
mosckerr says:

September 11, 2025 at 10:27 pm

Bunk. Mussar by definition applicable across the board to all generations of Israel. Hence impossible to “fulfill” prophesy as the false gospel narrative lies. Your speculation – simply slander. You offer no evidence to support your opinion – other than that you do not read Hebrew or Aramaic.

Daniel a mystic not a prophet. The Book of Daniel compares to the relationship which the Gemara has with the Mishna. The generation of Ezra primarily sealed the T’NaCH NOT rabbi Akiva some 600 years later. Oooops try again.

By the language of the Book of Daniel itself, the story occurs in Babylonian exile. Prophets the “Police enforcers” of the Sanhedrin Judges. The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin courts – only within the borders of Judea. By extension this applies equally to prophets. Therefore Daniel a mystic and not a prophet. Oooops try again.

Your revisionist history, simply false. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. משנה תורה a Torah 2nd given name for the Book of דברים, if you read the Torah in Hebrew you would immediately know this. Mishna Torah means common law. Common law stands on the foundation of precedents/בניני אבות in Hebrew. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.

Never in the 2000+ years Jews existed as refugees in Arab or Muslim lands did any Goy court hold either Church or Mosque accountable for war-crimes committed against Humanity – which includes the Jewish people. The Torah defines faith as: Justice pursue. Only under the terms of a Torah blessing: Jews ruling our Homeland, does the potential for the establishment of Sanhedrin common law courts which have the Torah Constitutional mandate of Legislative Review. This fact has zero to do with the theology vomited by Romans 11:23. Justice has nothing to do with any belief system. Torah common law stands upon Case/Rule court precedents. Its this fact which separates Torah common law from Greek/Roman statute law.

The confusion concerning the Aramaic Book of Daniel, even Rashi and later the Rambam debated this point. Also the Zohar weighs in on the Book of Daniel. Both the Book of Daniel and the Zohar written in Aramaic – and both this and that instruct mysticism. Mesechta Megillah, a tractate on Chag Purim clearly states that Daniel – not a prophet. Rashi on this dof of Gemara concedes that Daniel – not a prophet. But about 8 pages thereafter refers to Daniel as a prophet. This contradiction of Rashi’s commentary merits address.

By the time of the Reshonim scholars of the Dark and Middle Ages of European g’lut, Jews lacked a clear understanding of T’NaCH prophets. No Reshon validates that Parshat Shoftim and Shotrim in D’varim, that the latter enforcers existed as “Prophets”. Traditional commentaries such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Ramban do not explicitly state that the Shotrim served as prophets in their interpretations of Deuteronomy 16:18. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, like the classical Rishonim, does not explicitly state that the Shotrim in Deuteronomy 16:18 directly referenced as prophets. The connection between Shotrim and prophetic roles simply not a common interpretation found in traditional commentaries. Most classical sources focus on the Shotrim as law enforcers and assistants to the judges without explicitly linking them to the prophetic function.

G’lut Jewry, estranged from the realities that the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin courts – limited to within the borders of Judea. Rav Shwartz, who gave me sh’micha, his beit din erroneously attempted to involve the Sanhedrin court in Jerusalem, in a legal dispute in America involving one of the leaders of the Bnai Noach movement. This fundamental ignorance concerning the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin court directly contributed to the collapse of Rav Shwartz attempt to restore Sanhedrin (common law) courts in the Jewish state.

The Yerushalmi includes a dispute Tannaim over whether king David established a small Sanhedrin court in Damascus. The small Sanhedrin courts, based upon the three established by Moshe Rabbeinu on the other side of the Jordan river, from this precedent Torah common law learns that these small Sanhedrin courts, they define the borders of newly conquered lands annexed to the Jewish state.

The Rambam civil war greatly further eroded rabbinic knowledge of the functions of Torah common law. As a minor judge on the attempt to re-establish the Sanhedrin court system within Israel, I watched in horror as the vast majority of my rabbinic peers voted to base the authority of the Sanhedrin court upon the Rambam’s statute halachic code.

These examples caused me to reach the conclusion that post the Rambam Civil War that rabbinic Judaism had abandoned the דרך faith to pursue judicial justice as the יסוד responsibility for accepting the revelation of the Torah at Sinai לשמה. While I can validate the arguments made by the RambaN in his מלחמת השם against the Baal HaMaor’s rebuke against the Rif code for reducing the primacy of Talmudic common law in favor of making a far easier halachic definition of religious halachic observance among g’lut Jewry.

The times absolutely demanded halachic simplifications due to the almost impossibility to travel on a collapsed Roman international road system. None the less, the codes effectively changed the priority established by the Framers of both the T’NaCH and Talmud to serve as the vision model to re-establish Sanhedrin common law lateral courtrooms within the borders of the Jewish Republic which have the Torah Constitutional mandate of Legislative Review. And hence none of the Reshonim commentaries on the Torah prioritized the the definition of Shotrim as “prophets”. A critical and fundamental error of Reshonim scholarship. Consequently, Rashi himself confused, and later referred to the mystic Daniel as a “prophet” in his commentary to Mesechta Megillah.

Frank Hubeny says:

September 11, 2025 at 11:45 am

The important point to remember, Moshe, is that Jesus did – in fact – fulfill the words of the prophets.

That is why Akiva and company had to alter the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 and move the Book of Daniel from the Nev’im to the Ketuvim section of the Tanach. They wanted to pretend that He didn’t and hide the fact that they knew He did.

So, now that your history has been corrupted, where does that leave you? Is Kabballah enough? Is mussar enough? Are “Case/Rule precedents” enough? It sounds like Akiva sentenced you to perpetual exile.

You can always be grafted back in unless you decide to talk yourself out of it.

Romans 11:23 NKJV – 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
mosckerrsays:

September 11, 2025 at 10:27 pm

Bunk. Mussar by definition applicable across the board to all generations of Israel. Hence impossible to “fulfill” prophesy as the false gospel narrative lies. Your speculation – simply slander. You offer no evidence to support your opinion – other than that you do not read Hebrew or Aramaic.

Daniel a mystic not a prophet. The Book of Daniel compares to the relationship which the Gemara has with the Mishna. The generation of Ezra primarily sealed the T’NaCH NOT rabbi Akiva some 600 years later. Oooops try again.

By the language of the Book of Daniel itself, the story occurs in Babylonian exile. Prophets the “Police enforcers” of the Sanhedrin Judges. The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin courts – only within the borders of Judea. By extension this applies equally to prophets. Therefore Daniel a mystic and not a prophet. Oooops try again.

Your revisionist history, simply false. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. משנה תורה a Torah 2nd given name for the Book of דברים, if you read the Torah in Hebrew you would immediately know this. Mishna Torah means common law. Common law stands on the foundation of precedents/בניני אבות in Hebrew. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.

Never in the 2000+ years Jews existed as refugees in Arab or Muslim lands did any Goy court hold either Church or Mosque accountable for war-crimes committed against Humanity – which includes the Jewish people. The Torah defines faith as: Justice pursue. Only under the terms of a Torah blessing: Jews ruling our Homeland, does the potential for the establishment of Sanhedrin common law courts which have the Torah Constitutional mandate of Legislative Review. This fact has zero to do with the theology vomited by Romans 11:23. Justice has nothing to do with any belief system. Torah common law stands upon Case/Rule court precedents. Its this fact which separates Torah common law from Greek/Roman statute law.

The confusion concerning the Aramaic Book of Daniel, even Rashi and later the Rambam debated this point. Also the Zohar weighs in on the Book of Daniel. Both the Book of Daniel and the Zohar written in Aramaic – and both this and that instruct mysticism. Mesechta Megillah, a tractate on Chag Purim clearly states that Daniel – not a prophet. Rashi on this dof on Gemara concedes that Daniel – not a prophet, but about 8 pages thereafter refers to Daniel as a prophet. This contradiction of Rashi’s commentary merits address.

By the time of the Reshonim scholars of the Dark and Middle Ages of European g’lut, Jews lacked a clear understanding of T’NaCH prophets. No Reshon validates that Parshat Parshat Shoftim and Shotrim in D’varim, that the latter enforcers existed as “Prophets”. Traditional commentaries such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Ramban do not explicitly state that the Shotrim served as prophets in their interpretations of Deuteronomy 16:18. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, like the classical Rishonim, does not explicitly state that the Shotrim in Deuteronomy 16:18 directly referenced as prophets. The connection between Shotrim and prophetic roles simply not a common interpretation found in traditional commentaries. Most classical sources focus on the Shotrim as law enforcers and assistants to the judges without explicitly linking them to the prophetic function.

G’lut Jewry, estranged from the realities that the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin courts – limited to within the borders of Judea. Rav Shwartz, who gave me sh’micha, his beit din erroneously attempted to involve the Sanhedrin court in Jerusalem, in a legal dispute in America involving one of the leaders of the Bnai Noach movement. This fundamental ignorance concerning the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin court directly contributed to the collapse of Rav Shwartz attempt to restore Sanhedrin (common law) courts in the Jewish state.

The Yerushalmi includes a dispute Tannaim over whether king David established a small Sanhedrin court in Damascus. The small Sanhedrin courts, based upon the three established by Moshe Rabbeinu on the other side of the Jordan river, from this precedent Torah common law learns that these small Sanhedrin courts, they define the borders of newly conquered lands annexed to the Jewish state.

The Rambam civil war greatly further eroded rabbinic knowledge of the functions of Torah common law. As a minor judge on the attempt to re-establish the Sanhedrin court system within Israel, I watched in horror as the vast majority of my rabbinic peers voted to base the authority of the Sanhedrin court upon the Rambam’s statute halachic code.

These examples caused me to reach the conclusion that post the Rambam Civil War that rabbinic Judaism had abandoned the דרך faith to pursue judicial justice as the יסוד responsibility for accepting the revelation of the Torah at Sinai לשמה. While I can validate the arguments made by the RambaN in his מלחמת השם against the Baal HaMaor’s rebuke against the Rif code for reducing the primacy of Talmudic common law in favor of making a far easier halachic definition of religious halachic observance among g’lut Jewry.

The times absolutely demanded halachic simplifications due to the almost impossibility to travel on a collapsed Roman international road system. None the less, the codes effectively changed the priority established by the Framers of both the T’NaCH and Talmud to serve as the vision model to re-establish Sanhedrin common law lateral courtrooms within the borders of the Jewish Republic which have the Torah Constitutional mandate of Legislative Review. And hence none of the Reshonim commentaries on the Torah prioritized the the definition of Shotrim as “prophets”. A critical and fundamental error of Reshonim scholarship. Consequently, Rashi himself confused, and later referred to the mystic Daniel as a “prophet” in his commentary to Mesechta Megillah.

__________________________________________________

Intentional Faith·pastorhogg.net

Resting in Reverence

As the day ends, Psalm 2:10–11 reminds us to serve the Lord with reverence, acknowledging His holiness and unshakable rule. This evening is an opportunity to…..
__________________________________________________
Interpreting Tehillem ב. Man struggles with tumah middot within his Yatzir Ha’Raw. This struggle – Universal within all Mankind. If National rulers struggle with their tumah Yatzir how much more so the common man on the street. What does “kingship in Zion” refer to? As a physical king gives direction to the nation so too and how much more so the struggling Yatzirot within the heart. Who wears the crown of the king? The tohor Yatzir Ha’Tov or the tumah Yatzir Ha’Raw?

Israel’s acceptance of the oath brit at Sinai done לשמה או לא לשמה? Clearly the Wilderness generation who accepted the Torah at Sinai did so לא לשמה. Forty days following the Torah revelation the ערב רב שאין לכם יראת שמים imposed a substitute theology of the WORD אלהים which replaced the first Sinai Torah acceptance – שם השם לשמה. Had the Wilderness generation accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai לשמה, they would not have given the assimilated and intermarried Israel/Egyptian ערב רב the time of day. But instead all the sages of the Great Sanhedrin, except for Aaron, MURDERED.

A blessing requires שם ומלכות. The charge of the King, to direct tohor spirits and crown the Yatzir Ha’Tov king within the heart. Superficial reading of Tehillem ב through the sophomoric moronic translation that “KING” refers to a physical/historical son of David – utterly perverts the k’vanna and mussar instructed by this Tehillem! The admonition to kings and judges which ב rebukes, directly addresses the struggle of opposing tohor vs tumah spirits within the Yatzirot within the heart.

Divine Law, not some pie in the Sky “Word of God”, but rather the pursuit of righteous judicial justice among our people. Fair compensation of damages inflicted defines Torah faith. Only through justice can an Israel trust another Israel following a fight/Civil War among ourselves. The metaphor “Kissing the son”, hence refers to the נמשל of tohor middot which the Yatzir Ha’tov breathes.

Tefillah a matter of the heart not the place or location where one prays. How much more so NOT an issue of National leaders but rather the Yatzir Tohor within our hearts! Justice can never prevail over our own interests if we do not dedicate our lives, comparable to a korban dedicated upon the altar in Jerusalem, to the righteous pursuit of justice among our people.

The concept of judicial awe as an ethical restraint is vital for legitimate jurisprudence. Instructs the mussar, that without a deep respect for remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot wherein they swore and cut an oath brit with HaShem, to create the chosen Cohen people through the performance of time oriented Torah commandments, that no generation of Israel can dominate the tumah Yatzir within all our hearts.

Tehillem ב stands upon the T’NaCH precedents of צדק צדק תרדוף and 2 Chronicles 19:6–7 (Jehoshaphat’s reforms): “Consider what you do, for you judge not for man but for HaShem… let the fear of HaShem be upon you.” Impossible to learn and interpret Tehillem without learning it back to similar Case/Rule precedents found within the T’NaCH itself. The tuma Yatzir continually seduces Man to make a shallow reactionary reading of T’NaCH verses snatched like Israeli hostages by Hamas on Oct 7th. This tumah Yatzir defines how the Roman NT gospel fraud makes a superficial and
inconsequential symbolism of p’sukim robbed and raped out of context from the Books of the Prophets and the NT framers declare that their Man/God JeZeus fulfilled the words of the prophets.

To study Talmudic common law its important to discern fundamental distinctions in scholarship down through the Ages. Perhaps the Rif halachic commentary serves as the split between two distinct bodies of law as different from the Pacific Ocean from the Atlantic Ocean.

The most essential skill required to understand how to correctly interpret Talmudic common law, the wisdom how to make the required דיוק/logical inference\. Neither T’NaCH common law nor Talmudic common law simply read as if they existed as novels pulled down from the shelf. The skill to study these Primary Sources does not turn to reading commentaries, made upon these Primary Sources which define the classic culture and customs practiced by societies of the chosen Cohen people through Av commandments known as time-oriented mitzvot.

Even the most shallow cursory translations of the Hebrew T’NaCH and Talmud; Xtianity placed their “word of God” translations upon cult of personality pedestals; they differentiate between the word of God from the words of Man – complete total religious rhetoric nonsense. Still, even a quick glance at their sophomoric “moronic” translations a person “skilled” immediately sees: absolutely no reference to tohor vs. tumah middot; the distinction made between judicial legislative review common law vs. Nicene Creed statute law dictates.

Their apostle Paul declares “the faithful” as not under the law, oblivious that civilizations without law exist in a state of confusion chaos and political anarchy. Never has any “believer” made the logical דיוק and grasped the fundamental distinctions which separate judicial common law – in possession of legislative review – Torah constitutional mandate, from statute law produced from Parliaments, Legislatures, our Councils – such as the above mentioned Nicene council.

Torah, as a Constitutional document compares to the US basic law Constitution rather than to religious belief systems. The latter makes its most fundamental appeal to powerful emotions rather than to rational logic. T’NaCH/Talmudic legal reasoning spins around the central axis of פרדס inductive logic as best understood through rabbi Ishmaels 13 methodologies how to interpret the written Jewish Primary Sources which shape and define classic culture and customs practiced by the chosen Cohen people through the k’vanna of doing tohor time-oriented commandments. Herein defines the יסוד upon which all Torah oath britot – pursuit of justice faith – stands.

Human conflict defines the nature of the opposing Yatzirot within the heart; this fundamental -understanding stands upon the בנין אב-precedent of Yaacov vs. Esau wrestling within the womb of Rivka. The sages perceive the heart as a chamber which houses the two opposing sets of tohor/tuma middot, comparable to the womb which houses developing children.

The Torah employs korbanot משל as the central (נמשל (דיוק wherein the chosen cohen people as a civilization dedicate differentiated tohor middot holy unto our God. Its the definition of tohor middot wherein the k’vanna of doing tohor time-oriented mitzvot differentiated from תולדות positive and negative Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot – which do not require כוונה.

The written Torah serves as the יסוד, the NaCH prophets and holy writings the ground floor, and the Talmud and Midrashic sources the 2nd floor of classic rabbinic Primary Sources of scholarship. Next comes the generations of scholars known as the Sovaraim Talmudic scholars 450-600 CE, they further edited the Talmudic texts sealed by Rav Ashi and Ravina. The wisdom of editing most essentially shapes and separates a good newspaper from yellow journalism rags. It seems to me that the Roman forgery new testament, compares both to yellow journalism rags and the Czarist secret police publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

This editing skill makes a fundamental דיוק which separates the priority of Cohen culture and custom from תולדות Jewish law and ethics. The latter follows the former, similar to a dog on a leash. Both T’NaCH and Talmud/Midrash stand upon the central kabbalah of פרדס and 13 middot of rabbi Yishmael’s explanation of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic sh’itta.

Fraudulent counterfeit copies of the Torah constitution, converted into religious belief system theologies; the latter directly compare to propaganda rhetoric which defined Josef Goebbels propaganda yellow journalism from 1923 to 1945. This political rhetoric stood upon sensationalist techniques used to popularize the Nazi agenda. The Roman false messiah new testament and Muhammad’s Koran poetry made their appeal to emotions rather than inductive reasoning.

The Battle of Guadalete, where the Muslim forces, led by Tariq ibn Ziyad, defeated the Visigoth king Roderic; this battle, considered the decisive moment that opened the way for the Muslim conquest of Spain. Following the victory at Guadalete, Muslim forces quickly advanced through the Iberian Peninsula. Within a few years, they captured major cities, including Toledo, Seville, and Córdoba. By the end of 711, much of the southern part of Spain dominated by Muslim culture and customs. The Umayyad Caliphate established this Spanish foothold, which endured for several centuries, leading to significant cultural, social and political changes in the region.

But conquered Spain made a lasting impact upon Muslim culture as well. The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts, which the church concealed immediately after Constantine became emperor in 306 CE. This decision by the Church, threatened by the Gods of Greece and Rome, to bury the Greek enlightenment – resulted in a period known as the Dark Ages. The Muslim re-discovery of the ancient Greek enlightenment – cast off Catholic repression, whose policies had destroyed the culture and customs practiced by the ancient Romans, in order to promote the Xtian ‘good news’ gospel. The re-discovery of Greek deductive reasoning both church and mosque now emphatically embraced. Greek deductive reasoning likewise caused the Spanish Jewish ‘Golden Age’ and the European Renaissance to flower and grow.

The 2nd Sinai Commandment, commonly referred to as the negative commandment of “avoda zarah”, the sages interpreted through the תולדות בניני אבות-precedents of 1. Do not copy Goyim cultures and customs and 2. Do not intermarry with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The definition of avoda zarah, the Av tuma spirit breathed by the Yatzir Haraw within the heart, the rediscovery of the ancient Greek enlightenment re-ignited the Civil War wounds which the lights of Hanukkah designated to remember. Alas g’lut Jewry prioritized the forms of faith rather than the substance of faith. Jews lit the Hanukkah lights as a ritual religious observance rather than as an Av tohor time-oriented commandment which requires prophetic k’vanna.

The Dark Ages witnessed the destruction of the Roman road system. Scattered Jewish communities lacked the means to communicate with one another. Questions asked to the Geonim in Iraq sometimes took a Century or more before they received a response. This reality caused the rise of the Reshonim scholars. None the less, despite the Reshon innovation, Jewish scattered communities required more immediate Talmudic guidance.

Talmudic inductive logic requires years of intense scholarship to learn and master. This reality set the stage for the classic debate between the Rabbi Isaac Alfasi, the Rif vs. the Rabbi Meir ben Baruch of Rothenburg, born in Germany, also known as the Baal Hamaor. Rashba, or Rabbi Shlomo ben Abraham ibn Aderet, a medieval rabbi from Spain, active in the late 13th and early 14th centuries. Renowned for his extensive commentaries on the Talmud and his responsa, which addressed a wide range of legal and ethical issues. Rashba, a strong defender of Maimonides’ philosophical approach to Judaism and contributed disastrously to the development of Jewish law during his time. Religious halachic code vs. the disciplined study of the Talmud through precedents, the sh’itta practiced by the Rashi/Baali Tosafot school in France. However, the relationship between the Rif and the Tosafists – more about differing approaches to Talmudic study and halachic decision-making rather than direct criticism.

The Baal Hamaor criticized the Rif’s prioritization of simple halachic codification because it failed to convey the precedent based scholarship of Talmudic common law. The Rif code did not take the halachot and make a משנה תורה reinterpretation of the language of the Mishna. Herein a succinct summation of the Baal Hamaor’s criticism of the Rif code. The Mishneh Torah by Maimonides (the Rambam) represents a significant shift in the approach to Jewish law, moving towards a more systematic and codified statute law form of halacha that a rare few scholars today argue departs from the traditional Talmudic case-based reasoning.

These Spanish ‘Golden Age’ rabbis extinguished the lights of Hanukkah. They had forbidden avoda zara “sex” with the re-discovered ancient Greek syllogism deductive reasoning. Ibn Ezra, from Spain, his son converted to Islam. Assimilation and Jewish intermarriage caused the collapse of Spanish Jewry long before the Spanish monarchy forced the mass expulsion of Jews in 1492. Av tuma avoda zara releases Torah curses upon our people similar to those experienced by Par’o in the days of Moshe and Aaron. By definition assimilated ערב רב Jews lack the knowledge and required education to keep and observe the culture and customs which the T’NaCH and Talmud establish as the society of the Cohen people.

Rabbi Mordechai ben Hillel, known for his work “Mordechai,” failed to differentiation between judicial common law and legislative statute law. In his commentaries, Rabbi Mordechai often focused on the application of Talmudic principles to practical legal situations, some interpret as a watered down form of common law. Why? His scholarship fails to emphasize פרדס inductive logic. He would derive rulings based on precedents and interpretations of the Talmud, reflecting a judicial approach that values case law and established practices. But he failed to validate in the process the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva.

His work implies a distinction between the authority of rabbinic rulings (which can evolve through judicial interpretation) and the fixed nature of certain laws derived from the Torah or established by the Sanhedrin. This ignores the halacha base Gemara משנה תורה re-interpretations made upon the language of the Mishna based upon a specific sugya of Gemara. He utterly failed to discern Av Torah time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna from secondary positive and negative commandments; or how much more so, Talmudic halachic ritual observances… all of which do not require k’vanna, comparable to positive and negative Torah commandments. This failure/collapse of Torah mitzvot scholarship ultimately caused post Rambam Civil War Jews to fail to read the written Torah as a common law legal system wherein פרדס logic compares positive and negative commandments as precedents in order to elevate a any Torah or Talmudic mitzva unto an Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandment. And likewise Bavli/Yerushalmi halachot as precedents to elevate the language of a given Mishna unto tohor time oriented commandments!

The French Tosafot school of common law, despite placing the works of the Rambam into נידוי in 1232 utterly collapsed with the public burning of the Talmud in Paris 1242. The Tosafot commentary likewise failed to link Written Torah common law learned through precedents to Talmudic common law whose halachic precedents make a re-interpretations upon the language of the Mishna. Like a blue-print front/top\side views. Precedents function as “the 70 faces to the Torah common law legal system”. This fundamental basic, the Tosafot commentary to the Talmud utterly failed to emphasize.

Common law compares to the metaphor of opposing rivers, where Statute Law exists as a completely different river from Judicial Common law Legislative Review. Therefore which early Reshonim scholars fundamentally challenged the Rif Code of Halacha for its failure to differentiate between T’NaCH/Talmudic Common law legislative review – as a Constitutional mandate from the Written Torah from Parliament/legislature statute law – which the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch codes of statute law utterly and totally undermined? The avoda zara of the latter directly compares to the sin of the Golden Calf which attempted a substitute theology wherein the cursed ערב רב attempted to replace the word אלהים for the 1st Sinai revelation Spirit Divine Presence within the tohor middot which breath life into the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the hearts of the chosen Cohen people throughout all generations.

Religious masturbation, how utterly depressing

Both Harry Potter and Weight and Gift of the Cross fail to grasp the Torah concept of Sacrifices as the medium wherein the chosen Cohen People swear a Torah oath “brit” to employ tohor middot within their Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart.

What Christianity and Potter miss – that the Torah idea of korban, simply not a magical transaction. But a legal act of swearing fidelity to the brit first established by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov which creates the Chosen Cohen people – תמיד מעשה בראשית – through the Avot commandments known as time-oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as their most essential and required k’vanna; meaning the dedication of defined Oral Torah tohor middot first revealed to Moshe 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf on Yom Kippur.

Both works of fiction and revisionist history tell a story of folks in possession of God like powers awarded and bestowed from some undefined Father who sits upon some throne in Heaven, and who bestows magical messiah-powers upon His chosen beloved. Both mythical characters of Harry Potter and JeZeus make the ultimate sacrifice, and sacrifice their lives as the pathway to achieve ”salvation”.

Both fictional narratives fail to define either how the Torah understands the meaning of terms like prophesy, love or even – and most significantly – Torah sacrifices! Even more significant both messiah novels fail to address the Torah concept of Moshiach as learned from Par’o having his “Court” inflict torture upon Hebrew slaves for their failure to meet their quota of bricks!

This story as told in the beginning of the Book of שמות, serves as the kabbalah יסוד, wherein Torah common law relies upon Torah precedents to understand the dedication of the mitzva of Moshiach, defined as the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which strives to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.

“The Weight and Gift of the Cross,” the reflection on JeZeus as the Messiah emphasizes themes of sacrifice, redemption, and the call to discipleship.

However, this narrative – critiqued for presenting a simplified view of messianic expectations, focusing on personal salvation without adequately addressing the complexities of justice and accountability.

But even more central and far greater priority, both fictional narratives utterly fail to grasp that Torah commandments apply – like as does the mitzva of Shabbat – to all Jews in all generations. The idea of some chosen messiah God figure – an utterly alien foreign abomination of Av tumah avoda zarah.

Both narratives fail to engage with the Torah’s understanding of the Messiah, rooted in concepts of justice, ethical behavior, and communal responsibility. The messianic role in Judaism – not merely about individual salvation but involves a holy dedication (directly comparable to a korban burnt upon the altar) which applies straight across the board to the entire chosen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov; that all generations – rather than some chosen specific individual – have the obligation to sanctify the mitzva of Moshiach, as a Torah commandment, to pursue and sanctify righteous judicial Sanhedrin common law courtroom justice.

Torah “Prophets”, understood as “police agents” of the Sanhedrin courts who enforce the Legislative Review judicial rulings of the lateral Sanhedrin common law courtrooms.

Torah Prophets have the Constitutional mandate to make Legislative Review of government statute laws; they can both anoint and depose kings! Police/prophets give teeth to the rulings of Sanhedrin courts. Judicial legislative review defines the name of the 5th Book of the Torah משנה תורה as well as rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi’s משנה.

Both of these non Jewish narratives, by stark contrast reflect the Goyim cultural & customs understanding of Messiah. They create fantastical worlds where mythical beings possess extraordinary powers.

In Harry Potter, together with his Cross-like scar upon his forehead, which imprisons a soul of evil, magic serves as but a metaphor for personal growth and moral choices; while the Gospels, miraculous events, often interpreted as divine intervention – like cursed trees immediately dying or herds of pigs running off of cliffs to their deaths. Such wild fictional story narratives implicitly instructs the gospel rebuke of: “By their fruits you shall know them.” Why ‘implicitly’? Because the church has ignored this gospel rebuke for 2000+ years.

These cultural stories of how Goyim perceive ancient Hebrews or modern British witch societies, they both reflect outsider cultural narratives that shape the reading of how non Jewish audiences understand – good and evil, morality, and human experiences.

These fictional narrative employ fantastical elements to convey propaganda disturbed emotional belief systems later developed into both Cannon and Creeds. Easter, known as Lent, commonly know as “Passion of Christ”, which commemorates blood libel pogroms so that Jews endure their accountability for killing God.

Both imaginary narratives fail to hold their own criminally insane and violent believers to any judicial justice of accountability. Post the Wizarding War, only a few criminally insane war-criminals sent to jail. Rather than mass public executions, Goyim courts quietly freed guilty war-criminals. The Catholic church established rat-lines to assist Nazis to flee to South America.

Never the implied gospel rebuke: “By their Fruits you shall know them” demand for accountability for crimes. Church morality limited this gospel rebuke only to the Jews.

Pope Pius XII made an open alliance with Hitler, and Martin Luther promoted not just Nazi Book burnings, but actual mass murder of Jews burned to their collective deaths inside synagogues. The Catholic public burning of the Talmud in Paris France in 1242, served as the inspiration of Nazi hate crimes.

The Harry Potter witching world directly compares to the three Century ghetto-gulags, wherein the church threw Jewish refugee populations into prisons of poverty. The concealed world of witchcraft societies likewise compares to the forced mass population transfers – similar to the 1492 Spanish expulsion of Jews. The weakness of magic in the Potter story, magic cannot produce food any more than Jews languishing in Catholic gulag ghettos.