____________________________________

Intentional Faith

Intentional Faith·pastorhogg.net·3h ago

Today’s Spiritual Disciplines

The day’s devotions emphasize walking closely with God to find true blessing, highlighted in Psalm 1:1. They reflect on His searching love in Luke 15:8-10, the…
____________________________________
The T’NaCH functions as a common law system, where the texts establish precedents through case and rule comparisons. This suggests a structured legal framework that informs Jewish law and practice. The Gemarah’s commentary on the Mishna is highlighted as a method of interpreting Jewish law through inductive reasoning, which provides a dynamic – as oppose and contrasted by Greek deductive static reasoning – multi-dimensional understanding of legal principles.

The common law of the T’NaCH prioritizes Prophetic mussar whereas the Gemara focuses upon ritual halacha as precedents. The authors of the New Testament misunderstood the nature of the T’NaCH, particularly in their claim that Jesus “fulfilled” the prophecies. This is framed as a misinterpretation of the role of Torah prophets, who were enforcers of law rather than predictors of the future.

The distinction between the roles of prophets and legal authorities in the T’NaCH is a central theme, suggesting that the prophetic function is often misrepresented by later NT framers. The consequences of this basic fundamental error: the Xtian framers intended to establish a religious belief system whereas the Framers of the T’NaCH envisioned establishment of Sanhedrin courts common law. The complexity of this latter objective, difficult for Goyim to grasp, primarily because they lack the Talmud as a point of reference – how to understand the language of the T’NaCH as the Primary Sources of Jewish law. Lacking the Aggadic narrative provided by the Talmud, Goyim simply fail to understand that the purpose of the Aggadic stories – they explore the language of Prophetic mussar to provide the “k’vanna” which defines the purpose and meaning of all Talmudic Aggadic stories.

The Talmud compares to a loom with its warp & weft threads. Weaving interpreted prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of halachic ritualism – this defines not only how to make an aliyah\elevation of rabbinic ritual mitzvot observances unto Torah commandments, but this same wisdom equally applies to elevate lower positive and negative Torah commandments to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments! Goyim have never grasped the depth & scope of Torah commandments within the Torah. They never conceived nor grasped that Moshe as the Framer of the Torah organized these 5 Books to function as the Constitution of the Republic of 12 Tribes. Torah as a Constitutional Basic Law of the Chosen Cohen Peoples’ Republic — a far different vision from the Pauline ‘Original Sin’ addiction of Man for some imaginary mythical Harry Potter God/messiah to save Humanity from their sins.

Prophetic Mussar vs. Ritual Halacha: T’NaCH interprets prophetic mussar; Gemarah interprets ritual law as the culture and customs observed by the nation of the chosen Cohen People. Avoda zarah interpreted as such to mean: 1. The Cohen people have a negative commandment NOT to follow, much more so embrace, the cultures and customs practiced by Goyim civilizations which do not accept the opening First TWO Sinai commandments.

This profound understanding of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai starkly contrasts with the Rambam’s pathetic perversion of Aggadah up-rooted totally out of context from mesechta Sanhedrin concerning the 7 mitzvot applicable to Gere Toshavim who temporarily dwell within the lands of Judea; as opposed to the despised Goyim refugee populations, who likewise temporarily reside within the borders of Judea. Mesechta Baba Kama instructs that the latter dhimmi refugee populations enjoyed no legal protections. If a Jew damaged their persons or property – these “illegal aliens” possessed no legal “Torah Constitutional” right to sue the damager Israel in any Jewish Court of Law within the borders of Judea. As a point of reference: Jews, as despised refugees in Europe and Muslim countries for 2000+ years – political exiles, dhimmi refugee populations – no Goy Court in Xtian or Muslim lands ever once held criminal war-crimes committed by the Church or Mosque priests or sheiks accountable. G’lut/exiled Jews had no legal rights to sue – NOT either Church or Mosque in any Goyim courts of law for 2000+ years of g’lut/exile.

Viewed from this basic historical context, the Talmud of mesechta Baba Kama makes complete and total sense. Hence mesechta Sanhedrin addresses the legal rights of Gere Toshav strangers to sue Jewish damagers in Jewish courts of law; whereas mesechta Baba Kama excludes dhimmi foreign alien “wet-backs” from the ”privilege” of legal judicial rights to requests from a Jewish Court to enforce fair compensation of damages they suffered from an Israel. During the Dark and Middle Ages, a similar custom practiced upon dhimmi exiled Jews; writs of privileges issued to Jews by princes and church officials. These writs of privileges directly compare to mesechta Sanhedrin’s 7 mitzvot “bnai Noach”.

The fundamental error of basic Talmudic common law scholarship made by Rambam’s decision to “convert” the Talmud into Roman statute law; this absolute error stands upon the copied-assimilated Av tumah avoda zara wherein this rabbi embraced the error followed by the Samaritans, Tzeddukim, Karaim, Reform & Conservative Judaism today. This Av tumah avoda zara generated a domino effect upon all down-stream generations of Jewry. The Talmud refers to this type of disaster as ירידות הדורות-descending generations.

Later down stream rabbinic Judaism made a error and interpreted this Talmudic concept as the inability of later generations to challenge the opinions made by earlier generations; something comparable and akin to the Catholic idea of the infallibility of the Pope — utter and total narishkeit stupidity. Pope Pius XII stands as proof witness of this absolutely worthless טיפש פשט-bird brained idea. Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash challenged the opinion made by Targum Onkelos as erroneous. How could Rashi argue against a contemporary of Rabbi Yechuda – the author of the Mishna? Answer: In matters of logic, no generation has a lock monopoly by which it can dictate its logic over later generations.

Genesis 1:1, Rashi discusses the creation narrative and contrasts his interpretation with that of Targum Onkelos. This Rashi opinion nails the Arab rejection of political Zionism’s quest to achieve Jewish self-determination within a restored Jewish State in the lands of Judea. Rashi believed that later generations could offer valid interpretations that might differ from earlier authorities, including Targum Onkelos. He emphasized that logic and understanding of the text naturally develop and evolve.

Rashi’s commentary on בראשית א:ב — והארץ היתה תהו ובהו. Targum Onkelos translates as: איר אתכללו – “it was desolate”. Rashi argues that Targum Onkelos’ interpretation does not capture the full meaning of the Hebrew terms. He explains that “תֹהוּ” refers to a state of emptiness or chaos, while “בֹהוּ” refers to a state of void or nothingness. Rashi emphasizes that the two terms convey distinct concepts that are not adequately represented in Onkelos’ translation.

Exodus 12:6: Rashi comments on the phrase regarding the timing of the Passover sacrifice. Targum Onkelos translates it in a way that Rashi finds problematic. Rashi argues that the translation does not align with the intent of the Hebrew text, suggesting that Onkelos’ interpretation – not accurate in this context. This example illustrates Rashi’s approach to engaging with earlier interpretations, including those of Targum Onkelos, and his belief that later scholars can offer valid critiques based on their logical insights. Based upon the premise that no one generation owns a lock and key monopoly of logic.
“עד יום עשותו – עד יום שיבואו ישראל לידי עשייתו, ולא עד יום שיבואו לידי אכילתו, כמו שתרגם אונקלוס: ‘עד יום שיבואו ישראל לידי אכילתו’.”

In his commentary, Rashi points out that Targum Onkelos interprets the verse as referring to the day of eating the Passover sacrifice, while Rashi understood this verse as the day of its preparation or offering. This illustrates Rashi’s critical engagement with Onkelos’ translation.

In בראשית א:ב, the phrase “והארץ היתה תהו ובהו” is translated as “איר אתכללו,” meaning “it was desolate.” This translation captures the essence of the Hebrew term “תהו ובהו,” which conveys a sense of emptiness and chaos.

In contrast, in דברים לג:ב, the phrase “מן אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” translates to “from the mountain of Seir.” Here, “אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” is derived from a different root and refers to a geographical location rather than a state of being. The context of this verse is about God’s revelation from Sinai, and the term is used to indicate a specific place, rather than a descriptive state. Rashi states that Onkelos’ translation is incorrect because it implies that the verse is referring to a physical location rather than the spiritual significance of HaShem’s revelation. Rashi emphasizes that the term “מִסֵּעִיר” should be understood in a different context, focusing on the divine aspect rather than a geographical one.

בראשית א:ב — והארץ היתה תהו ובה Targum Onkelos translates as: איר אתכללו – “it was desolate”. Whereas דברים לג:ב: ויאמר ה’ מסיני בא ושרח מסעיר למו — Targum Onkelos translates this as “מִן אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” (from the mountain of Seir)? In בראשית א:ב, the phrase “והארץ היתה תהו ובהו” is translated as “איר אתכללו,” meaning “it was desolate.” This translation captures the essence of the Hebrew term “תהו ובהו,” which conveys a sense of emptiness and chaos.

In contrast, in דברים לג:ב, the phrase “מן אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” translates to “from the mountain of Seir.” Here, “אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” is derived from a different root and refers to a geographical location rather than a state of being. The context of this verse is about God’s revelation from Sinai, and the term is used to indicate a specific place rather than a descriptive state. Thus, the variations in translation reflect the different contexts and meanings of the words used in each verse. The שרש\root – כ-ל-ל conveys meanings related to completeness or inclusion. In this context, it refers to a geographical location, specifically indicating a place from which something originates or emerges.

This contrasts with the root of “תֹהוּ” and “בֹהוּ” in Genesis 1:2, which conveys a sense of chaos and emptiness, highlighting the different contexts and meanings in Rashi’s commentary and the translations provided by Targum Onkelos. This example of Rashi’s dispute with a Tanna illistrates the classic error assimilated to ancient Greek cultures and customs the Rambam erred when he interpreted the word ONE in kre’a shma means “monotheism”. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Furthermore, mesechta Avoda Zarah opens with the understanding that prior to the generation of Noach that the Goyim had utterly rejected the oath brit alliance.

The Torah of בראשית opens with the Name אלהים (the substitute word translation of the Divine Presence Spirit word of both the שם השם עצמו as well as the Orev 13 Oral Torah middot wherein Jews to this day during the month of Elul. For example: tefillah a matter of the heart … and to make a blessing requires שם ומלכות. The Mitzva of blowing the Shofar on ר”ה make a מאי נפקא מינא הבדלה which separates and distinguishes between air blown from the lungs from tohor spirits blown from the Yatzir Ha’Tov from within the heart. דכתיב: גכל לבבך.

On Elul Jews likewise separate t’shuva from repentance. Similar words on superficial appearance, like brit and covenant. T’shuva “remembers” the Sin of the Golden Calf, like Amalek which plagues Jews in all generations with its hateful antisemitism. We remember that HaShem – measure for measure – threatened to make a substitute theology idolatry and replace the oath sworn Cohen seed of the Avot with the seed of Moshe Rabbeinu “eye for an eye” for the Israel ערב רב replacement theology with substituted אלהים “word” for the שם השם לשמה Divine Presence Spirit which quickens the Yatzir HaTov within the heart, through the dedication of tohor Oral Torah middot.

Hence a blessing requires מלכות – the dedication of korbanot middot לשמה. Herein explains why the Book of בראשית opens with the word name אלהים rather than the Spirit Name שם השם לשמה as commanded in the first commandment of the Sinai revelation; the בראשית story opens prior to the oath brit which creates continually the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot through tohor Av time-oriented commandments which require the מלכות dedication of Oral Torah spirit middot through the Yatzir Ha’Tov.

Goyim, both Xtians and Allah repentance by contrast only refers to personal regret. This interpretation goes well with the Xtian guilt trip theology of “He died for you”. In like manner, ברית refers to an oath alliance which function as the יסוד of the Republic of the 12 Tribes; wheras covenant implies some vague connection, which if “shattered” some foreign alien other God could substitute Goyim as the “New Israel” or Universal monotheistic God. The Rambam avoda zarah assimilated and embraced the Muslim idea of a universal monotheistic God. He rejected mesechta Avoda Zarah which understands the God of Sinai as a local Tribal God based upon the conclusion that the Goyim never accepted the revelation, meaning first two opening commandments of Sinai as John 1:1 proves, of the the Torah at Sinai.

_MASHIACH: The Night Watchman

ArtScroll Staff·The Official ArtScroll Blog·Aug 11, 2025

Adapted from: Yearning for Redemption by Rabbi Daniel Glatstein

The following verse (Tehillim 130:6) requires explanation: נַפְשִׁי לַה’ מִשֹּׁמְרִים לַבֹּקֶר שֹׁמְרִים לַבֹּקֶר.,
_____________________
______________________
Mitzva of Moshiach requires making הבדלה just as does shabbat observance separates מלאכה מן עבודה. Both this and that, Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments! This Av type of commandment requires k’vanna. תולדות secondary – positive and negative and halachot mitzvot – do not require k’vanna. This represents a chiddush, a huge מאי נפקא מינא. T’NaCH\Talmud common law requires precedents. Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot refers to precedents as בניני אבות. To ascertain the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments requires the wisdom how to correctly interpret prophetic mussar from the T’NaCH\Aggadah & Midrashim. The latter, specifically the T’NaCH Primary Sources, they determine the k’vanna of all Torah time-oriented commandments. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. Prophets function as the police-enforcement teeth of the Great and Small Sanhedrin common law courts, within the borders of the oath sworn Cohen lands. Sworn by an oath brit between HaShem and the Avot as the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen People.

The Yom Tov of ר”ה, יום הזכרון specifically remembers the t’shuva consequent to the Golden Calf. HaShem annulled His vow to make from Moshe’s עולם הבא children the chosen Cohen people! Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov. Hence the k’vanna of ברכת כהנים, and also likewise the k’vanna of קריא שמע תפילה דאורייתא. The last word אחד, does not refer to monotheism. Monotheism profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. The 10 plagues judged the Gods of Egypt. Therefore, the word אחד the Yidden remember the oaths sworn by the Avot themselves wherein they cut a brit alliance to create from nothing (תמיד מעשה בראשית) the chosen Cohen people through Av tohor time-oriented commandments like shabbat & Moshiach. All generations merit to sanctify tohor time-oriented commandments. The idea that Jews wait for the coming of the Moshiach – this narishkeit defines Xtianity!

9.1.25 Maimonides and Maharishi II

rabbielimallonRabbi Eli Mallon, M.Ed., LCSW

147 subscribersSubscribed

12h ago

Maharishi Mahesh YogimeditationspiritualityconsciousnessMaimonides3+

a

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Maimonides discuss the same thing —
the unchanging basis of all that exists.

Maimonides discusses this as an idea/a subject for contemplation.

Maharishi discusses the same as a personal experience in meditation.

The experience confirms the idea.
The idea clarifies the experience.
At the same time,
the experience clarifies the idea;
the idea, in its universality,
confirms the experience.

I

“1. The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought into being all existence. All the beings of the heavens, the earth, and what is between them came into existence only from the truth [i.e. reality] of His being.

2. If one would imagine that He [or: It] does not exist, no other being could possibly exist.

3. If one would imagine that none of the entities aside from Him [or: It] exist, He alone would continue to exist, and the nullification of their [existence] would not nullify His existence, because all the [other] entities require Him and He, blessed be He, does not require them nor any one of them…

4. This is implied by the prophet’s statement: ‘And God, your Lord, is true’ ¹ – i.e., He alone is true and no other entity possesses truth that compares to His truth. This is what [is meant by] the Torah’s statement: ‘There is nothing else aside from Him’ ² – i.e., aside from Him, there is no true existence like His.” ³

II

“This thing that the relative is born of (the Absolute), this is to understand what is behind the relative –changing, changing, changing. [i.e. the ‘Relative’ — always changing — is born of the ‘Absolute’ — never changing]. Now we analyze what this change is and what is the ultimate value of this change. Then we know that the change is very heavy, or very gross, very clear change on the surface.

Deep within the change is lesser change, lesser change, lesser change. At the deepest value of change there is least change. Only when we try to know what exists underneath the change, what is the reality of change, then we come to know that there is no field of change.

This is what physics does. All these molecules and then atoms and then electrons and then the subatomic particles and then very fine particles, and high energy, fine particles are high energy and then eventually ground state, least variation. Least variation means maximum order. Order increases. Disorder becomes less and less and less and less. That means activity becomes less and less and then eventually, vacuum state. This vacuum state may be said to be Absolute, non-changing, no change, nothing. And a little, little manifest value we may say, is that ground state where the things are not moving, no activity. But the ground state itself breathes life. There is something there, very fine, relative.

So, this is analysis of the relative which eventually locates the Absolute in an area where relativity is nonexistent, beyond the finest relative existence, Absolute. So, this is physical analysis or analysis of the activity.

In Indian philosophy it’s called Karma Mimamsa; Karma – action.

Mimamsa – of action, analysis of action, analysis of action. What kind of action? Gross action, subtle action, subtler action, subtlest action. Now all this on the basis of a field of life which has no activity in it, vacuum state according to physics, Absolute according to the Science of Creative Intelligence, ultimate reality.

Now it’s like the top of the mountain, very windy and as you come along the slope the wind is less and less and less and less. You come down the foot of the hill, no wind, it’s all protected. Great activity, less activity, less activity, no activity at the foot. Just like that, top of the mountain, the top. Now what is happening you’re on the top of the mountain? You are able to see vast distances. And as you come along on the slope you see less, you see less. Vision becomes restricted, vision becomes, because the height is less. You come to the foot of the mountain and you can see only this much.

Now, the reality of vision at the foot of the mountain is completely different from the reality of the vision on the middle of the mountain.

And this is completely different from the reality vision from the top of the mountain. So, when a man standing on the top of the mountain, he says, “Oh I’m seeing this much”, a man at the foot of the hill says, “I’m seeing this much”, both are correct. No one is false, correct because he sees only this much, he can only see this much and he can describe only this much. So, this is the reality of this stand. A man on the middle of the mountain, he has a different level of stand. From his level whatever he sees he describes. He is capable of describing more than the man on the foot of the mountain. But still that more is much less compared to the man on the top of the mountain.

So, it depends upon at what level of awareness one experiences the environment. In Unity one experiences the environment. One finds no differences, nothing, he has a different picture of the world. In God Consciousness, completely a different picture of the world; the world is very fascinating, it’s beautiful. In CC, it has a completely different status, it’s always changing, I’m not changing. I have great superiority over all that which…. I’m the lord of all I survey and all that… CC. In transcendence the world doesn’t exist. In waking state everything is so dear and so fine and so nice, localized values, all localized. In dream it has a different fascination. In sleep nothing exists.” ⁴

III

Both Maharishi and Maimonides are telling us that full human perception embraces both the ever-changing creation and its/our unchanging source, too. Short of that, we’re not fully developed human beings.

Is there a Biblical model for this?

Yes — the perception of Adam and Havah/Eve in the Garden of Eden. Afterwards, Torah describes those for whom this perception was a normal experience as ones who “walked with God.” Later, the prophets exemplify this. King David — writer and singer of the Psalms — represents this, too.

The promise of Torah and TaNaCh is that this will someday be the norm for all humanity, forever. As the Hasidic text “Tanya” teaches:

“This, in fact, is the whole [purpose] of man and the purpose for which he, and all the worlds, both upper and lower, were created: that G‑d should have such a dwelling place here below…” ⁵

a

See also:

5.17.15 Maimonides and Maharishi

__________________________________________________

¹ Yirmiyahu/Jeremiah 10:10

² D’varim/Deuteronomy 4:35

³ Maimonides: Mishnah Torah/Book of Knowledge 1:1-4; see also Yesodei ha-Torah 1:1

⁴ Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
La Antilla, Spain
March 3, 1973 (transcribed from a video tape)
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10238341431783073&set=gm.2796773693840717&idorvanity=442978549220255

⁵ Tanya; ch. 33
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Maimonides on parallel tracks. Both of them failed to distinguish two radically different systems of law – the fundamental day and night distinction between Jewish common law from Roman statute law.

T’NaCH\Talmudic משנה תורה Legislative review-Constitutional common law – inductive, precedent-based, always applied within the צדק צדק תרדוף “Torah Faith” of courtroom context (עדות, דינים, פרשנות). Knowledge of God (ידע), directly bound to how justice defines Faith as an eternal obligation of Israel’s acceptance of the Torah at Sinai. Based upon the precedent and testimony of Moshe and Aaron standing before the Court of Par’o and the abuse of beating Hebrew slaves.

“Foundation of foundations” in Rambam’s Yesodei HaTorah a false codified abstraction—but in the Mishna/Gemara world, “foundation” means judicial justice; procedural rules wherein judges and common law Sanhedrin lateral courtrooms build precedent-based “Brief” wherein the prosecutor and defense attorneys – Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argue their precedent “Briefs” before one another in court. This latter common law “foundation”, it and it alone functions as the legal bedrock יסוד, not assimilated Greek or Roman metaphysical speculation abstractions.

Roman statute law (and Indian metaphysics) – deductive, top-down, treating truth as an absolute principle or essence outside of human courtroom process. The 8th middah of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev defines truth as “PATH” or “Halacha”. Both Maharishi and Rambam slip into the Greek/Roman assimilation mold; a direct Torah violation of negative commandments. Their philosophical Absolute – a static ontological given. Not a lived בניני אבות Sinai oath alliance to rule the conquered lands of Canaan with Sanhedrin common law courtroom justice; which like a korban dedicates the Chosen Cohen People to pursue tohor time-oriented commandments to pursue justice – fair compensation of damages – among our People. Both these latter day men, they replicate Catholic dogmatism – “unchanging source” – in purely ontological terms (what exists beneath existence), instead of Torah faith which defines acceptance of the Torah at Sinai as צדק צדק תרדוף.

Maharishi frames faith in terms of direct experience in meditation (phenomenology). Whereas Rambam frames faith in terms of rational proof and contemplation (philosophy). He prioritizes gnostic knowledge above “Fear of Heaven”; meaning the walk to build and protect ones’ ‘Good Name’ reputation.

But both of these “Latter Day Saints” bypass the Talmudic way of the Cohen worship through tohor middot; specifically applicable through the concrete practice of common law courts, precedent based “Briefs”, and justice—which strives to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot.

If we bring the T’NaCH model of mussar-aggadic common law in properly: Adam & Havah “walking with God” does not compare to these assimilated “Latter Day Saints” mystical union. Shalom among our Chosen Cohen People within the borders of the oath sworn lands: “walking in trust” the יסוד bedrock upon which stands שלום and NOT hatred without cause among our people. Later “Enoch walked with God,” “Noach walked with God,” and Avraham – chosen “to keep the way of the Lord … to do justice and righteousness” (la‘asot tzedaka u-mishpat). The real Torah framework: knowledge of God = justice done in community to restore שלום among our divided people who always struggle with our Yatzir Ha’Rah to fight Civil Wars among ourselves.

Contrast this with the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים – the assimilated Roman/Indian metaphysics = Absolute/essence/unchanging source. This נידוי narishkeit stands outside of the oath brit alliance to pursue justice among and between our people. Unlike Maharishi’s “phenomenology,” aggadah does not chase mystical states—it illustrates the human cost of injustice and commands judges to persue precedent-based בניני אבות judicial fairness. Maharishi and Rambam both speak in terms of “Absolute Being” but collapse Torah’s judicial Faith framework based upon the false foundations of Greek/Roman metaphysics. By stark contrast Torah faith = צדק צדק תרדוף. Sanhedrin common law, courtroom-precedent based legalism; fair compensation for damages inflicted, mussar-aggadic framework of walking with God by doing tohor time-oriented commandments with k’vanna.

“Can’t see the forest for the trees” – being so focused on small details that you lose sight of the bigger picture. The trees – all the halachot raised in each and every sugya of Gemara. The forest the common law basis wherein the Talmud serves as the model to re-establish common law courts of Sanhedrin Legislative Review of all government statute laws. This summates my criticism of the statute law codes; how they utterly corrupted how Yeshiva education became all corrupted and Fubar.  The more polite definition of the latter Army military euphemism –  “Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition”. But when a jarhead employs the term, he means: “fucked up beyond all repair”.

The assimilated statute halachic codes, focus upon making a D’sok Halacha. In the case of the Rambam Fubar – straight from the Talmud itself. In the Case of the far weaker – copy-cat – halachic statute codifications of the Tur and Shulkan Aruch – they organized a codification of Reshonim opinion upon any given halacha from the Talmud. Why does assimilated statute halacha pervert the Talmud and Reshonim commentaries upon the Talmud into a fubar? Several reasons: 1. They rely upon the syllogism deductive logic developed by Aristotle and Plato. This substitute theology of logic, it replaces the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s revolutionary interpretation of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev unto פרדס. No different, what so ever, from the ערב רב שיצאו ממצרים. The latter Jews the Torah during the reading prior to Purim which remembers the tohor middah of רחום. Specifically, the commandment to war against Amalek in all generations. רחום — עמלק, represents a כלל — פרט in how the corollary 13 middot of rabbi Yishmael amplify the פרדס kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s understanding of how the Oral Torah revelation interpret the kvanna of the Written Torah.

The Torah description of Jews as אין להם יראת אלהים – the first inference to “Fear of Heaven” in the Book of שמות. The later prophets mussar refers to assimilated Israel as אנשי סדום. They too lacked “fear of heaven” as the Book of בראשית introduces. בעל שם טוב: This term פרט, refers to the founder of Hasidic Judaism, Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov.  However this term כלל, refers to the pursuit of a righteous Good Name reputation. Post Shoah Xtianity permanently lost the claim to a moral good name reputation. Hence: יראת שמים the Talmud directly applies to both a Torah sofer and a shochet.  The mitzva of kashrut, spins around public trust based upon יראת שמים.

The rediscovery of the concealed Ancient Greek texts which caused the Hanukkah Civil War which pitted the P’rushim against the Tzeddukim; when Muslim Armies invaded Spain in approximately 900, during the lifetime of Saadia ben Joseph, 882–942 CE. These rediscovered ancient Greek writings caused the Jews of Spain to emphatically embrace Greek deductive logic. This triggered the “Golden Age” of Spanish Reshonim T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship!!! Alas the bards (Robert Plant (lyrics) and Jimmy Page (music) who wrote the song  “Stairway to Heaven”, declared: sometimes words have two meanings.)  טיפש פשט by stark contrast gets all hyper in their diaper over the obvious ‘bird brained’ ‘brain-washed’ meaning. 

How the Orthodox make a simplistic understanding of the בראשית Creation story, functions as a פרט example.  Another פרט example:  Yeshiva bukkarim saying (all the time) מה פשט?
The false ideal to simplify or stupify abstract T’NaCH and Talmudic common law, simply brain dead.  The Siddur serves as the foundation of all Talmudic scholarship.  Just that simple.  No fancy dance’n.  The Siddur stands upon the יסוד of ORDER.  The ORDER of פרדס inductive logic, not the same as the ORDER of Aristotle’s syllogism – deductive logic.  The assimilated statute law halachic codes – they shatter the ORDER of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law.

A three-part syllogism is a form of logical reasoning that consists of three statements: two premises and a conclusion. It is a classic structure used in deductive reasoning, often associated with the philosopher Aristotle. 

Hegel’s bi-polar dialectics and Aristotle’s syllogism represent two distinct approaches to logic and reasoning, each with its own philosophical underpinnings and implications.  Hegel’s dialectics is a process of development through contradictions. It involves a triadic structure often summarized as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The thesis represents an initial idea or state, the antithesis is its contradiction or negation, and the synthesis resolves the conflict between the two, leading to a higher understanding or state.  

Hegel’s approach emphasizes change and development. Ideas evolve through conflict and resolution, reflecting the complexity of reality. This process is not linear but rather cyclical, where each synthesis can become a new thesis, leading to further contradictions and resolutions.  This late 19th Century German philosophy served as the logic foundation of Marx’s theory of Communism as a response to the Industrial Revolution.  “Revolution” implies the over-throw of the ‘Old Order’.  

What defines the “Old Order” of the Middle Ages?  The economies of the Middle Ages made wealth through the Order of village communes, known as feudalism, wherein the aristocratic lords produced wealth through agricultural production.  The Industrial Revolution over-threw that ‘Old Order’, and replaced it by the production of wealth through Industrial production of goods and services.  This cause a mass population transfer from peasant living in village communes tied to working for their lords.  To citizens with political rights who lived and worked within the factories within huge cities.

To understand the difference between rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic from Aristotle’s deductive logic, fundamentally requires comparing the two viewed from a fair larger “BIG PICTURE” context.  The two-dimensional halachic statute law codes, they compare to looking at a camera picture rather than actually seeing the event captured by the picture.  The question מה פשט?  Simply ideal for the two-dimensional deductive reasoning of Greek deductive logic.  

The mitzva of lighting the lights of Hanukkah – the dedication to interpret the Written Torah through, and only through, the inductive logic of פרדס; the latter defines the culture and customs practiced by the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot throughout all generations.  The passage of this Cohonim culture and customs from generation, to generation, to generation – defines the k’vanna of תחיית המתים.  As does similar, marriage with the purpose to produce children and educate them to keep the cultures and customs of the chosen Cohen people.  The mitzva of קידושין.

Rabbi Akiva’s inductive logic system directly compares to a Loom.  A Loom essential in the construction of the Mishkan.  As a Loom as its warp & weft opposing threads, the “fabric” of the T’NaCH and Talmud contains the Aggada threads of prophetic mussar contrasted by the Halachic threads of practical halachic ritualism.  Weaving the two opposing strands creates time oriented commandments which require k’vanna.  

The Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch deductive logic divorces halacha from aggada.  Worse, the Prime assimilated Reshon Spanish רשע, his code uprooted halacha from its Home Mishna.  The commentaries on the Rambam Code, in their assimilated darkness, failed to affix any Rambam halacha to the B’hag, Rif, or Rosh common law codes.  The latter understood that the Gemarah halachot serve as the “70 faces to the Torah”, they view the language of the Home Mishna from different perspectives to make depth re-interpretations of the obvious פשט language of the Home Mishna!  

This criticism, equally applies to Rabbeinu Tam the leader of the Baali Tosafot common law commentary upon the Talmud.  Going off the dof in search of a legal precedent permits the scholar to view his sugya of Gemara based upon a radically different perspective – “70 faces to the Torah”.  However, the Baali Tosafot commentaries, approximately 60 common law scholars, failed to make the required משנה תורה and make a “Legislative Review” of the language of the Home Mishna which the Gemara comments by way of comparing precedent cases!

Rashi’s common law commentary to the Chumash – radically differs from Rashi’s dictionary like פשט commentary to the Talmud.  For this reason Rabbeinu Tam challenged the Rashi commentary made upon the Talmud.  The question stands:  Why did Rashi change from his common law פשט based upon T’NaCH and Talmudic Bavli and Yerushalmi precedent to writing a dictionary of terms to explain the language of the Talmud?  Answer:  Rashi witnessed the 1st Crusades and the slaughter of the Jews in Germany.  Rabbeinu Tam died before the Rambam published his statute law abomination in approximately 1185.  The Baali Tosafot placed the Rambam into נידוי in Paris 1232.  A decade later, the Pope and King of France burned all the Talmudic manuscripts in Paris.  

King Philip IV of France (also known as Philip the Fair) expelled all Jews from France in 1306. This uprooted and destroyed the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship. Whereas the P’rushim defeated the assimilated Tzeddukiim, which the lights of Hanukkah remember; the Rambam forced Rabbeinu Yonah to write Shari Tshuva. Rashi feared the Goyim might learn how to study the Talmud as common law. Therefore he concealed this basic kabbalah limited only to his commentary to the Chumash. He did not even extend it to his commentaries upon the NaCH or Midrash!

The Jews in ארץ ישראל possessed the wisdom, how to obey Torah mitzvot לשמה.  The Jews in living under the Torah Av tumah curse of g’lut, did not possess the wisdom, how to obey Torah mitzvot לשמה.  A simple מאי נפקא מינא, just that simple.  No fancy dance’n.  (Hence I refuse to travel to g’lut lands because I know I would immediately eat treif foods pork and shrimp yum yum.)

The כלל to anything in life, but most especially to T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship לשמה – ORDER.  The Siddur functions as the יסוד upon which both the T’NaCH prophetic mussar and Talmudic halachah stand.  Just that simple.  No fancy dance’n.  Therefore, sugya integrity defines how to study and learn both T’NaCH and Talmud.  This discipline of scholarship known, as taught to me by Rav Nemuraskii, as learning through a sh’itta.

The internal ORDER of each and every sugya of Gemara – throughout the Sha’s Bavli and Yerushalmi.  Post Shoah, Xtianity and Islam have destroyed their Good Name reputations.  Jews have reconquered our homeland.  Goyim rot as stinking Palestinian dhimmi refugees and Xtians wait for the 2nd coming of their Gods.  What struck fear in Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, no longer exists.  The shoe worn on the other foot today. 

Can our generations achieve self-determination in our Homeland and make the Torah the Constitution of our Republic of 12 Tribes?  Can we build the lateral Sanhedrin Federal Court System of common law Legislative Review?  These two fundamental questions shape and define Jewish identity today.  The purpose of T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship today does not resemble the Reshonim need to codify a Jewish religion for Jewish communities scattered across g’lut having little or no communication between communities.  Today we can communicate in seconds what Jews then took perhaps generations!  The reality of the times determines the Halacha.  This issue which confronts our generations today, can we bring a re-birth to the chosen people, the Cohen sons and daughters of the Avot? 
________________________________________
________________________________________

This Mesechta of Gemara includes the commentary of the Ran רבינו נסים.  He merits respect perhaps on par with the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh, and Tosafot.  If Spain produced a ‘Golden Age’, perhaps he best defines it.  The Ran emphasized the importance of the oral tradition and the interpretations of earlier authorities, including the Baali Tosafot.  The Ran did not support the cherem (excommunication) issued by the Baali Tosafot against the Rambam’s works, but he did align with the concerns raised by the Rosh (Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel) and others regarding the potential implications of the Rambam’s rationalist approach. The Rosh was particularly critical of the Rambam’s philosophical ideas and their impact on Jewish faith.

Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel, the Rosh, openly critical of the Rambam and supported the cherem against his works, viewing them as a threat to traditional Jewish beliefs. He believed that the Rambam’s rationalism could lead to heretical ideas.  The Ran, while critical of certain elements of the Rambam’s philosophy, maintained a more nuanced position, recognizing the value of the Rambam’s legal contributions while also advocating for adherence to traditional interpretations and the authority of earlier scholars.

The distinction between Jewish common law (halacha) and Roman statute law is an important aspect of legal theory, particularly in the context of medieval Jewish scholarship.  Jewish Common Law (Halacha): This refers to the body of Jewish law derived from the Torah, Talmud, and later rabbinic interpretations. It is often characterized by its case-based nature, where legal principles are derived from specific cases and precedents.  Roman Statute Law: This refers to the codified laws of the Roman legal system, which organized legal principles into systematic categories. Roman law had a more formalized structure, with clear definitions and classifications.

The Rosh emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of Jewish law as distinct from external legal systems, such as Roman law. He was critical of the Rambam’s codification efforts, particularly in the Mishneh Torah, which he felt could blur the lines between Jewish common law and alien legal traditions developed by both the Greek and Roman civilizations.

The Ran, while respecting the Rambam’s contributions, did not emphasize the same differentiation between Jewish common law and Roman statute law. His approach was more focused on the practical application of halacha and the integration of various legal sources, including the Rambam’s codification.

The differing approaches of the Ran and the Rosh reflect broader debates within Jewish legal thought about the nature of halacha, the influence of external legal systems, and the importance of maintaining a distinct Jewish legal identity. The Rosh’s emphasis on the uniqueness of Jewish law contrasts with the Ran’s more integrative approach, highlighting the complexities of legal scholarship in medieval Judaism.

Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, the Baali Mor, wrote a commentary critical of the Rif common law commentary written upon the Talmud. He learn the Gemara as precedent halachot by which a person could re-interpret the original language of the Mishna. Hence he learned by reliance upon other Primary Source precedents to understand the language of the Talmud viewed from multiple perspectives. Like the Front/Top\Side views of a blue-print. His chief criticism on the Rif, that his code diminished the depth fluidity of inductive logic reasoning which compares Case/Law to similar precedent Case/Law. The Baali Mor emphasized the importance of studying the Gemara as a source of halachic precedent. He believed that the Gemara should be used to reinterpret the original language of the Mishnah, allowing for a deeper understanding of the legal principles involved.  

A Baali Mor’s chief criticism(s) of the Rif – that his codification diminished the depth and fluidity of inductive reasoning in halachic analysis. The Rif’s structured approach, caused scholars to read his p’sok halacha in a simplified טיפש פשט sh’itta, which confused the inductive vs. deductive reasoning dispute which the Rambam later exploded into a bitter Jewish Civil War.  Court room common law makes ‘compare and contrast’ essential for inductive reasoning.  Essential for deriving legal principles from specific precedent Case instances.  

The Baali Mor advocated for a more dynamic interpretation of halacha, where the law is not seen as static but rather as adaptable to different circumstances.  Talmud in his opinion serves as the model for later common law court room jurisprudence.  This perspective encourages ongoing interpretation and application of halachic principles based on the complexities of real-life situations.  His critique of the Rif highlights the ongoing dialogue within Jewish scholarship about what right then required prioritization. 

Religious halachic codifications vs. the fluidity of legal reasoning which differentiate the brief precedents brought by the prosecution vs. the defense.  In practical terms he differentiates and prioritizes Judicial common law courts from religious codifications.  The latter permits the common man in scattered g’lut communities to easily determine and shape religious halachic faith.  The RambaN wrote מלחמת השם because he recognized the dire needs of g’lut Jews scattered abroad to have access to clear codes of Jewish ritual religious law.

Sugya integrity defines the substance of all Talmudic common law scholarship.  The Rambam Code destroyed this יסוד, like as does Dof Yomi today.  Sugya integrity has an opening and closing thesis statement.  All points of halacha raised in the body of the sugya must fit somewhere on the sh’itta “line” which connects the dots between the opening thesis statement and the closing restatement of the same thesis statement … משנה תורה.  The opening sugya starts on dof .ב and concludes at dof :ג.  The language of the Mishna which requires a משנה תורה re-interpretation of the original language: האשה נקנית בג’ דרכים וקונה את עצמה בב’ דרכים.

The opening thesis statement: האשה נקנית.  מאי שנא הכא דתני האשה נקנית ו ומה שכתב התם דתני האיש מקדש משום דקא בעי למיתני דתני ה כסף. Compare this to the closing משנה תורה restatement of the Opening thesis statement: מה יבמה שאינה יוצאת בגט יוציא בחליצה קמ”ל. ואימא ה”נ אמר קרא ספר כריתות. ספר כירתה, ואין דבר אחר כורתה Now the question stands: How does the closing thesis statement amplify the opening this statement?
The phrase “A woman is acquired” refers to the legal framework of marriage in Jewish law (halacha). However, it is crucial to understand that this term does not imply that a woman is treated as a commodity or object like a slave or a prostitute. Instead, it reflects the formal legal process of marriage, which involves mutual consent and specific actions.  A Jewish woman is not comparable to a slave or a whore because her acquisition in marriage is based on mutual respect, commitment, and legal obligations. The concept of acquisition in marriage (kiddushin) is fundamentally different from the transactional nature of slavery or prostitution.

Hence the closing thesis statement makes a מאי נפקא מינא separation/distinction between קידושין and חליצה.  These two points establish the sh’itta line of all the rest of the subject matter raised in the body of this the opening Mishna of קידושין.  

Barth argued that God reveals Himself primarily through Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. He emphasized that human understanding of God must come from divine revelation rather than human reason or experience. The horrors of the Nazi Shoah revealed that Goyim worship air and no God. Jesus and his Father in Heaven – as dead as a door nail.

Barth’s obtuse theology distinguished between the “Word of God” (Jesus Christ) and the “words of men” (human interpretations). He believed that true theology must focus on the former, asserting that any human attempt to understand God must be grounded in the revelation of Christ. What utter pie in the sky religious rhetoric nonsense. The bible sophomoric translations of the Hebrew T’NaCH — all written by men. Most of whom had absolutely no or very little knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic – the original language of the Hebrew T’NaCH.

None of the sophomoric bible Xtian translators new the difference between T’NaCH and Talmudic common law from Roman statute law. None of these absolute ignoramuses understood the difference between Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס inductive reasoning from Aristotle’s deductive syllogism reasoning! The two divergent logic formats day and night different. Yet uneducated Xtian translators of their so called “Word of God” bibles as ignorant as bees on the rump of a braying ass.

Barth often contrasted the Pauline utter religious rhetoric theological nonsense of “Human sinfulness (Original Sin of Adam) with God’s grace. Never does his empty religious rhetoric ever question how grace as a Godly attribute revealed to Moshe at Horev distinguishes itself from Mercy or Great Chessed or Truth ect other attributes revealed to Moshe at Horev 40 days after the Sin of the Golden Calf.

Barth’s theology of a Universal God argues that this God owns absolute sovereignty, wholly transcendent. Which completely ignores the Jewish Tribal God revealed only to Israel at Sinai, which the Xtian and Muslim religions utterly rejected that revelation, which understands HaShem as a local tribal God of the Hebrew Chosen Cohen people alone. Outside of Judea/Israel HaShem as a local tribal God has absolutely no sovereignty transcendent rule.

Hence outside of the oath sworn lands no one can worship HaShem לשמה; this represents the Torah curse imposed upon g’lut/exiled Jews. And Goyim who never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – how much more so! Central to Barth’s theology is the belief that all theological reflection must be centered on Christ. This narishkeit exposes Av tumah avoda zarah; Torah defines faith as the righteous pursuit of judicial justice wherein the Sanhedrin common law courts strive to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.

Av tumah avoda zarah promote theological creed rhetoric which dictates what believers must believe in this or that or some other God. Bonhoeffer’s political stance against the Nazis is admirable — he resisted a church that bent its knee to Hitler. But the substance of his theology remained trapped within the very Christian framework of Barth’s bankrupt and void theology. Barth and Bonhoeffer both anchor “truth” in Christology, a theological rhetoric divorced from judicial justice or covenantal precedent. Both preserve Pauline substitution theology (sin/grace, Christ as “Word of God”), which replaces Torah’s oath alliance revelation with mythic universality.

Neither ever engaged in Torah common law precedent vs. Roman statute law — nor did they recognize the practical, courtroom-based definition of faith as צדק צדק תרדוף. Bonhoeffer opposed Nazism, but he did so with bankrupt theological tools. His “religionless Christianity” or “cost of discipleship” never escaped Barth’s fundamental error: mistaking a theological creed for covenantal justice. Even resistance to Nazi tyranny in German Protestant circles still operated inside the false logic of avoda zarah. They never questioned the Pauline framework that itself fed centuries of Jew-hatred, pogroms, blood libels, and ultimately the Shoah.

______________________________

Rubies Corner’s Blog

Rubies Corner’s Blog·rubiescorner.wordpress.com·1h ago

Did I Tell You?

I finished my Bible, and now I am reading it again. I have a goal for this year, so I don’t hesitate to pick up my Bible and read for awhile. Since I just finished, I am starting over….
______________________________
______________________________
You could try learning the Hebrew T’NaCH – a radically different collection of books – rather than reading your Xtian bible translations. The Hebrew T’NaCH has translations, it even includes the non Jewish chapters and verses which so completely pervert the Xtian bible sophomoric translations. What difference does Order make? God vs Dog.

The T’NaCH organized into sugyot (translated as sub-chapters). What difference does this make? The fundamental basis of the Hebrew T’NaCH stands upon a fundamental question. Does a person learn this literature לשמה או לא לשמה? To quote Shakespeare: To be or not to be — That is the question.

Sophomoric bible translations never once bring the Name revealed in the opening Sinai commandment. Because the Xtian church does not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, it worships their own versions of the Golden Calf. טיפש פשט – translated as bird brained – makes literal translations of abstract obstruse ideas of mussar. This latter term, mussar, it defines the meaning of the word “prophesy”. Prophets command mussar. Meaning that this prophetic mussar applies to all generations of bnai brit who ever walk the face of the Earth.

Prophets do not predict the future as the Roman counterfeit new testament: “fulfill the words of the prophets” falsely proclaims. The Torah refers to this concept of “prophesy” which it describes through the “prophet” Bil’aam; that prophet practiced כשוף – witchcraft or sorcery, practices that involve magical or supernatural powers; engaging in Av tuma avoda zarah – forbidden or occult practices forbidden by the 2nd Sinai commandment.

The Roman forgery known as the new testament employs a lot of Greek rhetoric. Greek rhetoric: undefined critical terms upon which a religious or political witch “hangs” all subsequent ideas. Obama in the 2008 election employed the witchcraft rhetoric of “CHANGE”. The key term that won two Presidential elections for him. Problem: never in eight years did he ever once make any attempt to define this magical term “CHANGE”. The Arab false prophet Muhammad did the exact same thing in his Koran.

The word “prophet” repeated over and again and again. Never once does the Koran ever define the abstract obstruse term “prophet”. The new testament projects a definition of the term prophet, as mentioned above, that duplicates the Torah concept of witchcraft – predicting the future. The Hebrew T’NaCH defines prophesy as “MUSSAR”; prophets do not predict the future but rather their mussar applies equally to all generations. The outcome of this critical T’NaCH definition of this absolutely critical term “prophet” … T’NaCH commands prophetic mussar but it does NOT teach history. This subtle shift requires a bit of time to sink in once consciousness.

Another example of religious rhetoric which the new testament forgery employs, the Apostle Paul, its concept of 1. You are not under the Law. 2. Original Sin of Adam, guilt complex employed to serve as the pretext for the death and resurrection of JeZeus. 1. The rhetoric of “law”; T’NaCH defines “law” as Judicial courtroom judgments – as law. Whereas Roman law exists as rules and regulations imposed by Caesar or the Roman Senate. Paul’s rhetoric “not under the law” fails to differentiate between judicial common law vs. legislative statute law. Hence Xtians “read” their bible sophomoric translations oblivious that T’NaCH instructs judicial common law through a Case/Rule style. This latter type of “law” stands upon the foundation of earlier judicial courtroom “precedent” rulings. Statute law has not such requirement which would force a person to write a ‘legal brief’ and present possible similar and related court room ruling made prior to the current case heard before the Court. The subtle distinction that comes out of making a comparison of similar Case/Rule judicial judgments – the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev which rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah defines as פרדס p’shat remiz drosh sod.

This logic system format radically different from Aristotle’s 3 part Syllogism. Akiva’s logic format – inductive reason; whereas Aristotle’s methodology deductive reasoning. Both systems of logic have their strengths and weaknesses. But Paul’s religious rhetoric: “You are not under the Law”, obliterated any and all distinctions which separate common law from statute law and inductive logic from deductive logic.

The other Pauline term of religious rhetoric: Original Sin. It implies that humanity inherits guilt from Adam’s transgression. The church amplified this concept into a Fire and brimstone Heaven/Hell God/Satan polarity, which later developed into Calvin’s doctrine of complete Human depravity. Based upon the presumption of Paul’s “Original Sin”. Meaning: that the will of fallen Man enslaved in bondage to sin, and individuals cannot exercise free will as their “Moses” liberator who leads the enslaved church to salvation. Herein the requirement for the resurrection of JeZeus. Central to Calvin’s theology, the doctrine of predestination, defines his religious rhetoric. This Golden Calf replacement theology subsumes the Torah Central theme of “the Chosen Cohen People who do service to HaShem through the dedication of tohor middot” to the replacement church which believes in a false messiah JeZeus. The latter term refers to the 13 Attributes which became revealed to Moshe on Yom Kippur 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב/mixed multitudes replaced the Divine Presence Spirit Name with the word אלהים. The 13 attributes, they define the revelation of the Written Torah at Sinai. How?

These 13 “middot” (translated as measurements) breath as living Spirits from within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart. Air comes from the lungs but tohor spirits come from the heart. Hence the Talmud refers to tefillah as a “matter of the heart”. Whereas the book of the gospel John declares that the Logos/word – not just a spoken word but also a principle of order and knowledge. It refers to JeZeus as the pre-existent divine being. Logos/word rhetoric salad asserts “the Word was God” which establishes the belief in the full divinity of JeZeus.

The revelation of the Golden Calf rejects substitute theology as the definition of Av tuma (evil inclination spirits within the heart called Yatrir Ha’Rah) of avoda zarah (often mistranslated as idolatry). Therefore then how does the Hebrew T’NaCH “study” rather than simply read Common law (משנה תורה)? The first book of בראשית introduces Av tohor mitzvot – known as time-oriented commandments. The next three books of the Written Torah introduce secondary commandments (תולדות) which function as legal precedents. The last 5th book of the Torah (משנה תורה) confirms the mandate of judicial common law as ‘Legislative Review’. Meaning the common law Sanhedrin courts have not only a veto over lower government statute laws but can entirely re-write the lower government statute law and present them now as Torah common laws.

In short, Paul’s religious rhetoric of “Original Sin” supplanted the main Torah theme of exile/g’lut as expressed through Adam’s expusion from the Garden, Noach’s Ark, the enslavement of Israel in Egypt, and the 40 year Wilderness story.

First and foremost Rule #1. Both the T’NaCH and Talmud teach Torah common law. Modern Hebrew employs תקדים\תקדימים  as the translation for precedent(s).  Other Hebrew that you might have heard, I tend to doubt it, in Yeshiva:   הלכה פסוקה .  The Torah specifically states the precondition for eyewitness testimony in court cases both  דני ממון ודני נפשות. 

Another example: אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות.   Now compare eyewitness testimony to  נצב התורה על ידי ראיות.  Now turn to the Siddur and the 13 rules of Rabbi Yishmael.  These rules function as a logical corollary to Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס logic. It truly bothers me that your Yeshiva rabbis never refer to the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days after the Sin of the Golden Calf\substitution theology wherein the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים attempted to introduce a translation of the שם השם לשמה (((That’s how the first Sinai commandment qualifies as a Torah commandment in the first place! All other Torah commandments: Do a person of the Chosen Cohen people do mitzvot לשמה או לא לשמה? Hence the 1st Sinai commandment: the Greatest most important commandment in the whole of the Torah.)))

Yeshiva rabbis who fail to teach T’NaCH and Talmud as common law directly compare to the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים. Yeshivot produce “suits”, uniforms, styles in how to wear ones’ socks! Fancy Fur Burgers they wear on their Heads. The Yiddish term קאפוטע the common garb of the ultra-orthodox in Israel.  But the Torah does not address these archaic European nonsense foreign imported cultures and customs which Orthodox Judaism has religified.   

Your father learned and became a Torah educator.  The modern “Wilderness generation” of the 1920s & 30s, cowardly refused to make aliyah to the Palestine mandate.   Chaim Weizmann made the statement “Jews of the world – Where are you?” in 1936.  Three years later, the criminal coward in 10 Downing Street Chamberlain imposed the 2nd White Paper which barred Palestine as a refuge for Jews seeking to flee from the European barbarians.  The “precedent” of the British White Paper of 1939 directly influenced the decision made by President FDR to close all US borders to Jews attempting to flee from the Nazi Shoah!

Chaim Weizmann’s lamentation, “Jews of the world – Where are you?” reflects his deep concern regarding the Jewish diaspora’s response to the opportunities presented by the League of Nations’ Palestine mandate. He expressed frustration over the limited Jewish immigration (aliyah) to Palestine, especially in the context of rising anti-Semitism in Europe during the 1930s.

Hence it appears a direct connection exists between the Wilderness generation in the Torah to the Orthodox Judaism rabbis of Europe in the 1920s and 30s who forbade Jews to participate in Zionism.  Zionism defined through the 1917 Balfour Declaration as Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East.  The League of Nation introduced the Palestine Mandate of 1922 based upon the Balfour Declaration.  The Balfour Declaration defines the meaning and intent of Zionism to this day.

Jewish self-determination means for our generations living right now: Can we restore the order and organization of the 12 Tribes “Republic”?  Democracy – a word that’s all the rage and fashion today – has its origins from Athens ancient Greece!  Think about this when you light the lights of Chanukkah.  Do you do this mitzva as just a ritual practicing “suit” robot OR do you understand why Jews light the lights of Chanukkah for thousands of years!

The Oral Torah – a logic system.  This 4 part logic system – פרדס – stands in stark contrast to Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism.  Akiva’s logic based upon inductive logical comparisons of similar cases – Jewish common law.  Aristotle’s logic based upon deductive logical reasoning based upon Order.  The siddur has the root of סדר.  Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot work hand-in-glove with Akiva’s kabbalah of inductive reasoning.   בנין אב מכתוב אחד  בנין אב משני כתובים.  

It disturbs me that your instructors have betrayed their teaching obligations!  These basic terms of Common law\משנה תורה totally alien to you.  No Yeshiva educator ever differentiated between Judicial common law courtroom laws FROM statute law which Parliaments/Knesset governments imposes as law enforced by the police upon their subject people!  You suffer from being “brain-washed”.

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors of a population. It often involves the dissemination of information, ideas, or rumors that are biased or misleading, with the intent to promote a particular political cause or point of view. Propaganda can take various forms, including media campaigns, speeches, educational materials, and public service announcements. Governments often use propaganda to foster a sense of national identity and unity among citizens. By promoting a specific narrative about the nation’s history, values, and goals, they can create a shared sense of purpose and belonging. This is particularly important in multicultural societies where diverse backgrounds may lead to differing perspectives.

Through public education, governments can shape public opinion on key issues. By controlling the curriculum and the information presented in schools, they can emphasize certain viewpoints while downplaying or omitting others. This can lead to a population that is more aligned with government policies and ideologies.  Governments may use propaganda to justify their policies, especially during times of conflict or crisis. By framing their actions in a positive light and portraying opponents negatively, they can gain public support for decisions that might otherwise be controversial or unpopular.

By instilling specific beliefs and values in the education system, governments can cultivate compliance and loyalty among citizens. This can be achieved through the promotion of patriotism, respect for authority, and adherence to societal norms, which can discourage dissent and encourage conformity.  Governments may seek to control the flow of information to prevent dissenting views from gaining traction. By promoting a singular narrative in educational settings, they can limit exposure to alternative perspectives, effectively “brainwashing” individuals into accepting the government’s viewpoint as the only valid one.

The effects of propaganda in education can be long-lasting. Individuals who are educated under a specific ideological framework may carry those beliefs into adulthood, influencing future generations. This creates a cycle where propaganda becomes ingrained in the culture, making it more challenging to challenge or change. Propaganda serves as a powerful tool for governments to influence and control the beliefs and behaviors of their citizens through public education. By shaping narratives and controlling information, they can foster compliance, loyalty, and a unified national identity, often at the expense of critical thinking and diverse perspectives.

An example of propaganda education: no rabbi in any Yeshiva you ever learned in throughout your life has differentiated the distinctions between T’NaCH-Talmudic “common law” from Greek-Roman “statute law”; specifically never has any educator in any Yeshiva in Israel denounced the halachic codifications published by Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch as assimilated Roman statute law.  No educator ever pointed out the abomination of the Tzeddukim assimilation to Greek statute law wherein they attempted to cause the Jewish people to forget the “Oral” Torah … which we light the lights of Hanukkah to specifically “remember”.

This shabbat past we discussed the “ORDER” of all Gemara sugyot.  The methodology of learning a Gemara sugya by way of a 3 part syllogism logic.  When Rabbeinu Tam jumps off the dof of Gemara to some other Gemara sugya you must learn its גזרה שווה comparative Case/Din learning obeys the כלל-פרט logic of rabbi Yishmael. To correctly learn any Tosafot commentary which learns by common law precedents requires that you compare the פרט of the brought גזרה שווה with the כלל of the larger Gemara sugya which includes that גזרה שווה פרט. The framers of the Talmud, Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina – together with the Sovaraim 450 to 600 CE, they edited and organized each and every sugya of Gemara into a כלל\פרט logical format. 

An utter disgrace that your Yeshiva educators totally ignore the foundation “editors” of the Shas Bavli.  How the Shas Yerushalmi serves as the foundational source of halachic precedents to “understand” (meaning to actively compare like from like to develop the skills required to discern and understand the subtle distinctions and differences.  T’rumah and chol grains acquired from the exact same fields!  Worlds separate the one from the other.  On par with kosher slaughter vs. Goyim slaughter of cattle!  Another example: Why does the Gemara of Chullen include the minority opinion of rabbi Yechuda who insists that a shochet with fear of heaven cuts the carotid arteries? 

Worked in a slaughterhouse, and none of those kashrut rabbis could answer this fundamental basic question. Answer: A butcher of common beef does not compare to a Cohen who slaughters to gather the “living blood” dedicated on the altar for that korban. That opening Mishna of Chullen, like every other opening Mishna of every Mishna in the Sha’s of rabbi Yechuda’s Great Sanhedrin common law compilation (the Tosefta might include judicial common law rulings of Small Sanhedrin courts), this Av Mishna of Chullen prioritizes the middah of יראת שמים – which means Baal Shem Tov/Master of the Good Name “reputation”.

Chullen rules that if an Apecorkus slaughters an animal – even correctly – its meat remains treif. The Rambam טיפש פשט argues that everything depends upon “knowledge”. Yet this explanation collapses when one addresses the Gemara ruling concerning the Apecorkus! Answer: the Apecorkus lacks ‘Fear of Heaven’, therefore his correctly slaughtered beef remains treif.

Before closing till I hear back from you, the Gemara of קידושין absolutely requires Torah precedents. A man does not love that which he does not own. How does a man “acquire” his wife. That woman, neither a slave or a whore both of which acquired through בכסף בשטר ובביאה. The primary pre-conditions established within the language of the Av Mishna of קידושין.

In the 5 Books of the Torah, בראשית introduces not simply the טיפש פשט of the Avot: Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. Rather, this first Book of the Torah revelation introduces Av-mitzvot – tohor time-oriented mitzvot which have the power to בראשית the chosen Cohen people from nothing in all generations and times. Genetics and Race does not make the chosen Cohen people. Tohor time-oriented commandments Creates from nothing the chosen Cohen people! The Book of בראשית introduces Av tohor time-oriented commandments.

According to the B’HaG these Av tohor time-oriented commandments include even Rabbinic commandments elevated to Av tohor time-oriented commandments as מצוות דאורייתא. The Rambam, his “egg-crate” organization of Torah commandments limited to commandments found within the language of the Written Torah. This man had the Chutzpah to call his Av tuma avoda zarah assimilation to Greek and Roman “statute law” halacha, by the Name of the Book of D’varim-משנה תורה.

Orthodox Judaism propaganda fails to differentiate between the common law classic commentaries written on the Talmud by Reshonim: the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh and Baali Tosafot from the Av tuma avoda zara statute law assimilated rabbis the Rambam, the son of the Rosh, and Karo. No Yeshiva ever informed you that the rabbis of Paris placed the Rambam into נידוי in 1232. Or that 10 years later the Poop/Pope and the king of France burned all the Talmud manuscripts in Paris France and thereafter expelled all the Jews of France which permanently destroyed the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship. The failure of Orthodox Judaism in the generation prior to the Shoah which slaughtered 75% of European Jewry in less than 3 years, these rabbis have permanently destroyed their ‘Good Name’ reputations.