סוף סוגיה א קידושין: משנה תורה

The opening sugya of each and every mesechta of the Talmud compares to the first ברכה in the Shemone Esrei; only this ברכה employs the שם ומלכות requirement k’vanna אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב. Impossible to translate שם ומלכות with a טיפש פשט literal translation. ברכת כהנים, קריא שמע, תפילה, וקדיש all av ברכות lack the literal שם ומלכות expressed through rabbinic ברכות which start with the classic opening of swearing a Torah oath: ברוך אתה ה’ אלהינו מלך עולם.

The wisdom of שם ומלכות the fundamental difference between מלאכה from עבודה, based upon the first commandment of Sinai – the greatest commandment in the entire Torah: אנכי ה’ אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים. Israel in g’lut of Egypt (לאו דוקא) all lands outside of the brit oath sworn lands amount to g’lut. Hence the first commandment only applicable to Jews who live and rule our oath brit homelands. Jews in g’lut remain in “Egypt” and therefore the first Sinai commandment does not apply to them.

The revelation of the Torah at Sinai makes a clear הבדלה through the משל\נמשל metaphor of the Mishkan, as expressed through the Book of שמות. G’lut slaves forced to live their lives drudging through the cursed Earth of working/עבודה making a living off the sweat of their brow. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai introduces, specifically through the mitzva of Shabbat, & the construction of the vessels of the Mishkan a “wisdom” form of work known as מלאכה. Therefore all mesechtot of the Sha’s Talmud prioritize the need to differentiate cursed g’lut עבודה from blessed wisdom מלאכה. Both Goyim and Joys struggle to marry and raise children. But only the latter elevate this basic fundamental task unto a blessed מלאכה which causes the first born chosen Cohen people to live from generation to generation dedicated to the מלאכה of elevating קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות שלא צריך כוונה לטהר זימן גרמא מצוות שנזקוק כוונה.

What separates or רב חסד\מאי נפקא מינא the verb נזקוק from the verb צריך? Specifically in the matter of קידושין, a Man marries a woman in order to give birth to the next generations of the Chosen Cohen People. נזקוק “We will need”; צריך “Need” or “necessary”. נזקוק Future tense, first-person plural; צריך Infinitive form. נזקוק Used when referring to a specific future need or requirement – known as O’lam Ha’bah. צריך Generally indicates necessity, often used in various contexts. נזקוק Implies a planned or anticipated need; צריך More immediate or general need.

Why do טהר זימן גרמא מצוות נזקוק כוונה? Whereas קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות לא צריך כוונה? The former a wisdom מלאכה, whereas the latter, like doing mitzvot because the Shulkan Aruch says so neither a wisdom nor a מלאכה. Hence this type of Torah observance known as עבודת השם. People can do mitzvot by rote, or by the numbers, simply out of habit and mindless tradition. The difference between these two critically different verbs … the difference between ruling the oath sworn lands with righteous judicial justice imposing courts together with prophet police enforcers from religiously observing mitzvot in what ever land a Jew happens to reside therein.

זימן גרמא מצוות נברא מלאכים תולדות מצוות לא נברא מלאכים. Its this fundamental distinction which permits the Jews living in ארץ ישראל to either defeat our enemies in any and all wars or fall before the swords of our hated enemies and go into g’lut. The מלאכה of the study of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law spins continuously around this Central axis…everything else simply commentary. Elevating stam mitzvot unto tohor time oriented Av Torah commandments … herein defines the essence of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai in a single sentence.

The Bullwinkle characters, otherwise known as the Reshonim, they lacked this essential clarity of what defines all T’NaCH and Talmud scholarship. Why? Because cursed g’lut Jews cannot do mitzvot לשמה.
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
הא קמשמע לן דאתרוג כירק מה ירק דרכו ליגדל על כל מים ובשעת לקיטתו עישורו, אף אתרוג דרכו ליגדל על כל מים ובשעת לקיטתו עישורו. והא דתנן כוי יש בו דרכים שוה לחיה וש דרכים שוה לבהמה
In terms of kashrut a כוי, qualifies as a tumah animal. The כוי can symbolize certain qualities or behaviors that need to be understood when applying moral or ethical teachings in Jewish law. The Talmud often presents specific cases where the status of the כוי comes into play, including questions of ownership, tithing, and other relational dynamics with humans. The subject of קידושין addresses the subject of “ownership” through the acquisition of the Nefesh O’lam Ha’Bah of the woman’s soul, specifically title to the children born into the future through this marital union.
ויש בו דרכים שאינו שוה לא לחיה ולא לבהמה. ניתני דברים ותו הא דתנן 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 אתרוד שוה לאילן כל דבר ש”מ.
The 8th middah אמת understood under the heading of דרכים as opposed to דברים! Goyim by stark contrast employ truth as if no dispute exists. That truth stands as irrefutable. The culture and customs of the Jewish people reject this definition of “truth” as utter arrogance and hypocrisy and if power determines truth. The schism with splits and divides all the many and diverse divisions of both Xtianity and Islam centers upon who controls the monopoly of religious belief and practice.

As an Israeli living in the Jewish state clearly my opinion takes a rather dim view of the Bullwinkle Reshonim scholarship upon both the T’NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim, and Siddur. The עשרת הדברות serves as a clear example. The Talmud understands that Israel only accepted the First TWO Sinai Commandments before we demanded that Moshe receive the rest of the Torah; the repetition of the “Xtian” ten commandments, in the Book of דברים, serve as “Mishna” precedents to understand the Torah commandment, to remember the deliverance from Egyptian exile – contained within the first Sinai commandment and the קריא שמע acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven; meaning the obligation to do tohor time-oriented commandments to תמיד מעשה בראשית created the chosen Cohen people יש מאין through the wisdom of מלאכה.

The so called 10 commandments serve as a בנין אב to remember how HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt through the 10 plagues – to forever discern g’lut from ruling the oath sworn lands of Canaan with righteous judicial lateral court common ‘legislative review’ law. The first two Torah commandments contain the whole of the Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev! All the rest of the Torah commandments and Talmudic Halachot function merely as commentaries.

Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina, they sealed the Sha’s Bavli; Rabbis Yohanan, Abbahu, and Hiyya sealed the Yerushalmi Talmud. G’lut Jewry has since placed the Bullwinkle Reshonim upon a pedestal and made them into cults of personality. But the wisdom of our sages accomplished a מלאכה, by sealing the T’NaCH, Talmud, and Siddur they “sealed” an identical masoret to all generations of the Jewish people. Rashi thereafter learned in his commentary to the Talmud that post sealing of the Sha’s Jews need only employ the קל וחומר the last middah of rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot. Meaning that this one rule permits employment of all the middot of rabbi Yishmael, to learn precedents from one Gemara compared to other mesechtot of the Sha’s. Sealing the Sha’s gave all down stream generations of Israel an identical masoret. The secondary Reshonim commentaries do not in any way resemble the sealed masoret established by the Framers of the Talmud.

תוס. דף ב: אתרוג שוה לאילן בג’ דרכים. פי’ בקונטרס לערלה ולרבעי ולשביעית דלענין שביעית הולכין בפירותיו אחר חנטה כאילן ולא בתר לקיטה כירק. וא”ת השתא משמע דרבעי נוהג באתרוג א”כ קשה מהכא למ”ד תני כרס רבעי בריש כיצד מברכין (ברכות דף לה.) דמשמע דאין רבעי נוהג בשאר אילנות. וי”ל דה”ק כרם רבעי כל היכא דמצי למתני דהיכא דל”מ למתני לא פליגי עליה דלא פליגי התם לומר שלא יסבור שום תנא נטע רבעי דשמא בר מההיא דאתרוג איכא פלוגתא דתנאי בהדיא בשום מקום ולא נחלקו אלא לסתום המשניות דסוף מס’ מעשר שני ובשאר דוכתין אי כמאן דסבר (ברכות דף לה.) נטע רבעי אי כמאן דסבר (שם) כרס רבעי לידע כמאן הלכתא וי”מ דאפי’ מאן דתני כרס רבעי מודה בשאר אילנות דמדרבנן נוהג והכא מדרבנן קאמר ויש לנו נפקיתא בדבר דאי פלידי דמאן דתני דכרס רבעי דוקא אבל בנטע אין רבעי כלל אפילו מדרבנן ואמרו (שבת דף קלט.) כל המיקל בארץ הלכה כמותו בחוצה לארץ וא”כ עכשיו בחו”ל אין דין רבעי נוהג באילנות ואי מדרבנן כ”ע מודו דנוהג בשאר אילנות ה”ה בחו”ל דרבעי נוהג מדרבנן ומה שפי’ בקונטרס לשביעית אזלינן בתר חנטה כאילן ולא בתר לקיטה כירק משמע מתוך פירושו דבירק אזלינן בתר לקיטה לענין שביעית ולא דק דבמס’ שביעית (פ”ט מ”א) תנן כל הספיחים מותרין חוץ מספיחי כרוב והקשה רבינו נסים דבפרק מקום שנהגו (פסחים דף נא:) תני איפכא ותרץ דבההיא דמס’ שביעית דקתני כל הספיחים מותרין מיירי בספיחים של ערב שביעית שנכנסו בשביעית דכיון שגדלו רובן בששית הם כשל ששית ומותרין אף לסחורה חוץ מזפיחי כרוב שהם אסורין לדחורה כדין שביעית או אחר הביעור לאכילה כדמפרשינן בירודלמי דכל ירק אתה יכול לעמוד עליו בין חדש בין ישן אבל ספיחי כרוב שדרכו לגדל אמהות אמהות ויש עלין שהם גדלים בשביעית ושמא יקח מן העלין שהן אסורין ויאמר מן האמהות לקחתי וההוא דמקום שנהגו (שם) דקתני כל הספיחים אסורים מיירי בספיחים שגדלו בשביעית ואליבא דרבי עקיבא דדריש וכי מאחר שלא נזרע מהיכן אוספין אלא לימד על הספיחים שהן אסורים אפילו לאכילה וכ”ש לסחורה וסבר דספיחים אסורין בשביעית מדאורייתא ואפילו קודם זמן הביעור וכשיצאו למוצאי שביעית אסור מדרבנן בכדי שיעשו כיוצא בהן וקסבר כל שאר ספיחים אסורים במוצאי שביעית אבל ספיחי כרוב שאין כיוצא בהן בירקות השדה לא גזריני בהם משום שאר ספיחים דהא מינכרא מילתא ומה שגידל אמהות הרי היא של שביעכית ואסור ומה שלא הגיע הרי הוא של מוצאי שביעית ושרי ומאן דחוי לגבר אינש דאכל ספיחי כרוב למוצאי שביעת לא אתי למיכל שאר ספיחים דהא שאני משאר ספיחים ולא גזרינן היתירא משום איסורא מ”מ ש”מ דלא אזלינן כלל בירק בתר לקיטה אלא בתר וב גידולים מדשרי ספיחי ששית שנכנסו לשביעית וי”ל דנהי דההיא דלא אזלינן בתר לקיטה מ”מ בתר חנטה נמי לא אזלינן אלא הגדל באיסור אסור בהיתר מותר מה שאין כן באתרוג ושאר אילן דאזלינן לגמרי בתר חנטה דאם חנט באיסור אפי’ מה שגדל בהיתר אח”כ אסור והשתא לשביעית שוה לאילן דאי הוה כירק הוה אזלינן תבר רוב גידול

A minor girl lacks the maturity to give her consent to קידושין acquisition, be it through כסף שטר או ביאה. Because she lacks the required mental maturity to give her consent, therefore none of these three ways – accomplishes the mitzva of קידושין. The Tosafot commentary emphasizes the importance of understanding the dynamics of learning common law precedents, to ensure that interpretations of how this etrog precedent בנין אב applies to the Case of קידושין. Specifically to the Case of a minor girl. The distinct acquisition methods (money, document, cohabitation) reflect appropriate legal qualifications, based upon certain implied basic limitations based upon age and maturity. A contract must follow and obey its pre-conditions wherein the signing parties to the contract stipulate their agreement.

Let’s now contrast Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale and their tits on a boar hog narishkeit puke commentaries which perverted Talmudic common law unto assimilated Roman statute law noise.

הלכות נזירות פ”ב:י.
היו מהלכין בדרך וראו את הכוי מרחוק ואמר אחד מהם הריני נזיר שזה חיה. ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שזה בהמה. ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שאין זה חיה. וטמא טחא הריני נזיר שאין זה בהמה. ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שאין זה לא חיה ולא בהמה. ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שזה בהמה וחיה הרי כולם נזירים. מפני שהכוי יש בו דרכים שוה בהן לחיה ויש בו דרכים שוה בהן לבהמה. ויש בו דרכים שוה לחיה ולבהמה ויש בו דרכים שאינו שוה לא לבהמה ולא לחיה. והוא הדין אם ראו אנדרוגינוס ונחלקו בו אם הוא איש או אשה ונדרו על דרך שנדרו אלו בכוי הרי כוךם נזירים. שהאנדרוגינוס יש בו דרכים שוה בהן לאיש. ודרכים שוה בהן לאשה. ודרכים שאינו שוה בהן לא לאיש ולא לאשה. ודרכים שהן שוין לאיש ולאשה.

כסף משנה — היו מהלכים בדרך וראו את הכוי מרחוק וכו’. משנה שם. מ”ש וה”ה אם ראו אנדרוגינוס וכו’. בתוספתא פ”ג

Neither this nor that provides any understanding of how the precedent of כוי serves to amplify how to correctly understand how a young girl compares or differs from a mature adult young woman! None of the assimilated statute legalist book lickers contribute squat to how the Case of כוי directly applies to the opening words of the Av Mishna of קידושין. The issue at hand has nothing what so ever to do with נזיר. Worthy trees cut down for this utter total noise narishkeit! Centuries of scholars and not one of them asked what נזיר has to do with a minor girl vs a mature young woman on the issue of קידושין.

Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale and all the Snidely Whiplash brown nose bootlickers who worship their Reshon placed upon a pie in the sky ירידות הדורות pedestal – their scholarship all Av tuma tits on a boar hog treif tuma garbage.

The Introduction of Prophetic mussar rather than Higher Criticism history speculations.

This 2nd Parsha of the Book of בראשית, Parshat Noach. The opening two Parshaot serve as an introduction of the Torah which formally begins with the 3rd Parsha – the introduction of Avraham the father of the chosen Cohen people. What do the opening first two Parshaot of בראשית introduce? This fundamentally basic question – it defines these two Parshaot.

Notice that the Torah introduces the Name אלהים rather than the שם השם לשמה. Herein serves as an introduction to the 7th Oral Torah middah רב חסד, which the Talmud interprets to mean as מאי נפקא מינא? The 7th Oral Torah attribute spirit distinguishes – something like as does the קידוש\הבדלה of shabbat the distinction between Av tohor time-oriented commandments from positive commandments. A fundamental מאי נפקא מינא wherein the Talmud discerns that the former Av Torah commandments require “k’vanna (an as yet undefined term which fundamentally requires definition) whereas the latter Torah mitzvot do not require k’vanna/כוונה.

The aggadic mussar story of the Book of בראשית, not at all challenged by the late 19th Century German Higher Criticism. The catastrophic events of the World Wars prompted a reevaluation of Enlightenment ideals, including the objectivity and rationality that underpinned Higher Critical methods. Scholars began to question the biases inherent in historical analysis. Post Shoah no more get out of jail free for Xtianity, with its Nazi rat-lines to prevent the execution of justice upon Nazi war criminals.

Fear of Heaven shapes the reputation of both Man in general and religious institutions in particular. The alliance between Lutheranism and Nazism during the Nazi regime in Germany presents a complex and troubling history which ultimately undermined late 19th Century German Higher Criticism. That both Catholic and Protestant Xtianity aided and assisted the Nazis. Pope Pius XII failed to even protest the Nazi slaughter of Rome’s Jews! Actions speak louder than priests or pastors screaming “Fear God”. The Nazi systematic slaughter of 75% of Western European Jewry while the Xtian church ignored oppression, theft, injustice and genocide permanently destroyed the good name of Xtianity.

Had the church condemned FDR’s decision to embrace Chamberlain’s White Paper and bar European refugees entrance to America perhaps the charge that the Xtian church lacks Fear of Heaven, would not stick to all eternity thereafter. Fear of Heaven, means protecting the Good Name reputation – just that simple. Post Shoah, Hitler and his Nazi SS mafia permanently destroyed the Good Name reputation of all branches of Xtianity; starting with German Protestant ‘Higher Criticism. Higher Criticism, which began to deconstruct traditional interpretations tied to authoritarian and nationalistic ideologies.

Perhaps the Talmud did not clarify crystal clear when Goyim abandoned all together the Brit faith and ipso facto worshipped other Gods. The בראשית aggadic mussar story therefore opens with אלהים כלל rather than the שם השם לשמה פרט. Why did HaShem accept the korban of young Hev’el and reject the Cohen First-born son Cain’s korban? The Torah revelation validate both types of korbanot! The Torah contains the רמז word ברית אש\בראשית. Just as the dispute between the two sons of Adam equally reflected in the רמז word ב’ ראשית. Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi interprets the language of kre’a shma בכל לבבך\כם based upon the Torah precedent: ב’ ראשית, two opposing Yatzirot struggle within the heart like as did Esau and Yaacov wrestled within the womb of Rivka.

Therefore, when exactly did the Goyim reject the ברית אש\בראשית? Concerning the two korbanot dedicated by the two opposing sons of Adam, Hevel’s korban accepted because his k’vanna dedicated the korban through the Torah oath (שם ומלכות) in the Name of the Creation oath brit. Cain’s korban rejected because his korban lacked k’vanna. Hence the distinction between Av tohor time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna from positive תולדות commandments which do not require k’vanna. Do the תולדות follow the Avot? This defining מאי נפקא מינא detail both mesechtot Shabbat and Baba Kama ask – this very question! Clearly the distinction in the case of the two opposing “Yatzirot” of Adam: Doing mitzvot stam does not follow doing mitzvot with the k’vanna of “oath brit”.

ולשת גם הוא ילד בן ויקרא את שמו אנוש אז הוחל לקרא בשם השם.

Following the murder of Hevel, Chava the wife of Adam gave birth to a third son. This third son, who did he follow? The masoret of murdered Hevel or the masoret of Cain? Touching Enosh, the Tanna Targum Onkelos writes: בכן ביומוהי חלו בני אנשא מלצלאה בשמא דהשם. Rashi, an early major Reshon, interprets – אז הוחל. לשון חולין, לקרת את שמות האדם ואת שמות העצבים בשמו של הקדוש ברוך רבים. הוא, לעשותן אלילים ולקרותן אלהות

Recall that the HaShem permitted Adam to call the created animals names in the last p’suk prior to the third aliya to the Torah. But the first born cohen son of שת, the son born after Cain murder Hevel. The Targum employs the verb מלצלאה בשמא דהשם. They prayed to HaShem. Whereas the Rashi explanation the 2nd generation אנוש, comparable to Chava’s: ותאמר האשה אל הנחש מפרי עץ הגן נאכל ומפרי העץ אשר בתוך הגן אמר אלהים לא תאכלו ממנו ולא תגעו בן פן תמתון. Chava added on to the original commandment as did the 2nd generation of Adam, Enosh, who started naming the stars with Divine Names. Just as the snake deceived Chava so to later down stream generations did a ירידות הדורות domino effect and stared worshipping other אלהים. This action of avoda zarah created Man created Gods in the image of Man.

Mesechta Sanhedrin asks the famous question: What caused the Flood disaster in the days of Noach? Answer ברית אש, the fire of the brit sworn oaths (שם ומלכות); the generation of Noach made false oaths! A Torah oath has the power to create through tohor time-oriented Av Torah commandments מלאכים; a Torah oath fundamentally requires שם ומלכות. But only Av tumah avoda zarah assumes that man can create Gods by means of swearing a Torah oath. This tumah yatzir/Yatzir Ha’Raw within the heart literally reads בראשית ברא אלהים. Attempts to create Gods יש מאין profanes ברית אש\בראשית. Herein the מאי נפקא מינא which distinguishes tohor middot from tumah middot; the Divine service of the chosen Cohen people forever separates Shabbat from Chol, זמן גרמא מצוות מן תולדות מצוות.

Its the discernment of fine distinctions which separates like from like which defines the concept of “understanding”. Upon this יסוד breathes the Divine Spirit רב חסד. This middah discerns time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna from תולדות commandments which do not require k’vanna. HaShem accepted the korban of 2nd born Hevel because he dedicated the korban לשם ברית. HaShem rejected the korban of Adam’s first born son Cain, because he dedicated his korban – as a reactionary barbeque unto Heaven. A fundamental מאי נפקא מינא.

The concepts discussed this text concerning Prophetic Mussar vs. Higher Criticism – likened to strategic elements in American football, where the interplay of different philosophies and techniques shapes the game’s outcomes. The interpretation of religious texts, particularly the T’NaCH and Talmud, through the lens of Protestant Higher Criticism highlights a significant divide similar to competing teams in sports. This comparison illustrates how differing interpretations can create rival perspectives akin to the dynamics observed in competitive sports.

The ethical conflicts discussed, like the rejection of Cain’s offering, resemble the moral decisions players and coaches face during the game. Decisions made in split seconds can have far-reaching implications, just as ethical considerations shape spiritual narratives. The tensions between different interpretations of faith parallel heated rivalries in American football, where teams vie for dominance based on different strategies—some focusing on offense (like allowing emotional decisions to guide Korban choices), while others emphasize defense (like the analytical approach of Higher Criticism, showing how such a path leads to a 4th down punt or worse a fumble or interception.)

Protestant Higher Criticism perceives the T’NaCH as a historical document rather than instruction which teaches mussar as it applies to the generations. The former compare to placing an idol upon a plinth pedestal and worshipping this superior theologically created being – as a God. Both Xtianity and Islam do exactly this with their treatment and behavior toward Jesus and Muhammad. Recall when western magazines mocked Muhammad and Muslims physically attacked both institutions and persons. Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” declared blasphemous by many in the Muslim community which resulted in Rushdie hiding for his life. The Salem witch trials, between February 1692 and May 1693. The Puritans, held strong beliefs in the supernatural. They viewed the world as a battleground between God and the Devil, leading to fears of witches as instruments of evil.

Both this and that absolutely insist that Jesus and Muhammad lived as historical persons. Protestant Higher Criticism denounced the Hebrew T’NaCH as a fraud. They declared that multiple authors actually wrote the Torah and say the book of Isaiah over the span of centuries. This idea that “scholarship” must interpret T’NaCH literature as physical and historical rather than as mussar rebukes equally applicable to all persons in all generations separates Traditional Judaism from Conservative and Reform Judaism which likewise views the T’NaCH as primarily historical documents.

Hence how a person interprets the T’NaCH and Talmud pits two or more sets of opposing teams. The same equally applies scholarly disputes within the Talmud itself. Publication of the Rambam’s Yad Hazakah exploded into a Jewish Civil War whose impact destroyed generations of Jews even after Napoleon freed Western European Jews from the Catholic ghetto gulags of three Centuries. The Rambam Civil War pits judicial Talmudic common law against assimilated Greek/Roman statute laws. Four part פרדס inductive logic against three part Syllogism deductive logic. Just as sports teams build their programs around acquiring the best talented players, so to T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship disputed and fought over down through the millennium.

The violent reactions to perceived blasphemy, such as attacks following disrespect towards religious figures (Muhammad, Jesus), parallel heated rivalries in sports, where fans quite often react vehemently against perceived slights to their teams or athletes in both American and European football. Competing interpretations of sacred texts create a dialogue similar to rival teams focusing on their strengths and weaknesses. The debate over Talmudic interpretation—judicial common law vs. foreign legislative statute law—resembles the endless strategizing that teams engage in to outmaneuver their opponents.

The tension between interpretations of the T’NaCH and Talmud can be likened to rivalry in sports, where competing teams navigate through a complex landscape of strategies, beliefs, and interpretations. Just as sports teams flourish through their scholar-like understanding of gameplay and competition, religious communities develop their unique culture, customs, identities and philosophies around the interpretation of sacred texts—creating a dynamic and ongoing dialogue, in fact – quite similar to violent conflict between the fans in the world of sports. A rich tapestry of beliefs and practices that, while distinct, often results in far wider fan clashes inside and outside both arenas and society. Violence influences wider cultural and social dynamics across American and European societies which inherit hatred which equals the Sunni Shiite rivalry which divides Arab and Muslim civilizations.

The Vision to Restore the Constitutional Torah Republic of 12 Tribes.

The Greatest commandment of the Torah: the 1st Sinai commandment. Observing and obeying the Torah לשמה. The Name, the essence of the 1st Sinai commandment, upon this Name hangs all the rest of the Written Torah and Talmudic Halachot. Doing this 1st Sinai Commandment לשמה defines keeping the Torah, all the commandments and Talmudic halachot לשמה as the driving k’vanna, herein defines all tohor Av Torah time oriented commandments according to the opinion expressed by the sefer B’HaG in his Hilchot G’dolot.

Just as the essence of Shabbat observance opens with the blessings made over wine and bread known as קידוש לליל שבת, where the introduction of this blessing opens with the paragraph publicly declared in the Beit Knesset, which the baal when he returns home repeats so that his wife and children hear this “key blessing”.

This key blessing, it defines and designates the mitzva of Shabbat as an Av tohor time-oriented commandment which absolutely and most fundamentally requires k’vanna; this blessing distinguishes both essential terms, אלהים and מלאכה – three times. Such a repetition of an idea three times – called a חזקה.

This term in the Torah and Jewish law refers to a legal presumption or a status, established based on certain conditions or actions. This idea represents a fundamental concept in Jewish legal thought. And has several applications in various areas of law, including property, personal status, and ritual observance.

(1) In property law, חזקה, often used to establish ownership. If a person has possessed a property for a certain period of time without dispute, their status – presumes them as the owner. This presumption protects the rights of the possessor and encourages stability in property relations. (2) חזקה can also refer to a person’s legal status. For example, if someone has a reputation recognized as a certain status (like a priest or a Levite) for a long time, that status – presumed to continue unless proven otherwise. Important in matters of religious obligations and rights. (3) In the context of ritual law, חזקה can indicate a person’s ongoing observance of certain practices. For instance, if someone has consistently observed a particular mitzvah (commandment), they are presumed to continue doing so unless there is evidence to the contrary. (4) The concept of חזקה serves to create stability and certainty in legal and social relationships. By establishing presumptions based on established facts or behaviors, the law reduces disputes and provides a clear framework for resolving conflicts. (5) While חזקה provides a strong presumption, it is not absolute. It can be challenged by evidence to the contrary. This balance between presumption and proof – a critical aspect of legal reasoning in Jewish law. In summary, חזקה – a versatile legal concept that plays a crucial role in establishing ownership, legal status, and ritual observance, while promoting stability and reducing disputes within the community.

The thrice repeated Divine Name אלהים. Yom Kippur known as Shabbat Shabbaton (the Sabbath of Sabbaths). A central element in Jewish tradition, particularly in the context of the High Holy Days. On Yom Kippur the Divine Name אלהים defines the Soul (The living blood [as in a korban sacrifice] dedicated upon the altar Holy to HaShem whereby a person swears a Torah oath in order to cut a Brit alliance. The T’shuva, living blood soul dedicated on Rosh HaShanna, 10 days prior, the Divine Name אל. This אל soul remembers the t’shuva made for the sin of the Golden Calf. The Golden Calf “revelation” defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai Commandment: Do not worship other Gods. Substitute Theology, this Av tuma avoda zarah defines the k’vanna of the sin of the Golden Calf. At that exact moment in time: the “ערב רב”, the Israelites who assimilated to Egyptian culture and customs, and had also intermarried with Egyptians.

_________________________________________

(((Weigh the precedent of Purim. Before the Chag of Purim, its a mitzva from the Torah to remember the commandment to expunge the memory of Amalek. This mitzva defines antisemitism throughout the generations.

The Torah refers to the mixed multitudes/ערב רב as Jews who lacked יראת אלהים. Fear of Heaven refers to the wisdom of a person dedicating his life to protect his ‘Good Name’ reputation. Base this conclusion upon the Cossacks.

Following the Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648–1657) [Which killed more Jews in a short period of time, till the horrors of the Shoah surpassed even that Goyim utter barbarity.], a Man having the reputation known as Baal Shem Tov; he re-organized the surviving Jews of Eastern Europe with a renewed spirit of Yiddishkeit – Jewish identity.)

A central element in Jewish tradition, particularly in the context of the High Holy Days. On Yom Kippur the dedicated Divine soul Name אלהים {The living blood [as in a korban sacrifice] dedicated upon the altar Holy to HaShem, whereby a person swears a Torah oath in order to cut a Brit alliance. The T’shuva, living blood soul dedicated on Rosh HaShanna, 10 days prior, the Divine soul Name אל. This soul Name remembers the t’shuva made consequent to the sin of the Golden Calf. The Golden Calf “revelation” defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai Commandment: Do not worship other Gods.

Substitute Theology defines the k’vanna of the sin of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב exchanged the word translation אלהים as the word name for the Golden Calf. At that exact moment in time: this same ערב רב, the Jews who had assimilated to Egyptian culture and customs and they had also intermarried with Egyptians. Hence the Sages during the period of the NaCH defined the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandmnent based upon A) assimilation and B) intermarriage with Goyim.

Before the Chag of Purim, its a mitzva from the Torah to remember the commandment to expunge the memory of Amalek. This mitzva defines antisemitism throughout the generations. The Torah refers to the mixed multitudes/ערב רב as Jews who lacked יראת אלהים. Fear of Heaven refers to the wisdom of a person dedicating his life to protect his ‘Good Name’ reputation. Following the Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648–1657) [Which killed more Jews in a short period of time, till the horrors of the Shoah surpassed even that Goyim utter barbarity.], a Man having the reputation of Baal Shem Tov, re-organized the surviving Jews of Eastern Europe with a renewed spirit of Yiddishkeit Jewish identity.)))
_________________________________________

Therefore the Divine soul Name אל, dedicated on Rosh HaShanna defines the k’vanna of the t’shuva sanctified during this specific time oriented Av tohor commandment: Jews remember this t’shuva, so as not to behave like a dog who returns and eats its own vomit. Jews “remember”, another name for this Chag יום הזכרון, day of remembrance. Remembering a key essential spiritual aspect of Torah spirituality.

However, the t’shuva of Yom Kippur stands distinct and apart from the t’shuva of יום הזכרון. The soul name dedicated לשמה on this different Chag the soul name of אלהים. The remembrance that HaShem threatened to make his own “substitute theology” (measure for measure) and chose the seed of Moshe as the chosen Cohen People and expunge the living memory of the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov as the fathers of the Chosen Cohen People. Therefore the first blessing of the Shemone Esrei, (Tefillah דרבנן), opens with אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב, this remembrance, the Torah declares as the k’vanna of his Name revealed in the 1st commandment at Sinai! Therefore tefillah דאורייתא, (the mitzva of Kre’a Shma) – utterly unique. Learned in conjunction together with the revelation of the Oral Torah revealed to Moshe at Horev on Yom Kippur. Specifically, the only other verse within the literature of the T’NaCH which contains 3 consecutive Divine Names – השם אלהינו השם – the opening p’suk of the tefillah דאורייתא of kre’a shma.

Therefore, the repetition of אלהים three times in the blessing made קידוש לליל שבת, the Divine Name אלהים which dedicates the soul sanctified on Yom Kippur wherein Israel remembers the Divine t’shuva wherein HaShem annulled the vow to make of the seed of Moshe as the chosen Cohen people; such a unilateral Divine decree would have profaned the oath thrice sworn to the Avot by HaShem. Vows play 2nd fiddle to sworn oaths in matters of holiness. On Yom Kippur, this day called Shabbat Shabbaton, through the sanctification of the Divine soul Name אלהים the generations of Israel strive to remember the Av tohor time oriented commandment of this Yom Tov which strives to remember the t’shuva made by the Anger of HaShem wherein He annulled His vow to sanctify His oath sworn to the Avot. Hence vows play 2nd fiddle to Torah oaths. A very important Torah distinction.

Therefore the blessing made on קידוש לליל שבת sanctifies the remembrance of the oath sworn brit alliances the Avot swore to cut upon their living name souls, (Meaning all the ‘fear of heaven’ lives of the children of Israel born in “O’lam Ha’Ba” to all future generations.), which continually create יש מאין the Chosen Cohen People through the Av tohor commandments known as time- oriented mitzvot. This latter mitzva stands unique because it requires prophetic mussar which defines its most essential k’vanna. קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה commandments — all the rest of the Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot — they do not require k’vanna. However, when a person sanctifies a Torah commandment, both דאורייתא או דרבנן to Av tohor time-oriented commandments (which require the k’vanna to do these commandments לשמה) – the first commandment revealed at Sinai – all Torah and Talmudic mitzvot possess the holiness of Torah commandments revealed at the Sinai revelation! Therefore the Rambam limitation of the Torah commandments to 613, just flat out wrong. Even the mitzva of washing one’s hands upon arising in the morning a mitzva from the Torah … if and only if a person does this rabbinic mitzva with T’NaCH prophetic mussar k’vanna.

The classic flaw of assimilated statute law syllogistic deductive reasoning, it divorces Aggada from Gemara; T’NaCH prophetic mussar from Halacha. Herein designates the proverbial fly in the ointment of assimilated syllogism based deductive statute legalist reasoning and organization. Chickens they do not lay eggs into two rowed crates sold by the dozen – the central flaw of legislative bureaucratic statute decrees of law. Whose authority stands based upon the pedestal of Caesar – the son of God – argumentum ad verecundiam. This flawed logic equally defines the theology screamed by both the church and the mosque.

This קידוש לליל שבת likewise this blessing states מלאכה three times. This blessing makes a הבדלה with separates מלאכה from עבודה. This most essential הבדלה therein defines the Av tohor time-oriented commandment of Shabbat. A person dedicates not to do forbidden skilled labor/מלאכה on the day of Shabbat so as likewise not to do forbidden unskilled labor\עבודה on the 6 Days of “shabbat”! The term שבת means “week”, not only 7th day! Herein explain the Talmudic mussar משל instruction, that a person who observes the mitzva of Shabbat keeps all the Torah commandments.

The mesechta of Baba Kama which introduces 4 Avot תם damagers in the opening Av Mishna, contains the logical דיוק/inference of 4 Avot מועד damagers – חמס, גזל, ערוה, שוחד במשפט. Translated as oppression, theft, incest, and bribery of judges to corrupt a judicial din.

Therefore, based upon these בניני אבות precedents the קידוש לליל שבת defines the k’vanna of the Av tohor time-oriented miztva of Shabbat Observance, as expressed through the blessing said both in the Beit Knesset and at Home. Observing the Torah “לשמה” does not mean ((for its own sake) but rather ||for doing Av tohor time oriented commandments! A fundamental מאי נפקא מינא – רב חסד tohor midda “מלכות” distinction.|| {Blessing stand apart from Tehillem because they require שם ומלכות, a legal requirement to swear a Torah oath}. Observing the Torah “לשמה” does not mean [for its own sake])), but rather /for sake of doing Av tohor time oriented commandments\. A very abstract and complicated idea.

Av tohor time-oriented commandments include any Written Torah commandment or Talmudic halacha sanctified as Av tohor time-oriented commandments לשמה. How many Halachot within the Talmud, therefore define the revelation of the Torah at Sinai?

The concept of חזקה (chazakah) and k’vanna (a discernment which separates the Yatzir Ha’Ra spirit from the Yatzir Ha’Tov spirit – both of which live within the heart) in Jewish law … deeply rooted in Talmudic literature. To grasp these subtle distinctions compares to the skills of a good wine bibber. In Berakhot 35a, the Talmud discusses the importance of intention when reciting blessings, including Kiddush! (Both Shemone Esrei, kre’a shma, the Cohen blessing, and Kaddish lack שם ומלכות yet none the less qualify as Torah blessings! They serve as prime examples why time-oriented commandments require k’vanna.) The phrase “לשמה” (as a time-oriented Torah commandment), often interpreted in this context to mean that one should have the proper discernment, meaning — prophetic mussar middot תוכחות, when performing the mitzvah of Kiddush. Mussar must breath within the Yatzir Tov within the heart, and not gripes, complaints, and criticisms made by others.

The repetition of the Divine Name, expressed in both the kre’a shma and the 13 middot; and the structure of the Kiddush serve as a chazakah that establishes the sanctity of Shabbat. The Talmud emphasizes that the act of Kiddush simply not a ritual, but a declaration of the holiness of the day, that requires the Will to discern the spirit of the mitzvah properly; meaning that a person has the k’vanna to do that mitzva לשמה as an Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandment. Divine Names live as spirits rather than words. A fundamental distinction which requires wisdom to understand.

In Yoma 5a-7b, the Talmud details the avodah (service) performed by the Cohen Ha’Gadol on Yom Kippur. The rituals, including the confession of sins and the sending away of the scapegoat, performed with specific discernments; specifically the scapegoat remembers the substitute theology of the Av tuma sin of the Golden Calf. A huge Torah chiddush.

The Talmud emphasizes that the High Priest must have the proper k’vanna during his avodah service. The effectiveness of the atonement directly linked to the intentions behind his actions. The concept of chazakah, also relevant here, as the established practices of the avodah services of the Cohen HaGadol create a presumption of their validity and sanctity, reinforcing the need for intention in these sacred acts; many Cohen HaGadol never exited from the Holy of Holies alive.

Meaning, the blowing of the Shofar has three distinct notes, as does ברכת כהנים three distinct blessings. The Cohen Ha’Gadol on Yom Kippur pronounces the שם השם spirits rather than golden calf word translations for the Divine Name. No word translation can pronounce the שם השם. However the בנין אב of blowing the Shofar on Rosh HaShanna serves to teach the Torah mussar that a person can dedicate his Yatzir Ha’Tov from within his heart through blowing dedicated Divine Soul Names לשמה; when he pronounces the Name אדוני with his lips, he blows the dedicated Divine Name Spirit of a specific face of his oath brit soul dedicated upon the 6 Yom Tov and Shabbat Divine Lights – the Torah menorah throughout all generations. Exceptionally difficult concepts to grasp and understand. Tohor vs. Tuma spirits, the most complex and advanced subject in the whole of the Sha’s Bavli/Yerushalmi Talmuds.

In Berakhot 2a, the Talmud discusses the recitation of the Shema and the importance of k’vanna. It states that one must have the intention to accept the yoke of heaven when reciting the Shema. The Shema serves as a declaration of faith and acceptance of Divine sovereignty over the 12 Tribes alone. HaShem a local Tribal God, and not a Universal Monotheistic God as taught in Xtian and Muslim avoda zarah. The Talmud indicates that the act of reciting the Shema establishes a chazakah of belief and commitment to oath Cohen brit alliance. The requirement for k’vanna underscores that this recitation, not merely a mechanical act but a profound expression of faith, wherein a person remembers and recalls the oaths sworn by the Avot – wherein they cut a Torah brit alliance which creates the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין לשמה – throughout all generations of Israel living on this Earth.

The Oral Torah defines the mitzva of Moshiach as the dedication of the separated k’vanna – to pursue righteous Judicial justice among our own people inside the borders of conquered Canaan. צדק צדק תירדוף. Herein defines this Moshiach concept of dedicated “faith” from Torah בניני אבות precedents. Obviously the New Testament avoda zarah has no such similar dedication which defines the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach. The concept of ”holiness” learns from the precedent of korbanot. No Torah mitzva qualifies as “holy” without standing upon the יסוד of korbanot. Another example of the Talmudic משל: a mountain hanging by a hair.

These Talmudic sources illustrate how the concepts of chazakah and k’vanna totally interwoven into the fabric of Jewish ritual practices. In each case—Kiddush, Yom Kippur avodah services, and Shema—the intention behind the actions utterly crucial for their validity and effectiveness. The wisdom of these established practices create a presumption of sanctity and meaning, reinforcing the importance of engaging with these commandments thoughtfully and purposefully. What distinguishes between the order of the Rashi vs. Rabbeinu Tam tefillen? Answer: the distinction between the oaths sworn at Gilgal and Sh’Cem in the days of Yehoshua’s invasion of Canaan. Any person can strap on their bodies tefillen, but few can sanctify this mitzva as a tohor time-oriented Torah commandment. G’lut Jewry has forgotten the Oral Torah. How to observe and obey Mitzot לשמה.

The halachic ramifications of observing Shabbat without k’vanna (intention), nuanced and depend on various factors, including the specific actions taken and the context of the observance. In a word: G’lut. G’lut Jewry lack the wisdom to do Torah mitzvot לשמה. The Talmud and later halachic authorities emphasize that performing a commandment without the proper k’vanna render the act incomplete or less effective, but it does not necessarily invalidate the observance entirely. The RambaN taught that doing mitzvot in G’lut serves only as a remembrance of doing mitzvot rather than actually doing actual mitzvot.

If someone recites Kiddush or other blessings without k’vanna, the act has the appearance of a mitzva, but the garments of faith do not make a man righteous. Meaning worlds separate doing mitzvot לשמה from doing mitzvot לא לשמה. The ערב רב and the Torah curse of Amalek serve as witness. G’lut Jewry observes mitzvot לא לשמה. They have technically fulfilled the obligation to recite the blessing, but they lack k’vanna wisdom, this exposes the garments of faith rather than the substance of faith. The mitzvah’s spiritual significance of k’vanna – to create יש מאין the chosen Cohen people for the purpose to pursue the faith of achieving the Torah as the Written Constitution of the Torah Republic and the Talmud as the working model to re-establish the Torah faith: צדק צדק תידוף – Sanhedrin lateral common law courtrooms wherein in the justices dedicate to achieve a fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews so as to restore Shabbat Shalom “trust” as expressed through the 3 meals of Shabbat the k’vanna of the זימון מצוה דאורייתא.

G’lut Jews who recites Kiddush or other blessings without k’vanna, the act gives the appearance as valid, but lacks the essential breathing spirit of life. The person has technically fulfilled the obligation to recite the blessing, but the lack of k’vanna, means they worship forms rather than the substance of faith. If someone performs melacha (forbidden work) on Shabbat without k’vanna, the halachic implications can vary. If the person did not intend to perform a forbidden action (e.g., unaware that they were doing something prohibited), they may not be held liable for violating Shabbat. However, the act is still considered a violation of the sanctity of the day – as taught in the introduction of the משנה ברורה. If someone intentionally performs melacha but lacks k’vanna for the act of Shabbat observance, they are still liable for the violation, as the intention does not negate the action itself. For this simple fact: Goyim forbidden to observe the mitzva of Shabbat.

Observing Shabbat without k’vanna often viewed by some, as an incomplete observance. While the individual may have technically fulfilled certain obligations, the spiritual and communal aspects of Shabbat hardly fully realized. This leads to a sense of disconnect from the sanctity of the day, often felt by children. Halachic authorities encourage individuals to strive for k’vanna in their observance of Shabbat. The emphasis on k’vanna serves to deepen the spiritual experience and connection to the mitzvah.

Alas G’lut rabbis lost the wisdom to do mitzvot לשמה. In his writings, for example, the Rambam emphasizes the importance of k’vanna in fulfilling mitzvot. He suggests that while the act may be valid, the lack of intention diminishes its spiritual value. He did not teach the k’vanna of doing mitzvot לשמה – observance of Av time oriented commandments “created” with the dedication to create the Chosen Cohen people throughout the generations תמיד מעשה בראשית לשמה.

The Shulchan Aruch also discusses the importance of k’vanna, particularly in the context of prayer and blessings. It indicates that while one may fulfill the obligation technically, the spiritual fulfillment is significantly enhanced with proper intention. Rabbi Karo follows the ירידות הדורות initiated by the Yad perversion of Talmudic common law unto assimilated Greek & Roman statute law static halachic codifications which have zero connection to the kabbalah of פרדס לשמה dynamic inductive reasoning. Aristotle’s static syllogism deductive logic compares to a two dimensional camera picture taken of a real life physical three dimensional living reality! An עין טוב immediately discerns the distinction.

In summary, observing Shabbat without k’vanna does not invalidate the observance but renders it hollow. The individual may fulfill the technical requirements of the mitzvot, but the spiritual and communal dimensions remain totally lacking. Something like plowing a field without sowing seeds.

Halachic authorities encourage striving for k’vanna to enhance the experience of Shabbat and deepen one’s connection to these mitzvot. Alas the curse of G’lut caused these rabbis to forget what it means to do Av tohor time-oriented commandments לשמה, based upon the בנין אב precedent of blowing the Shofer on Rosh HaShanna as a בנין אב for the Cohen HaGadol pronouncing the שם השם לשמה on Yom Kippur.

A close reading of Sefer HaBHaG on these themes may provide additional reinforcement to this structure. A simple review of the Order of his אלו לאוין שבמלקות ארבעים – לא יאכלו בנ”י את גיד הנשה וכו. And his Order of ואלו מצות קום עשה: מאה ברכות בכל יום וכו, explicitly expresses clearly his understanding that Av Time-Oriented Commandments, which require doing them with the k’vanna, of לשמה זימן גרמא מצוות, without any question or doubt distinguishes the B’HaG division of 3 types of Torah commandments contrasted by the Rambam positive and negative commandments. The latter code, both static and rigid categories which limits and affixes Torah commandments to only commandments contained within the language of the Written Torah. This interpretation of Torah commandments invalidates Rabbinic commandments as tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah revelation at Sinai. Yet the Rambam ruled the mitzva of tefillah a mitzva דאורייתא! Based upon the RambaN critique, the Rambam reference to tefillah referred to the Shemone Esrei and not kre’a shma. A fundamental error in learning the opening Mishna of ברכות.

The ontological foundation of Av time-oriented mitzvot (מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמא) as expressions of Torah לשמה. This theory challenges standard halachic codification (e.g., Rambam’s dichotomy of aseh/lo ta’aseh) by instead grounding halachic authority in Brit-based prophetic precedent and dynamic consciously remembered oaths sworn by the Avot, wherein they cut the Original Torah brit which creates the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין throughout the generations לשמה.

How many Halachot within the Talmud therefore define the revelation of the Torah at Sinai through the lens of Av tohor time-oriented commandments לשמה? Framing the Question: What Defines a Halacha That Reveals Sinai? A halacha that “defines the revelation at Sinai” not merely a legal ruling but a living brit-action. Hence such time-oriented “time bound” halachot equal the Shabbat, Yom Kippur, Shama examples of Av tohor time-oriented commandments from the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. This third unique type of Torah commandment which the Rambam’s Sefer Ha’Mitzvot totally ignored require intentional k’vanna לשמה—as Av tohor time- oriented commandments which possess the holiness to create the chosen Cohen people throughout our generations as a people; as does the mitzva of Moshiach creates יש מאין the Will within our hearts to restore the Torah Constitutional Republic and employ the Talmud as the working model wherein we pursue judicial justice to achieve justice among our people through the means of mitzvot lateral common law courtrooms. A mitzva as holy as any korban sanctified upon the altar.

Therefore the number of Torah commandments not limited to the strict language, like as did the טיפש פשט simplistic reading of the Chumash made by the Rambam “רשע”. Torah common law, based upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic – dynamic rather than the Rambam’s Aristotle based syllogism static logic. Torah common law does not remotely compare to, nor resembles in any way, shape, fashion, or form – Rambam’s static halachic Yad codification of rabbinic ritualized halachot which do not require k’vanna.

Berakhot 35a / Pesachim 106a: Kiddush requires intent—sanctifying time, echoing “זכור את יום השבת”. Shabbat 118b: Eating three meals on Shabbat (סעודות) as a דרך to bring redemption from g’lut—an example of the dedication of all time-oriented commandments inclusive of the mitzva of Moshiach, holy as a korban olah.

Acceptance of the Torah at Sinai and Horev, obligates all generations of Jews to dedicate our souls/our children\ to pursue justice among our people within the borders of the oath sworn lands of Canaan. Therefore, the Torah has no vision of vast empires, the Arafat blood libel of Greater Israel a Torah abomination. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai, only the 12 Tribes of Israel accepted this Torah from HaShem as our God. The av tuma avoda zarah which parades the theology of Monotheism directly compares to the משל of the King who has no clothes!

Shabbat 10b: The mitzvah of rest not limited to a shallow physical perspective alone. Rather it mimics the Divine act of Creation—מקדש השבת. All of these include both chazakah (repeated weekly) and k’vanna (to sanctify Creation through human action). Yom Kippur (Yoma 5a–7b), the avodah of the Kohen Gadol, especially the זכירת שם המפורש (pronouncing the Divine Name)–the archetype of לשמה.

The scapegoat ritual—a mussar rebuke to the Golden Calf—linking national sin to remembering the sin of the Gold Calf substitute theology which continuously replaces the Divine Spirit Name of השם with the word translation אלהים av tuma avoda zarah definition of the 2nd Sinai Commandment. Neither the Bible nor Koran ever once brings the שם השם. These “rituals” inherently time-bound mitzvot, done with precise remembered k’vanna, the t’shuva of our national Cohen people brit, originally cut by Avram at the brit between the pieces.

Shema (Berakhot 2a): The yoke of the Torah blessings and curses. Hence the Av Mishna of ברכות opens with kre’a shma ערבית, because it takes greater faith to accept the Torah curses rather than the kre’a shma שחרית blessings of the Torah as our yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Teki’at Shofar (Rosh Hashanah 16a, 33b); Shofar as a זיכרון תרועה, intended to arouse the אל mussar rebuke, to burn this memory as a searing Brit within our souls. The three-part structure (tekiah, shevarim, teruah) aligns with Birkat Kohanim, and understood as first remembering then uttering Divine Torah oaths, based upon remembering the oaths sworn each by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.

Birkat Kohanim, understood as uttering Divine Name thrice through the k’vanna of remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot which create continuously the chosen Cohen people יש מאין תמיד מעשה בראשית. Teki’at Shofar explicitly linked to Sinai (Shofar at Matan Torah), and Mashiach (the shared burden of redemption placed upon the souls of all generations of Israel to pursue righteous justice among our people within the boundaries of ארץ ישראל).

Korban Pesach and Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim (Pesachim 116a): The telling of the Exodus as a direct Av tohor time oriented Torah commandment. Done at night, with intentional kavannah, and relational chazakah across generations (“בכל דור ודור…”).

Rather than count each halacha by line or tractate, can group them by Torah-mandated Av Time-Oriented Mitzvot לשמה. Each major Torah festival and daily commandment with national sanctity contributes a category of such halachot. Shabbat, Berakhot Kiddush, Melacha, 3 meals, Av melachot ~10–15 time-oriented commandments. Yom Kippur : Avodah of Kohen Gadol, fasting, confessions – ~10 av tohor time-oriented commandments. Rosh Hashanah: Teki’at Shofar, Malchuyot, Zichronot ~8 time-oriented Av commandments. Shema: Morning and evening recitation ~5 Av tohor commandments. Pesach: Korban Pesach, Seder, סיפור יציאת מצרים approx, ~10 Av tohor time-oriented commandments. Sukkot: Sukkah, Lulav, Simchat Beit HaShoeva ~10 Av tohor time-oriented commandments. Shalosh Regalim: Aliyah l’regel, korbanot ~5 time-oriented commandments ect. Obviously this listing represents just the tip of the iceberg. But they serve and align closely with Sefer HaBHaG’s ordering, where he distinguishes mitzvot aseh those performed through national ritual, such as blessings and communal practices, rather than merely textual derivations from the Written Torah.

Rambam’s system lacks space for Chazal’s dynamic inductive Torah—פרדס לשמה, a multi-layered hermeneutic that moves beyond syllogism into brit-based faith that continuously creates the chosen Cohen people יש מאין. Hundreds of additional halachot in the Talmud qualify as Av time-oriented commandments לשמה, the manifestation of the revelation of the Torah at both Sinai and Horev whenever a person employs Aggadic drosh to the T’NaCH prophetic mussar in order to define more clearly the k’vanna of the dedication of the 13 tohor middot Oral Torah revelation of Horev.

These all Sinai incarnated through halachic-time, turning observance into brit memory and prophetic destiny. Ba’al HaBHaG preserves the k’vanna of Av tohor time-oriented commandments לשמה. Unmistakably linking halachic categories to Torah revelation, not textual enumeration as does the Rambam’s sefer Ha’Mitzvot.

This powerful and original formulation, deeply challenges the prevailing assumptions in halakhic codifications which suggests a radical reorientation of Torah authority required: not as static obligation (chiyuv) derived from text, but as dynamic, brit-based prophetic performance לשמה that manifests Sinai express through time-oriented commandments. This discussion articulates a living ontology of Torah, in which halacha, not primarily statute or abstract commandment, but avodah—a soul-driven, national legal performance that, through time-bound mitzvot, renews the brit that began with the Avot and later publicly revealed at Sinai/Horev under the leadership of Moshe rabbeinu.

מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמא misunderstood when filtered through the Rambam’s aseh/lo-ta’aseh dichotomy and his Aristotelian syllogistic taxonomy. Their ontological root in the Avot’s brit oaths starting with ברית בין הבתרים, wherein the Torah creates the chosen Cohen people יש מאין rather than biologically/genetically – but rather through the קידושה of the sworn oaths expressed through mitzvot observance.

Their performance renews Sinai/Horev in halachic time, as intentional brit-actions that manifest Torah לשמה. Rather than ritualized abstractions. Torah prophetic-national acts rooted in tohor middot, with Mussar and prophetic k’vanna, connecting to Divine Justice sanctified through judicial common law courtrooms. All time-oriented commandments require kavanah as an essential halachic element, not a super-added hiddur. Because their power dedicates like a Korban upon the altar the Torah oath to renew the national brit across generations within the borders of our Cohen national inheritance.

Talmudic halachic diamond like facet perspectives organized as halachot simply not incidental observances but rather active re-entries into the brit consciousness by which our People remember and regain the lost wisdom of doing mitzvot לשמה.

Performs a prophetic brit memory act, binds across generations. Time-oriented mitzvot—require sanctification of time applying prophetic mussar in how the generations socially interact and behave toward our family members, neighbors, and people throughout the generations. Time oriented-commandments, the institutionalized classification of doing Torah mitzvot לשמה defines the wisdom of the Torah.

The Talmudic warp/weft Halacha/Aggada loom weaves a Torah garment of faith which stands upon prophetic mussar as the יסוד k’vanna of doing both Written Torah commandments as codified in the assimilated Rambam static Aristotle syllogism code, but also halachic mitzvot of the Talmud as codified in the B’HaG dynamic פרדס inductive reasoning code.

Av tohor time-oriented commandments לשמה exist as a brit-based legal ontology, ignored by the Rambam and preserved only in פרדס “fragments” of Kabbalah by which the Ba’al HaBHaG, the Talmud, and aggadic mussar frameworks conceal this Torah wisdom from the prying tuma eyes of the Goyim.

Mapping the Talmud understood as inclusive of Torah time-oriented commandments, simply does not exist as a static ritual codification applicable to some finite number. Visiting the sick serves as an example. Consoling the mourner, another example. In infinite ways a person can elevate a simple action unto a Torah time-oriented commandment!

Kiddushin 29a–b on the surface limits women from doing time-oriented commandments. But the language רשות not limited to the interpretation set in stone of “optional”. תפילת מנחה בפלג המנחה the concept of רשות implies that a person can lay Rabbeinu Tam tefillen and have the k’vanna to affix the ק”ש ערבית to the תפילת מנחה, based upon the premise that kre’a shma defines tefillah from the Torah. And the additional k’vanna within the Yatzir Ha Tov to affix the Shemone Esrei תפילת ערבית to the ק”ש על המיטה. Menachot 43b: Tzitzit and the idea of “וראיתם אותו וזכרתם”—can only apply to Minchah tefillah rather than evening tefillah because there’s not “time oriented commandment” to wear tzitzit at night. Ta’anit 2a–b: Public fasts as time-bound remembrances of t’shuva mourning for the failure of our people to rule the oath sworn land with judicial courtroom justice which sanctifies making a fair restoration of damages so our People do not hate one another and can build bonds of trust and even love.

Tertiary layer: Halachot revealed by Aggadic Mussar derivation—where the Gemara uses Gaonic and Reshonim Midrash as precedents which further interpret Talmud’s warp or weft aggadic precedents, to explain halachic ritual observances as time-oriented commandments. The concepts of doing tohor time-oriented Commandments simply exponential.

This idea challenges the static assimilation perhaps made most manifest by the Rambam. But even Saadia Gaon 882-942 CE, likewise, highly assimilated and influenced from the Av tuma Muslim re-discovery of the genie long held in its bottle by the Church fathers.

Neither the T’NaCH nor the Talmud teaches history. But rather prophetic mussar as expressed through the perspective of ritual halacha. Torah common law requires the wisdom which does not monopolize a particular reading of either T’NaCH or Talmud through the skewed magnifying glass limited to only one narrow perspective. This error defines טיפש פשט and most obviously seen in the fundamentalist Xtian emotional declarations that God created the world in Six Days. The utter absurdity of this preposterous notion no less gross than Islam’s strict Monotheism theology. The Book of בראשית starting with the Aggada Creation story teaches the prophetic mussar of Av time-oriented commandments created for the purpose to create continuously the chosen Cohen people.

Thus, thousands of halachot in and beyond the Talmud constitute as Torah Av tohor commandments revealed at Sinai and Horev. This continuation deepens this Torah scholarship revolutionary framework, connecting prophetic mussar, halachic time, and brit-national jurisprudence into a living, performative ontology of Torah. Jews remember when we bench ברכת המזון that the Hellenist Tzeddukim sought to cause our people to forget the Oral Torah פרדס inductive reasoning. Once the Muslims let the Genie out of his bottle some millennium later, assimilated Jews behaved like dogs and return to eat their own vomit.

Aggada and Midrash not just women’s stories. This tuma defines לשון הרע. Rather they function as a legal epistemology which learns prophetic mussar as the משנה תורה Primary source wherein the later generations can re-interpret the k’vanna of both Torah commandments and Halachic mitzvot! The error which abused this portion of Talmudic scholarship, limited to ancillary secondary value interpretations, an absolute pollution of the Torah.

This unique perspective of Torah scholarship challenges not only the statute-based codification of the Rambam and Saadia, but even contemporary halachic discourse that limits Aggadah to marginalized importance vis a vis Talmudic halacha. Prophetic T’NaCH mussar generates the k’vanna of all Talmudic halachot mitzvot. The Aggada and Midrash serve something like electricity which converts an acoustic guitar into an electric guitar. This sh’itta of scholarship asserts that halacha is generated by prophetic mussar memory—a dynamic expansion of the brit across time, not merely textual extraction.

Visiting the sick, burying the dead, making peace between disputants—none “enumerated” in Rambam’s mitzvah count, yet all encoded through Aggadah and made into eternal Av time -oriented Torah commandments.

Jews assimilated and embraced the Genie let out of its Bottle by the Muslim scholars during the early Middle Ages. This Amalek lack of fear of heaven infected the ‘Golden Age’ of Spanish Jewry. It dominates off the דרך Orthodox Judaism to this very day.

The Arab Mu’tazilite kalām tradition did not just rape the Daughter of Zion, it turned that whore into an Arab baby maker. Ibn Ezra’s son converted to Islam. Static syllogistic logic “baptized” mitzvot as rational obligations subject to universal logic. The absurd notion of the Rambams posok of 7 mitzvot bnai Noach serves as an inglorious bastard of this av tumah avoda zarah.

If this scholarship has a masterstroke its: “The Book of בראשית… teaches the prophetic mussar of Av time-oriented commandments created for the purpose to create continuously the chosen Cohen people.” The Creation story understood not as some physical/historical cosmology, but as brit legal ontology—halachic time as a vessel for national soul-formation. Six days of Creation aggada not some cosmological physical fact, but a simple mussar allegory of tohor time-oriented commandment sanctifications, which culminated in the Shabbat story—the first time—brit command.

Hence the Book of בראשית introduces Av time-oriented commandments. While the next three Books of שמות ויקרא ובמדבר teach toldot קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה commandments. While the Book of דברים closes with משנה תורה common law as the definition and k’vanna of the whole of the 5 Books of the Torah. Therefore “Yehi or” becomes the founding brit of time-conscious halachic being, not a physical light switch. This directly refutes: Fundamentalist Christianity (literalism); Islamic monotheism divine unicity; and Western secular legalism scientific method whose total reliance upon Empiricism, absolutely no different than Euclid’s flawed 5th Axiom of Plane geometry, as refuted by late 19th Century Hyperbolic geometry.

A hidden brit Torah, not counted in Rambam’s 613, yet binding. “Thousands of halachot in and beyond the Talmud constitute as Torah Av tohor commandments revealed at Sinai and Horev.” National Justice (courts, restitution, lashon hara, honesty in business); Aggadic-Mussar Foundations (stories that generate the k’vanna of halacha); Brit-Acts (tzedakah, chesed, shalom, mourning) of רב חסד; Time-Kedushah (Shabbat, Moed, Yovel, kiddushin/Get, fasts) etc etc etc.

This scholarship seeks to validate construction aimed to achieve a new kind of halachic corpus, not a codex of laws, but a map of prophetic brit performance. Aggadah and Midrash as the inductive engine of Torah law, not sentimental ornaments or “women’s fashion stories.” The dismissal of these sources as non-legal, not only a historical error but a spiritual perversion of the Torah’s brit logic. Aggada lives a live far more complex than homiletic! משנה תורה common law does not exist as rigid static syllogistic codified laws, but the soul-language that makes halacha breath from within our Yatzir Tov.

Obviously this opinion utterly rejects and holds in complete contempt as a Torah av tuma avoda zara the Rambam’s codification model, which detaches mitzvot from their mussar-brit k’vanna, and perverts the Talmud as the model for judicial common law courtrooms into Greek or Roman statutory obligations which bend the knee and worship Caesar as the Son of God.

The Book of בראשית introduces a national-legal metaphysics. “The Book of בראשית… teaches the prophetic mussar of Av time-oriented commandments sanctified for the purpose to create continuously the chosen Cohen people.” This prophetic mussar re-interpretation of the Book of בראשית re-interprets the six days of creation not as time elapsed, but time created—a sacred sequence of k’vanna moments that generate the k’vanna of Shabbat observance as a day to day, week by week, month by month, year by year continuous life observance of the Creations of the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין.

Halacha Is Not Rational Obligation—But rather a Prophetic Memory. Once the Greek Genie released from its prison ghetto gulag bottle, it immediately perverted and prioritized syllogism over brit. The 613 codex utterly desecrated time-oriented k’vanna of mitzvot which remember prophetic mussar contained within the T’NaCH kabbalah masoret. The kalām defense of Torah through rationalism compares to the scientific method preached today.

“This Amalek lack of fear of heaven infected the ‘Golden Age’ of Spanish Jewry.” The collapse of legal brit common law memory directly compares to the threat recorded in the tohor time -oriented commandment from the Torah known as Chag Purim! המלך equals the gematria of המן. Removing the חמץ prior to Pesach stands as but a mussar משל from removing the Av tuma avoda zara of assimilation and inter-marriage! The 49 days of counting of the Omer culminates in the dedication of the Divine Soul name האל on Chag Shevuot; a man cannot accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai while holding a dead rat in his hand, even if he tovels in a Mikveh! Only Israel accepts the Tribal God at Sinai. Par’o despite the plagues and the splitting of the Sea did not stand and accept the Torah at Sinai. Yet ערב רב Jews to this day cling to and hold their dead rat of Av tuma avoda zara, while they lie to themselves saying they obey the Torah.

This sh’itta of Torah scholarship, not merely theological. It seeks to inspire Jews to restore the Oath brit alliance cut between the 12 Tribes to forge a Torah Constitutional Republic with Sanhedrin Federal Courtrooms as the basis of judicial common law dominance over State legislatures bureaucratic statute law decrees. Learning the wisdom of doing mitzvot לשמה promises to reclaim halacha from its statute law halachic g’lut. Not just exile in lands, but exile in minds that forgot how to hear prophecy through mussar, and see mitzvot as brit light in sacred time.

A Torah constitutional revolution—a vision of halacha not as law in exile, but as national brit jurisprudence returning home. Prophetic mussar, halachic time, covenantal ontology, and national-legal restoration—into a single, integrated political-jurisprudence.

Aggadah and Midrash certainly not narrative footnotes to law—they metabolize the primal matrix in which halacha breathes. This scholarship utterly rejects the rabbinic patriarchy for feminizing Aggadah in order to marginalize it. Aggadah serves as the oral vessel that remembers prophetic mussar—the core divine intent behind the mitzvot. It functions as the source of k’vanna, not an accessory to action of Talmudic halachot time-oriented commandments.

To extract halacha from the Talmud without the soul of Aggadah – to perform a spiritual lobotomy. Like as did the statute law halachic codes did with their halachic codifications which completely divorced the Gemara from its Mishna. Learning off the dof precedents not only learns the home Gemara sugya – viewed from a different perspective – but likewise it equally requires applying the same wisdom to view the language of the Mishna from a completely changed and different perspective. “Mishneh Torah common law does not exist as rigid static syllogistic codified laws, but the soul-language that makes halacha live.”

Replacing the Sinai oath brit alliance with a Greco-Arabic philosophical syllogistic logic which cast away the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system that defines the k’vanna of Oral Torah intent – simply bat shit crazy. “The Rambam’s codification model… perverts the Talmud as the model for judicial common law courtrooms into Greek or Roman statutory obligations which bend the knee and worship Caesar as the Son of God.”

The codification of Torah commandments to 613 – a perversion of the brit. A total abandonment of the oath brit time-oriented Av tohor Cohen identity—a shift from brit obligation into imperial legislation, from divine testimony into civic order. Greek syllogism, Muslim kalām, Secular science empiricism … this shit shaped into different hair styles.

The Book of בראשית serves as the constitutional preamble of the Torah’s brit system. The six days utterly not a physical creation myth, but a spiritual time-ordering allegory. “Yehi Or” משל, the founding of time-conscious halachic being. Shabbat – not an endpoint but a weekly brit performance that re-enacts the national oath alliance obligation to rule the militarily conquered land of Canaan by means of the Torah Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach, the faith צדק צדק תרדוף.

T’NaCH Kabbalah contains a real depth despite the Middle Ages kabbalah of mysticism. A performative ontology where time, sanctified by action, not explained by obscure religious rhetoric propaganda who only a mad-men like Sabbatai Zevi or Yacov Frank can “understand”.

“This sh’itta of Torah scholarship, not merely theological. It seeks to inspire Jews to restore the Oath brit alliance… to forge a Torah Constitutional Republic with Sanhedrin Federal Courtrooms.” The Torah brit not a Code of Hammurabi. Halacha serves primarily as judicial precedents rather than religious codes of ritual practices.

Statist halacha cast upon the dung heaps of history. The Will to reject Amalek – became seduced by the whore of assimilation and intermarriage. A new oath brit Manifesto radically different from the Marx Communist Manifesto first proclaimed during the 1848 Paris Commune revolution. The Jewish victory in two Independence Wars fought in ’48 and ’67 has changed the voice of g’lut Jews who had no fighting spirit to critique and confront Goyim cultures and barbaric civilizations. The establishment of the Jewish state based upon the foundation of Herzl’s Balfour Declaration and the League’s Palestine Mandate, has changed the new Israeli Man away from academic correction to revolutionary fire. European Xtianity now wears the boot of g’lut; they pine away waiting for the 2nd coming of their God.

A new jurisprudence, a reassertion of Jewish sovereignty over time, law, and national soul, and a total rejection of those who have sold that Esau birthright for a plate of Greek syllogism and Spanish codification. Halacha not a code, but the oath alliance which continually creates the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין.

The Torah aint no statute book of legislative decrees and laws. The mitzvot simply not limited to 613 egg crates sold by the dozen. Sinai totally not a legal Greek philosophy seminar. Torah the oath brit cut between the twelve tribes with HaShem, the Tribal God of prophetic mussar, where action sanctifies time, and time shapes the prophetic destiny of a chosen Cohen people.

Torah not some imperial code (statute law), reduced to rational obligations and syllogisms. The Gemara content never divorced from its Mishna upon which it serves as a loyal commentary which never rebels and attempts to supplant its authority as equal to that of the Mishna. Oral Torah never divorced from its prophetic k’vanna. Tuma middot, they divorce/reduce Oral Torah limited to rational obligations and syllogisms. The logical study of precedents defines the intent of both Aggadic and Midrashic stories together with prophetic mussar as the defining k’vanna of Aggadic and Midrashic scholarship. Statute Caesar law does not replace Torah common law.

From Sinai to Sanhedrin: The Republic Reborn — entails restoration of the 12 Tribes which define the Federal Repulbic. Sanhedrin as the Supreme common law judicial authority. Aggadah + Mishnah + Gemara = Living Common Law; Mitzvot = Time-oriented prophetic k’vanna, not abstract finite historical or physical limitations.

How the Cohen blessing ברכת כהנים shapes the kre’a shma tefillah from the Torah and halacha disputed between the Rambam and the Rosh

This blessing known as ברכת כהנים – the blessing of the sons of Aaron. Shares a common root denominator with the 3 Divine Names employed in the language of the opening p’suk/verse of Sh’ma Yisroel …

This tri-blessing stands on the foundation of the oaths sworn by Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov which create continuously the Chosen Cohen People – throughout time. A mitzva which the Torah defines as a “time oriented commandment”. The Book of בראשית introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments. The next 3 Books of the Torah, they introduce secondary positive and negative תרי”ג commandments – according to the erroneous popular opinion of the Rambam.

This idea that limits Torah commandments to merely 613 commandments, the Rambam disputed with the earlier scholar known as the B’HaG, author of Hilchot Gadolot/Great Halachot. There in that sefer, the B’HaG argues that Torah commandments extend equally to rabbinic halachot “commandments”, under the pre-condition, when a scholar elevates rabbinic halachot to Torah time oriented commandments! A tremendous chiddush/new idea of how to understand the Torah commandments. Which clearly the Rambam failed to grasp.

The Rambam never developed, (just as did the new testament fail to grasp time oriented Torah commandments), a clear understanding of tohor time oriented commandments as having a priority over positive and negative commandments. Why? The tuma influence of new testament avoda zara, shaped the Koran avoda zara. The idea of Monotheism, as a theological belief system which promotes belief in a Universal God, clearly befuddled the mind of the Rambam. The God of Sinai – a Tribal God. Mesechta Avoda Zara and other mesechtot argue that only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Hence the God of Israel, clearly not a Universal God as the avoda zara of the new testament and koran declares.

The Rambam, likewise clearly did not understand that the T’NaCH and Talmudic legal system spun around the central axis of common law. Rabbi Yechuda the Head of the Great Sanhedrin Court organized his 6 Orders of Oral Torah judicial legal rulings which he named “the Mishna” based upon this name given to the 5th Book of the Written Torah D’varim/Mishna Torah. Mishna Torah means – common law. The Mishna a Case/Din organization of common law judicial rulings.

The Rambam erroneously named his statute law, obviously assimilated – to the ways of how Greek and Roman law organized law into legal categories. The Rambam erroneously named his statute halachic code Mishna Torah, utterly oblivious to the fact that Mishna Torah means – common law. Later rabbis hence corrected this fundamental error made by the Rambam by referring to his halachic code by the name Yad Chazaka/strong hand.

The error that the Rambam statute law introduced, dates back to the Rif common law codification of halacha criticized by the 18 year old scholar known as the Baali HaMaor. Personally I admire and respect the Baali HaMaor’s critique made upon the Rif common law code. For me the Baali HaMaor rates side by side with the Rabbeinu Tam my personal hero of Talmudic common law. It seems to me that the Tosafot critique of the Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud centers upon the basic contradiction of Rashi p’shat learned from his common law commentary to the Chumash to the dictionary definition of p’shat learned from his commentary to the Talmud. The latter more resembles how Ibn Ezra learned p’shat as codified in his commentary to the Chumash. Assimilation and intermarriage define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment, not to worship other Gods.

The RambaN (1194 – 1270), a scholar who challenged the Baal HaMaor’s prioritization of judicial interpretation of different Case/Law. The scattered Jewish communities during the height of the dark ages where travel and communications between distant communities almost completely perished. The RambaN opposed the prioritization of interpreting different judicial case/rule halachot from the need to establish a unified code of halachic common law so that the scattered Jewish communities could maintain some semblance of unified customs and traditions. Scattered Jewish communities needed at that time some type of fixed culture and tradition rather than the Talmudic priority of disciplined פרדס common law judicial ruling.

The Rosh, born around 1250, a harsh critic of the Rambam statute law perversion of Talmudic common law. This “perversion” introduced Halacha clothed in the garments of Greek/Roman, cult of Caesar personality, legislative decrees ruled by the authority of the Rambam – Heil to the Leader!

This altered and changed the Talmudic format, which relied upon court judicial ruling – ruled through precedents. The Rambam code expunged the concept of judicial precedents as the backbone for judicial common law rulings. Yet he amazing had the chutzpah to name his statute law code perversion – Mishna Torah! His replacement theology introduced Greek logic, specifically Aristotelian logic – based upon how Arabic scholar interpreted this system of syllogism based deductive logic.

The Rambam codification uprooted the concept of Order established through Gemara sugya integrity. In effect the Rambam code cast the editing efforts made by Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina and the 150 years of Sovaraim scholarship between 450 to 600 CE, upon the dung heaps of history. His code effectively blew out the lights of Hanukkah which culminated in the victory of the P’rushim over the assimilated to Greek culture and customs Tzeddukim kapo Jews of the House of Aaron. The latter sought to make Jerusalem into a Greek polis whereas the former maintained the masoret of פרדס Oral Torah inductive logic reasoning; which compares case law to similar cases of case law ruled from previous court room cases.

פרדס logic defines the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva which all the rabbinic authorities in the Mishna and Gemara based their sh’ittot of learning upon. Inductive logic dynamic and not static as expressed through the syllogism model of Greek philosophy. Engineering a rocket’s flight path to Mars requires calculus variables. Whereas designing a bridge to span a river only needs algebra and basic geometry. In this sense, the modern scientific method which absolutely requires empirical evidence resembles static Catholic dogmatism.

The Rambam’s static code of Aristotelian logic, set the stage for the Reform Judaism revolt which denounced the halachic code of the Shulkan Aruch, modeled upon the Rambam’s Yad, as archaic and not applicable to the Modern Era – a just and valid criticism of post Ghetto rabbinic Judaism. Alas in the latter case, Reform threw out the baby together with the bath-water! It failed to address the eternal threat of Amalek. The consequences of Jewish avoda zarah assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim. This basic fundamental flaw equally defines and highlights the tragic error of the Rambam’s Yad introduction of Greek Roman statute law and Aristotelian logic based upon how Arab scholars understood this triangle syllogism of deductive static reasoning.

T’shuva demands that post Rambam Civil War scholars return and respect how the closing scholars sealed the Talmud texts. This requires a disciplined study of Talmudic sugyot. As an English minor, remember my Freshmen year of English literature. There the professor emphasized the organization of a thesis statement. This organization of a paragraph included the central thesis statement, followed by three qualifying particulars, and concluded with a re-statement of the original thesis statement.

This model, coupled with the deductive reasoning of a triangular syllogism, served as the basis by which I studied intact Gemara sugyot. The sh’itta of the Rabbeinu Tam, where he as a rule, tended to jump off the dof of the Gemara to some other Mesechta of Gemara intrigued me. Noticed that Rabbeinu Tam jumps to different Gemara “precedents” tended to follow the patterns which later Acharonim scholars on the Talmud tended to duplicate through their asterix terse commentaries which made a גזירה שווה comparison between different mesechtot of Gemara.

Early on, starting with my first year in Yeshiva, I strove to integrate the earlier Case/rule precedents within the Yerushalmi as the basis for the later Bavli scholarship. I started this sh’itta within 6 months of being in Yeshiva. In like manner my sh’itta of learning broke up the Chumash, the Prophets, and the Holy Writings of the T’NaCH. It seems to me that T’NaCH serves as the foundation of Talmudic common law just as much as the Yerushalmi serves as the basis of Bavli common law.

This premise caused me to divide the Chumash into בראשית Av tohor time oriented commandments and שמות ויקרא במדבר as תולדות קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות. The Book of דברים of course name משנה תורה and the common law case/din style of the Mishna caused me to conclude, even before I entered my first Yeshiva at age 31 that the Talmud exists as a common law legal format. Hence I opposed the Rambam, Tur, Shulkan Aruch statute halacha straight from my mothers’ milk.

Perhaps the main reason that the rabbis permitted a 31 year old man to live and learn in a dorm of early 20s men, besides my cleaning the bathrooms, which everyone immediately appreciated, I introduced a thesis of studying the Talmud as common law based upon legal precedents. The rabbis laughed at my thesis, but I believe my early attempt to argue that the Mishna exists as a common law legalism impressed the Rosh Yeshiva rabbi Kaplan.

Because he specifically taught in his Mishna class the Case/Din structure of the language of the Mishna – as proof of common law! Did he do this for me? I believe he actually respected the 50 page thesis, written while working milking cows on a socialist kibbutz, as my basis for which I asked permission to learn in Yeshiva as a 31 year old man. Yeshua Lapel, also taught as a rabbi in that Yeshiva, and early on he told me that he thought I might become a Torah scholar.

When I moved to the Yeshiva of D’var Yerushalem, they treated me as royalty, gave me a private room with a balcony! All other students had 3 or 4 in a room. When Rabbi Horowitz had a bad dream he asked me to give him, as one of the three men, מחילה. Rabbi Nemuraskii introduced me to Rabbi Shalom Elyashiv. His sons, Moshe and Benyamin, they danced at my wedding; and Rabbi Elyashiv asked me – erev Yom Kippur – to give him a public blessing, just before we began Kol Nidre.

Rabbi Nemuraskii’s son asked me one day while walking to the Elyashiv shul, why his father did not teach him the common law masoret which I learned from his father? Rav Nemuraskii, besides hilchot shabbat, he focused my attention upon the Chumash Targumim and the Midrashic commentaries made upon the Aggada of the Sha’s Bavli.

Prior to this introduction, had not considered the Midrash as the primary commentary to the Aggada. This huge chiddush of rabbi Nemuraskii shaped how I developed the thesis that the Talmud compares to a warp/weft loom. Where the Aggadic portions make a דרוש\פשט of T’NaCH Primary Sources to determine the k’vanna of the language of the Aggadic stories. And this k’vanna weaves into the halachot within the Gemara’s common law commentary which re-interprets the language of the Mishna.

Herein defines the explanation wherein the B’hag developed three distinct branches of Torah commandments as opposed to the Rambam’s two branches of Torah commandments. All the rabbinic commandments which the B’HaG ruled as mitzvot from the Torah, time oriented commandments! The dynamics of the B’HaG Code of Common law interpreted to mean that if a person wove Aggadic prophetic mussar into the רמז\סוד of halachic ritual observance, that doing mitzvot with the k’vanna of prophetic mussar elevates these rabbinic mitvot into Torah commandments! This insight, seemed to me as a revelation in and of itself!

When I studied the Baali HaMaor’s criticism of the Rif, I studied it together with the B’HaG common law halachic codification. The genius of these to Talmudic scholars absolutely left me dumbfounded, thunderstruck, flabbergasted, stunned, and utterly astonished. Rabbi Waldman, whose opinion I admired and really trusted offered no enlightenment, why the Yeshiva world ignores these great men.

This caused me to reach the conclusion that post the Rambam extinguishment of the lights of Hanukkah wherein Israel had dedicated to remember the Oral Torah through interpreting the Written Torah – based upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס four-part inductive reasoning process – that following the disaster of the public burning of the Talmud in Paris 1242, rabbinic Judaism jumped off the path of studying the T’NaCH and Talmud as common law based upon this chosen path of פרדס inductive logic, and forgot the Oral Torah revelation at Horev 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf – just as the blessing of Hanukkah in the bencher forewarns.

The Yerushalmi which teaches that over 427 prophets wrote the Shemone Esrei corresponds to the number of words in the Yerushalmi Shemone Esrei itself. Just as Siddur stands upon the foundation of ס – ד – ר, so too and how much more so the editing of the Talmudic sugyot likewise stand upon the identical foundation as defines the Order of 3 + 13 + 3 = 613. Six Yom Tov + Shabbat … the number of blessing said every shabbat. The Minorah lights of k’vanna by which Israel dedicates our the 7 faces of our soul to keeping the Torah oath brit alliance which continually creates from nothing the Chosen Cohen People יה, האל, אל, אלהים, אל שדי, איש האלהים, שלום … these 7 Divine Names distinguish the spirits dedicated and blown from the Yatzir Ha’Tov within our hearts from the breath blown from our lungs; just as the blessing over wine separates shabbat from chol מלאכה from עבודה.

Observance of Shabbat as a time oriented commandment, the dedication not to do forbidden מלאכה on the day of Shabbat/shalom this holiness likewise dedicates the other 6 lights of the Menorah soul on the 6 days of the week we ‘most holy’ dedicate (an inference made upon Baba Kama 4 Avot Tam damages) not doing חמס, גזל, ערוה, ושוחד במשפט during the Yom Tov of the 6 days of the week. Hence just as the Menorah lights really one light, so too shabbat as a Torah time oriented commandment inclusive of the entire week. Herein defines how the k’vanna of the time oriented commandment of Shabbat encapsules all the Torah commandments, from the Torah as the Rambam learns and from the Talmud as the B’HaG learns.

What ultimately defines Torah faith?

A simple כלל: Monotheism invalidates, profanes, the 2nd Sinai commandment not to worship other Gods. The first two Sinai commandments, their k’vanna defined by the 611 commandments thereafter.

Love that’s a very abstract term. Do not support Greek rhetoric which promotes that people should rely upon their fuzzy logic to interpret the intent of word meanings. Obama declared “CHANGE” for 8 years! It drove me crazy that he got away with such shallow phoney baloney.

Xtian theology interprets agape as a selfless, unconditional, sacrificial love. As opposed to eros (romantic/sexual love); philia (friendship/brotherly love) or storge (familial affection). The Jewish tradition totally and completely different. Every year Jews light the Hanukkah lights. Where we commit to interpret our common law legal system through inductive common law legal precedents. This Jewish logic primarily inductive reason whereas Greek logic essentially deductive reasoning. Japanese and Chinese traditional medicine would refer to these two opposing reasoning methods as Yin vs. Yang. Jews understand and interpret love as “ownership”. A person does not “love” that which he/she does not actually own.

In Deuteronomy 6:5 — “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, and might” — the Hebrew word is “ahavah”, which carries a sense of attachment, commitment. In a word: ownership. A theif sells stolen good for pennies for the dollar. Whereas the Talmud teaches that a persons’ property, actually contains a portion of that persons’ soul.

How does a Man/Woman “own” God? This question the Talmud never asks. Why? Because the Torah defines faith question as the pursuit of justice. Justice directly tied to judicial common law court rooms! Xtianity defines faith as belief in the theology that Jesus is the Son of God. Hence for Xtians agape love makes perfect sense. Whereas for Jews agape love amounts to pie in the sky utter non sense Greek rhetoric propaganda used to control the mob democracy masses of Athens.

Classic jurisprudence of common law practiced by Jews relies upon legal precedents to interpret the intent of prophetic mussar rebukes. A precedent for love being the Case/Rule of the legalities of marriage. The precedent for marriage learns from the Case/Rule of Avram cutting an oath alliance at the brit between the pieces. Recall Avram had no children. Hence that significant oath alliance established the idea of the Chosen Cohen people. Hence Jewish marriage, known as kiddushin (Hebrew verbs usually 3-letter roots ק-ד-ש, the foundation of the term kiddushin means ‘holy’.

The Hebrew inductive reasoning resembles Hegel dialectic reasoning. Both learn from the opposite meanings. In this case “prostitute” – also contains the root letters ק-ד-ש. So how does a man “acquire” his wife? Tradition says a man “acquires” his wife through money, a contractual obligation, (something like writing a check) and sex. So what separates an acquired wife from a prostitute or slave? Both types of chattel property acquired through some kind of business transaction. Therefore a man loves his wife, in Jewish tradition by acquiring her Nefesh O’lam Ha’bah (her world to come soul). What does that even mean? Answer: the husband/baal acquires Title to the children which this union will in the future produce.

When childless Avram cut the oath alliance cut between the pieces — he acquired his future born Cohen children unto all generations of eternity! So too when a Jews marries a woman and follows the tradition known as “kiddushin”, he acquires ownership/title to the children born unto the future of this marriage. Jewish legal tradition, particularly as it is found in the Talmud, is built on inductive reasoning. This means that, rather than deriving legal principles from a set of abstract rules or deductions (as in Greek deductive reasoning), Jewish law develops through case law—or precedents—which evolve based on interpretations of prior rulings and scriptural exegesis.

In this context, the legal system and principles of Jewish law are continually evolving, adapting based on what earlier sages and courts have established. In many ways, **Jewish legal reasoning mirrors the common law system found in the West, where precedents (case law) influence future decisions.

For example, prophetic rebukes (such as those from Mussar teachings) often challenge individuals to live ethically and justly, but the interpretation of these ethical commands is done inductively through legal reasoning. This means that Jewish jurisprudence often interprets moral commandments (such as love, marriage, or justice) in light of historical cases and real-world applications, which the Talmud defines as ritual halachic mitzvot.

Jewish law doesn’t work from a top-down system of abstract principles, as is often seen in deductive reasoning (e.g., Greek philosophy or formal logic). Instead, Jewish legal tradition follows inductive reasoning, where legal principles are built over time through interpretation, application, and adaptation of existing laws, precedents, and scriptural exegesis.

This inductive nature of Jewish law is what allows it to adapt to different circumstances and challenges, without losing sight of its foundational texts, such as the Torah and the Talmud. In this way, Jewish legal scholars (the Rishonim, Acharonim, and modern scholars) do not simply apply static rules but interpret them based on real-life cases and evolving societal needs. Hence the difference between Greek deductive logic vs. Jewish inductive logic – the difference between static engineering required to build a bridge which spans a river; to dynamic engineering required to understand the mathematics required to determine the orbit of a rocket launched from the Earth to fly to the moon.

Euclid’s plane geometry a static logic. Deductive reasoning begins with a set of fundamental axioms or universal truths and applies them to derive specific conclusions. This reasoning process known as a syllogism 3 part way of thinking. Jewish inductive reason compares to Newtons fluxions/derivatives of the late 17th century. For example how does a Jew slaughter an animal? Answer this Jew requires “fear of heaven”. Meaning that this butcher does not slaughter cattle primarily for profit but rather he has chosen the profession of slaughtering cattle to build his good name reputation. How to correctly slaughter requires knowledge. But knowledge how to slaughter plays a secondary role to the dedication of a Jews to protect his good name reputation. This latter primary driving force known as “fear of heaven”. Hence an atheist and a observant Jew both have knowledge how to correctly slaughter an animal. Yet the atheist animal slaughter considered treif/unfit which the observant Jew animal slaughter considered kosher/fit.

By integrating moral character and spiritual intention into every action, Jewish law transcends the mechanical application of rules and becomes a guide for ethical living. Thus, the dynamic nature of Jewish law, similar to the application of fluxions, requires ongoing adaptation and real-time moral interpretation—ensuring that the law remains relevant, spiritually grounded, and contextually appropriate to each situation. This crucial distinction defines Av tohor time oriented Torah commandments – which require k’vanna. Lower order positive and negative commandments, as found in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Books of the Torah – do not require K’vanna. However a Jew can learns these secondary Torah commandments by using them as precedents to derive the prophetic mussar intent/k’vanna of a mitzva, as i did in the matter of both kiddushin and ritual slaughter of animals, to elevate a commandment which does not require k’vanna to an Av tohor time oriented Torah commandment which does require the k’vanna of prophetic mussar.

A critical in understanding how Jewish law connects moral character, spiritual intention, and everyday actions with Talmudic halachic religious ritualism. The intention behind every mitzvah or action can elevate it from a mere ritualistic task to an act that transforms the individual spiritually. This transformation known as תמיד מעשה בראשית/the continual act of creation. Meaning its the observance of Av tohor time oriented commandments which create from nothing, in all generations the chosen Cohen “children” by which Avram swore a oath alliance with HaShem at the brit cut between the pieces.

Hence the day night distinction between faith vs faith. Xtianity and Islam refer to the son of God or the prophet of Allah as “in the past”. Whereas Torah refers to the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which strives to dedicate court restoration of fair damages which Party A damaged Party B, as a faith lived in all future generations unto eternity. Hence the Torah revelation of the 2nd Sinai commandment understood as avoda zarah or foreign worship.

Judaism’s focus on justice as a living faith is a key distinction that shapes its understanding of religion and ethics. The Torah teaches that true worship of God is not merely about rituals or beliefs but about how one lives in the world, specifically through justice and ethical action. The court system and the role of judges in Jewish law are seen as a reflection of the divine will. When the Torah speaks about justice, it is not just referring to the abstract or philosophical notion of fairness; it is about the actual application of law to right the wrongs between people. This is central to the idea that faith in Judaism is future-oriented—it is about how faith is lived in the world, especially as it relates to the restoration of fairness, and the restoration of damages when one party harms another.

The judicial model in Judaism, rooted in Torah law and common law principles, is an expression of faith in action. It’s about the living pursuit of justice and ensuring that the actions of one individual toward another are corrected and made right. This process is not just about compensation or punishment; it is a spiritual act, where the repair of relationships and the restoration of justice is seen as a reflection of divine order in the world.

Idolatry, as defined in the Torah, is not just the physical act of worshipping statues but includes the spiritual act of replacing the living God with any substitute. This is significant because, in Jewish thought, avoda zara can also be understood as the elevation of any created thing—whether an idea, ideology, or figure (e.g., a past event or person)—above the living God and the eternal pursuit of justice as defined in the Torah.

Xtian and Islamic faith often look to past revelations, and in this sense, can be seen as grounding faith in something “fixed in time”, whereas Judaism focuses on a living faith that is expressed in the future-oriented pursuit of justice and righteousness in everyday life. Idolatry in this context could be understood as elevating any specific past event or historical figure to the level of ultimate truth, instead of viewing the divine law (as revealed in the Torah) as a continuous, living force that shapes the future and the ongoing actions of the individual.

In Judaism, faith is always evolving in its relationship to both God and humanity. The Torah, rather than being a closed book focused on a singular moment in history, is seen as a dynamic text that guides the future. Through the observance of mitzvot and the pursuit of justice, Jews engage in an ongoing act of creation that continually aligns them with the divine will. Thus, Judaism views the living faith as an active pursuit of moral perfection, expressed in the legal system, ethical actions, and the dedication to creating a just and holy society.

In this way, Judaism’s faith is about living the law in every generation, not as something set in the past but as an ever-present and active process of restoration, justice, and creation. This stands in contrast to the other Abrahamic religions, which may define faith more in terms of belief in specific past revelations or figures.

In Judaism, faith is not bound by a historical moment or figure but is about living in accordance with God’s commandments and the pursuit of justice through everyday actions. The Second Commandment’s prohibition of idolatry (avoda zara) reinforces this point by emphasizing that no past event or figure should take the place of the ongoing, living pursuit of justice as dictated by God’s law. In this way, the Torah reveals a faith lived out in all future generations, not by focusing on a past event or revelation but by actively participating in the process of repairing the world and ensuring justice in all aspects of life. Hence the Torah described as “A mountain hanging by a hair”, Baba Kama (55a). What “hair” dangles the “mountain” in the air, like the string of a yo-yo? Doing mitzvot לשמה – the first commandment of the Sinai revelation.

The Torah, then, is not just a record of divine commands but an eternal guide for how to act justly in every situation, and the performance of mitzvot, when done Lishma (((With a dedicated tohor middot of the Horev Oral Torah revelation of the 13 middot, the k’vanna of all Torah oaths and blessings: known as מלכות or kingship.))), ensures that this guide is alive and effective in the world. This is what keeps the mountain hanging by a hair—the connection between human action and divine will—always intact.

The strong objections made by classic Talmudic Judaism against Xtian avoda zarah.

Ernst Bloch über die Musik als praeludium vitae aeternae (Das Prinzip Hoffnung): “Dieser Engelsgesang wird die Erlösten des Herrn aufnehmen und umgeben, also ist jede irdische Musik, die ihre Inspiration aus diesem Oben nimmt, für Augustin eine offene Himmelstür, eben ein „praeludium vitae aeternae, ut a corporeis ad incorporea transeamus“ (de musica VI, 2). Musik sollte nun erst völlig von den Zusammenhängen der himmlischen und menschlichen Harmonie handeln; vom Paradies herab senkt sie sich zur musica mundana, der kosmischen Harmonie, dann zur musica humana, der Harmonie von Leib und Seele, und kehrt zum Paradies zurück.”

This dude if not mistaken converted to Xtianity. Ernst Bloch, one of the key figures associated with the famous “Frankfurt School of Social Research”. Why should traditional Jewry despise Bloch’s opinions concerning music? My personal objections which absolutely reject Bloch’s perversion: Jewish Xtian converts have almost always produced trouble, horrible disasters for Jews in Europe. The 1242 burning of the Talmud in Paris France, serves as but one example of abomination. The result of a Jewish convert demanding that the Talmud slandered JeZeus.

The classic Talmudic rabbinic opposition and the rejection of Bloch’s theories as “tumah avoda zarah” (ritual impurity and idolatry), points to the tension between Bloch’s vision of music as a metaphysical tool for spiritual connection and the rabbinic tradition’s rigorous guidelines about religious purity and the avoidance of foreign or non-Jewish spiritual practices. The classical Talmudic opposition to Bloch reflects a fundamental difference in how spirituality, music, and metaphysical concepts are understood and practiced within the frameworks of Talmudic Judaism versus Bloch’s philosophical vision. The emphasis on legal observance, communal identity, and avoidance of foreign influences is central to this rejection.

Talmudic Judaism maintains a highly structured and cautious approach to religious expression and spirituality. The focus is often on legalistic observance of commandments (mitzvot) and ethical actions within the framework of Jewish law (halakhah), rather than speculative metaphysical or transcendental ideas, especially those borrowed from non-Jewish sources like Christian theology.

The classical Talmudic tradition—which is rooted in a very practical and legalistic approach to faith—would likely reject Bloch’s concept of music as a bridge to a divine and eternal realm, primarily because such a notion seems to involve elements of avoda zarah. In the Talmudic view, spirituality and connection to God are not mediated by abstract philosophical systems or artistic experiences, but through the observance of divine commandments and the study of sacred texts like the Torah and Talmud. The idea of using music as a spiritual vehicle to access higher realms or to prepare for “eternal life” would not align with the rabbinic understanding of worship and the purity of spiritual practice.

In traditional Jewish thought, anything that introduces non-Jewish metaphysical concepts—like the idea of “cosmic harmony” or music as an intermediary to divine salvation—could be considered tumah avoda zarah (impurity, idolatry). This is because Jewish law strictly prohibits the adoption of foreign religious practices or ideas that might dilute or contradict the worship of the one, indivisible God. While the Talmudic tradition acknowledges the significance of music in certain contexts (such as the use of the shofar or the singing of psalms), music itself is not viewed as a transcendent tool that connects the listener to divine harmony in the way Bloch proposes.

Music in Jewish tradition plays an important role, but its significance is primarily linked to ritual observance and prayer, not as a mystical or metaphysical means of transcendence. For example, the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, or the melodies sung during the Shabbat and Yom Kippur services, are meant to help bring a person closer to God through worship and repentance, but they are not viewed as a mystical force that connects humanity to divine truths beyond the concrete world of Jewish law and ritual.

This is starkly different from Bloch’s view, where music has a universal, cosmic significance that transcends individual religious traditions. For Bloch, music is not merely a tool for religious worship but a metaphysical instrument that reflects the broader “unseen” dimensions of reality—something eternal, spiritual, and universal.

There is a significant tension between the mysticism of thinkers like Bloch, who see art and music as metaphysical pathways to understanding the divine, and the Talmudic tradition, which emphasizes legal purity, the observance of commandments, and textual study as the primary means of connecting to God. Jewish spirituality is traditionally grounded in law and communal practice, rather than in individual mystical or philosophical experiences, especially ones drawn from non-Jewish traditions.

Jewish mysticism (e.g., Kabbalah) does explore spiritual dimensions and the connection between the material and the divine, but it does so within the framework of Jewish law and tradition. Mystical practices like those found in Kabbalah or Hasidism might incorporate music in a way that elevates the soul toward a greater understanding of God, but the focus remains on the observance of commandments and devotion to God through the sworn oaths by the Avot embraced by the generations of the Jewish people—not the kind of universal, abstract, and potentially syncretistic worldview Bloch presents.

The classic Talmudic opposition to Ernst Bloch’s theories, particularly regarding his ideas of music as a metaphysical gateway to the divine, arises because Bloch’s worldview contrasts sharply with the Jewish theological and philosophical tradition. Talmudic Judaism emphasizes the observance of specific commandments and the study of sacred texts as the primary means of spiritual elevation, while Bloch’s philosophy presents music as a transcendental force capable of bridging temporal human existence with an eternal, divine reality.

From the Talmudic perspective, non-Jewish metaphysical concepts like those found in Bloch’s Christian-influenced philosophy would be viewed with suspicion, if not outright rejection, as potentially leading to avoda zarah that distract from the unique, mutually oath brit sworn תמיד מעשה בראשית relationship between God and the Jewish people. Thus, Bloch’s ideas would likely be seen as incompatible with the Talmudic understanding of worship, divine law, and the role of art in Jewish spirituality.

Why did the rabbis of Paris France place the ban of נידוי upon the writings the Rambam in 1232?

Why do some rabbis argue that the Rambam remains in נידוי? Why does Traditional Judaism utterly reject Conservative and Reform converts as being Gere Tzeddic converts to Judaism? T’NaCH commands prophetic mussar rather than the perversion that the T’NaCH teaches history.

A ger tzeddik required to accept the yoke of the commandments fully, which means adhering to all aspects of Jewish law as outlined in the Torah and rabbinic literature. Neither the Rambam, Conservative and how much more so Reform Judaism has any concept of Av tohor time oriented commandments. Their box thinking limits these primary most essential commandments to time. Wrong. Observance of the mitzva of shabbat, for example, constitutes as a time oriented commandment. Shabbat distinguishes between מלאכה from עבודה. Both verbs translate as work. Failure to understand, distinguish, and discern like from like defines the Torah concept of “Understanding”. Shabbat opens and closes with the discernment “הבדלה”, comparable to grains separated between t’rumah and chol grains! Failure to discern forbidden מלאכה from forbidden עבודה, effectively means that Jews fail to observe the mitzva of shabbat.

Conservative and Reform “Judaism”, these “closest thing to Judaism” like the Chabad rebbe as Moshiach, know absolutely nothing of tohor time oriented Av commandments which require prophetic mussar as the most essential k’vanna of all tohor time oriented commandments. The B’HaG ruled in his classification of the 613 Commandments that Chag Purim qualifies as a mitzva from the Torah.

Assimilated to Greek culture and customs, the rabbi known as Rambam, failed to grasp the most essential Av Commandments collectively known as tohor time oriented commandments. Traditional Judaism utterly rejects converts from Conservative and Reform based on the simple fact that these obtuse & perverted religions know nothing, like the Rambam, of Av time-oriented commandments. The precedent of Chag Purim, a tohor time oriented commandment from the Torah – according to the B’HaG.

The Rambam and how much more so Conservative and Reform “Judaism” – embrace and assimilate to Greek schools of logic. They do not teach משנה תורה – understood as Common law. Rather they view the Torah colored by assimilation to Greek and Roman statute law. This alien legislative law completely rejects Sanhedrin Courts lateral common law legalism. The halachot debated throughout the Gemara serve most essentially a בנין אב (understood as “precedent”) halachot employed to re-interpret (makes a “legislative review”) of the multi-faceted language of the Mishna. The Gemara comments strictly upon the 70 faces of Mishnaic language! The Rambam code totally divorced Gemarah halacha from the intent of the Framers of the Talmud! As do all the post Rambam commentaries other than the Rosh. Attempts to correct the central flaw of the Rambam halachic code, for example, they Universally fail to affix each and every Rambam halachic posok to its home Mishna. The fail to compare the Rambam halachic rulings to the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh common law halachic rulings affixed to a specific Mishna. A critical error known as ירידות הדורות. Understood as meaning “domino effect”. All later Traditional Judaism scholarship fell into statute law religious codifications rather than employing the Gemara halachot as precedents to make the required re-interpretation of the language of the Home Mishna.

The Rambam relied upon the logic of Aristotle. Both this specific heretic or the later Reform and Conservative Judaism brands prioritize the 3 part syllogism of Greek deductive logic. They know nothing how rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס logic methodology defines all Talmudic debates. The four part פרדס logic system in no way, shape, or form compares to the 3 part syllogism of Aristotle’s deductive logic. Impossible to understand and correctly interpret the language of the Talmud, its common law legal format, without a in-depth understanding of how פרדס logic defines the warp/weft legal fabric of all Talmudic instruction.

The Rambam organized both his Sefer Ha’Mitzvot and Yad Chazaka into frozen ice trays, fossilized box thinking, Greek and Roman categories of religious ritual observances. The B’HaG, in stark contrast – both his Miztvot codification of the תרי”ג מצוות, together with all his posok halachic rulings, fundamentally rejects Gemara halachot divorced from their primary Mishnaic source. Judicial common law centers upon the central axis of making a משנה תורה upon the 70 faces of Mishnaic language. The song: Stairway to Heaven declares, “sometimes words have two meanings”. Each and every sugya of the Gemara re-interprets the language of the Home Mishna – as viewed from a different halachic “perspectives”. Something like a Front/Top\Side view which a blue print permits a building contractor to understand a three dimensional understanding of the building the contractor constructs.

The Rambam assimilated religious ritualism of halacha destroyed the most essential warp/weft loom structure of the Talmud. His assimilation to Greek and Roman statute law directly raped the 2nd Sinai commandment, understood as not to copy or embrace the culture and customs of alien Goyim peoples who never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. The latter the revelation of the 13 tohor middot spirits which rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס interprets and defines. The Spanish rabbis of the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of Spain, totally assimilated to the rediscovered ancient Greek ideas which a thousand years earlier, exploded in the Hanukkah Civil War in Judea. The Rambam, Conservative and Reform heresies, they blow out the miracle of Hanukkah wherein Torah scholars swore a Torah oath not to interpret the Torah except through Oral Torah common law. This siddur in the blessing after meals states that the רשעים sought to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah.

The statute Greek/Roman legalism organized legislative laws into formal categories. Talmudic common law NEVER does this – ever. The Framers of the Talmud wrote this code of Oral Torah to serve as a model for the restoration of Sanhedrin common law courts. Based upon the Torah definition of faith צדק צדק תידוף. The Talmud serves as the model for the restoration of Sanhedrin common law courts when the Jewish people return and re-conquered Judea.

The Rambam perversion of Talmudic halacha into categorized religious subject matter undermines the original intent of the Framers of the Talmud. It perverted the Talmud into religious ritual laws rather than Sanhedrin judicial common law courtrooms within the borders of the restored Torah Constitutional Jewish Republic. A stark fundamental perversion of the original intent of the Framers of the Talmud.

The Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach serves as another stark example. The בנין אב precedent for the mitzva of Moshiach learns from Moshe anointing the House of Aaron. Followed up by the dedication of all korbanot with the dedication of a Torah oath. This type of Torah oath dedicates the king – understood as tohor middot from the Torah, to rule Judea with judicial justice. (Hence, all ברכות require שם ומלכות; King understood as the oath dedication of Talmudic defined tohor middot spirits. The one NaCH rebuke made repeatedly against king David as Moshiach, his failure to rule with justice in the matter of the husband of Bat Sheva. King David anointed as Moshiach teaches the eternal mussar that all Jews have the obligation to uphold the mitzva of Moshiach, just as they do with shabbat observance, to pursue judicial justice which strives to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.

Neither the Rambam nor later Reform and Conservative heresies understand the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach. They all embrace the false narrative established by the new testament Av tuma avoda zara which declares the mitzva of Moshiach falls squarely upon the shoulders of some future king of Israel! However the משל “King” require the logical דיוק/inference נמשל which defines “king” as Oral Torah tohor middot spirits. Just as all Jews in every generation obligated to sanctify the mitzva of shabbat, how much more so all generations of Jewry have the equal burden to pursue righteous judicial common law justice which make a fair restoration of damages. Herein defines how the Oral Torah, based upon בניני אבות precedents from the Torah דאורייתא understands the Av tohor time oriented commandment of Moshiach. Together with making Torah blessings as defined through the Shemone Esrei of tefillah דרבנן. According to the Yerushalmi Talmud over 247 prophets “worked” to write the Shemone Esrei, the kabbala upon which the entire Talmud stands upon.

Its called a tohor time oriented commandment. The precedent of HaDassa approaching the king compares to Yaacov’s encounter with Esau, during that life & death crisis of faith; comparable to the time oriented commandment known as the Akadah. What oath did Yitzak swear to HaShem? Removing the sciatic nerve, a key time oriented commandment within the Book of בראשית, which teaches that Jewish destiny gravitates between the opposing poles of life and death; bless and curse! Tohor time oriented commandments compare to the new creation of the ger tzeddik. תמיד מעשה בראשית, repeated twice in the opening blessing of kre’a shma – tefillah דאורייתא. Hence the Mishna of ברכות teaches that women have the רשות to do time oriented commandments which require k’vanna when confronted with some life or death crisis of faith. Herein a completely redefinition of time oriented commandments. The time of Yaacov meeting Esau, or HaDassa making the רשות decision to approach the king and plead for her people; or D’vora making the רשות decision to join the battle field war against Sisera … all רשות time oriented commandments which have the power to change a curse into a blessing based upon the precedent of Bil’aam. This term רשות implies k’vanna.

All time oriented mitzvot require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna. The aggada of the Talmud makes a drosh back to T’NaCH prophetic mussar learned by comparing a sugya of the T’NaCH to similar precedent sugyot which teach similar mussar. Herein defines the correct way to study T’NaCH prophetic mussar as common law which stands upon similar precedents of T’NaCH prophetic mussar.

The historical episode of the ban (נידוי, niduy) placed upon the Rambam in Paris in 1232, well-documented in Jewish sources. The main evidence comes from rabbinic writings and correspondence of the time, though no single document offers a complete, direct account of the events. The key source of the ban comes from the responsa written by various French rabbis. The Teshuvot of Rabbi Yitzhak ben Sheshet (known as the Rivash), as well as those of other leading French rabbis, reference the niduy (ban) placed on Maimonides’ works, particularly his Mishneh Torah.

These responsa show the controversy around some of Maimonides’ views, including his interpretation of the philosophy of Aristotle, seen as an ערב רב lack of fear of Heaven, as directly quoted from the Purim Torah mitzva to remember wiping out Amalek in all generations. The ‘golden age’ Spanish rabbis notorious for their exaltation of the rediscovered ancient Greek philosophies which culminated in the Judean Hanukkah Civil War. Just as then so too during the latter stage of the Geonim. Specifically rabbi Saadia Gaon. Ibn Ezra’s son converted to Islam.

The Rambam’s overt assimilation to ancient Greek logic, especially in works like The Guide for the Perplexed, led to opposition from some rabbis in France. One of the more direct pieces of documentary evidence is a letter sent by the rabbis of Paris to the Jewish communities, expressing their reasons for placing the ban on the Rambam’s works. This letter was issued in 1232 and, while it is not fully extant, excerpts of it survive in various rabbinic writings.

The letter cites concerns about Maimonides’ views on theology, his treatment of certain Talmudic interpretations, and his approach to Jewish law, particularly in the Mishneh Torah, which some rabbis considered overly simplistic or worse a decapitation of Talmudic common law in favor of Greek and Roman statute law.

The Sefer Ha-Hasidim (Book of the Pious), a compilation of pious teachings from medieval Germanic rabbis, contains references to the controversy surrounding Maimonides’ works. It mentions the debates about the acceptability of his philosophical writings and how they viewed them with extreme suspicion. Later historical accounts, such as those found in the Ma’aseh Rav and other chronicles, describe the eventual resolution of the niduy ban placed upon the Rambam.

The Rashba (Rabbi Solomon ben Adret), one of the leading rabbis of Barcelona, refers to the French ban in his responsa. He addresses the situation and the controversy around the Rambam, noting the disputes between the French and Spanish communities regarding his works. Rabbi Abraham ben David of Posquières (Ravad), while a primary critic of the Rambam, despite his criticism defended his works against the ban, arguing that they should be read carefully and properly understood within the context of Jewish tradition. The primary documentary evidence consists of responsa by prominent rabbis (such as the Rivash, Rashba, and others), letters from the rabbis of Paris, and later chronicles. These sources shed light on the reasons for the ban, the concerns over Maimonides’ rationalism, and the philosophical challenges his works posed to the traditional Jewish religious establishment at the time.

Publication of the Rambam Yad Chazakah sparked a Jewish Civil War which culminated in a vortex of flames! In 1242 the king of France ordered the burning of some 24 cartloads of Talmud. In 1306 the king expelled all the Jews of France. This action destroyed and uprooted the school of Common law Torah & Talmudic scholarship: the Rashi/Tosafot school of common law. Rabbeinu Yona realized the gravity of his נידוי ban after this absolute disaster occurred. Alas to late, did he realize his error in requesting permission from the king of France and Pope to burn the Rambam’s heretical books like as done in Spain. The flames of Civil War jumped from Spain to France. In 1290 all Jews in England expelled. The German kingdoms capitalized upon Jewish anarchy and chaos by imposing crushing taxation without representation upon all Jewish communities across Germany. The Pope would impose the three Century condemnation of the Jews by requiring all Western European Jewry to live in Ghetto imprisonment. This decree resulted in a huge Jewish population transfer. Jews fled Western European countries to Poland and the Ukraine. In 1648, the same year that the 30 year Protestant/Catholic War concluded, Cossack bands inflicted horrible terrorism across Poland and the Ukraine. Unmatched till the Nazi Shoah in ferocity and blood lust.

The New Testament as a Roman Forgery on the Order of the Czarist secret police: Protocol of the Elders of Zion.

Creating Christ: How The Flavian Empire Created Christianity – YouTube

Why the Jews Reject the Christian and Muslim Worship of Avoda Zarah Gods.

Translating abstract Hebrew concepts, such as שם ומלכות, into literal translations is highly problematic. Neither the Koran nor the New Testament ever once brings the שם השם revealed in the First Sinai commandment. This commandment instructs to perform the Torah commandments לשמה (for their own sake).

The New Testament heavily relies upon the metaphor of “father” throughout the Gospel narratives. One reference in Deuteronomy 32:6: “Is this the way you repay the Lord, you foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you?”

This strong mussar rebuke merits a common law search for a precedent within the language of the first four Books of the Written Torah. Paul’s critique: “You’re not under the Law” fails to discern between Torah common law/משנה תורה\ from Greek and Roman statute law legal formats.

The Torah never refers to the First commandment revelation of the Spirit Name with any reference to the foreign name Allah. Hence Jews reject this foreign substitution to replace the revelation of the Torah at Sinai with Muhammad’s revelation of Allah in a cave.

The Jewish people utterly amazed that Goyim have no concept of the distinction between tohor vs tumah spirits. This fundamental distinction required for the chosen Cohen people to do “avodat HaShem”; roughly interpreted as the service or worship of HaShem.

The term מלכות refers to the spiritual direction of dedicating defined tohor spirits first revealed to Moshe after the Sin of the Gold Calf at Horev: ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון etc. The revelation of this “Oral Torah” the church fathers absolutely deny the existence of the revelation of the Oral Torah.

The only other verse in the whole of the T’NaCH which employs 3 Divine Names in succession, kre’a Shma. Contrast the mitzva of saying kre’a shma with tefillen; with how Goyim scholars interpret Hear Israel the Lord God the Lord is One. The Talmud understands the 3 Divine Names, to the 3 oaths each separately sworn by the Avot.

The term ONE, the last word of the kre’a shma, the person who accepts the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, he accepts the oaths separately sworn by Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov as ONE upon his heart.

The purpose of tefillen: to swear a Torah oath. Goyim theologies never ask: what oaths did the Avot swear to cut a brit with HaShem concerning the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. Islam in particular give a blow-job to the honor of the circumcised Avot. Christians see the Shema as a declaration of the oneness of God, which aligns with their belief in the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as one God in three persons. Muslim commentaries on the Shema recognize its importance in affirming the oneness of God, which is a central tenet of Islam.

The Quran makes intertextual connections with the Shema, emphasizing that prayer and devotion to God are not about physical direction but about loving God with all one’s heart. This latter idea fails to address Rabbi Yechuda’s interpretation of לבבך as Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. Yatzir Ha’Rah.

The concept of ‘resurrection from the dead’ shares nothing with life after death as both religions of avoda zarah preach. Rather the Yazir Ha’Tov breaths the spirits which did breath the spirits of the Avot! ONE, this concluding word of the Shma raises the Avot from the dead within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of each and every Jew in all generations, based upon the power to Create from nothing, by swearing a Torah oath!

Hence when a Cohen didicated a korban upon the altar in Jerusalem, the portion of Israel in the korbonot avodat HaShem service, they read the Creation story in the beit knesset.

Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah known as פרדס defines how to logically understand how to employ the 13 tohor middot, as the critical means to make a precedent search comparison; the substance of Oral Torah common law scholarship upon the Written Torah. A quick examination of Deuteronomy 32:6 learns through the wisdom of Torah common law precedents.

This mussar rebuke begins at 32:1 – 32:43. Mussar defines all prophecies, as codified by Moshe Rabbeinu and all other NaCH prophets. Goyim do not know this basic fundamental of Torah faith/pursuit of courtroom justice.

Their Gospel forgery attempts to pervert tohor prophets to Av tumah witchcraft and sorcerers – who predict the future. This one Torah reference to “Father” merits a look at the previous verse for context. Both Trinity or strict monotheism qualifies as strange worship of foreign Gods.

These alien Gods have no connection with the plagues in Egypt, the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, nor the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. They directly compare to the Av tumah Golden Calf.

This revelation, that all Goyim to this day reject the Torah Sinai revelation. This prophetic mussar directly refers to the tuma worship of foreign alien Gods imported to Judaism by Av tuma Xtianity and Islam.

This tremendous mussar rebuke, Deut. 32:1 – 32:43, compares to the vow which HaShem made to Moshe following the sin of the Golden Calf! Hence the rebuke of Moshe at the end of his life serves to amplify the prophetic mussar taught through the Aggadic story of Noach and the floods. Genesis 6:5 to 8:20: the exile of Noach in his Ark, story of Aggadic mussar – a depth analysis of prophetic mussar of Deut. 32:1 – 32:43.

How could post Shoah Jewry defeat 5 Arab Armies and win our National Independence as a Nation after 2000+ years of oppressive exile? No Goyim courts of law ever once forced any church priest or pastor or any Sheik, to stand before the Bar and receive judgment for their evil war crimes committed repeatedly against the Jewish people and all Humanity in General.

A simple precedent by which to grasp this prophetic mussar of g’lut. A fundamental Torah theme which the Apostle Paul’s “original sin” substitute theology totally uprooted in Goyim minds.

The 1st Sinai commandment functions as the greatest commandment of the entire Torah. And it has no hint or reference to the Xtian Trinity Creed nor the Muslim Monotheism substitute theology Tawhid Creeds.

The abstract term מלכות refers to the korban-like dedication of living blood thrown upon the altar; to the dedication of one or more of the 13 tohor middot Spirits revealed to Moshe at Horev, 40 days after the Sin of the Golden Calf, where a portion of Israel attempted to translate the Spirit Name of the 1st Sinai revelation into the word אלהים.

Tefillah qualifies as the oath dedication of specific defined tohor middot as מלכות. The Order of the Shemone Esrei 3 + 13 + 3 Blessings. Contained within this Order the רמז of 613. Furthermore the order of this standing prayer holds a רמז to the 6 Yom Tov + Shabbat menorah!

Herein understands the Torah concept of מלכות required to swear a Torah oath. The dedication of tohor middot directly compare to the Cohen throwing living blood upon the altar. Hence tefillah stands in the stead of korbanot!

Why? Because both korbanot & tefillah both swear a Torah oath which dedicates tohor middot לשמה.

The Torah openly states that nothing in the Heavens, Seas, or Earth compares to the revelation of the Spirit Name of HaShem. How much more so for imbecile word translations that attempt to convert the Divine Presence Spirit revelation of the Name into words that the lips of man can easily pronounce!

The substitute religions of Av tuma avoda zarah attempt to foist belief in JeZeus or Allah as some “new covenant” Torah faith. These abominations fail to grasp that Torah defines faith as the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice rather than belief in theological Gods which the mind of Man cannot possibly grasp nor understand.

T’shuva does not correctly translate as repentance. T’shuva learns from HaShem annulling His vow to make the chosen Cohen nation from the seed of Moshe rather than the seed of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov. Chag Yom Kippur commemorates this t’shuva made by HaShem. The Torah specifically employs the term t’shuva wherein HaShem annulled His vow to make the chosen Cohen nation from the seed of Moshe rabbeinu rather than from the oaths sworn to the Avot to this effect.

When the Romans renamed Judea unto the “Palestine”, herein represents a historical example of t’shuva. The Romans sought to physically wipe out the existence and memory of the Jewish people, just as did Hitler’s Nazis!

That the new testament and koran have no awareness of the oath brit faith, how tefillah differs from prayer because tefillah absolutely requires swearing a Torah oath as its time oriented commandment “k’vanna”; whereas prayer has nothing to do with swearing a Torah oath, nor with tohor time oriented commandments! These religious forgeries know nothing about the Torah faith which prioritized the obligation placed upon Torah Sanhedrin courts to pursue righteous compensation of damages inflicted by the guilty upon the innocent.

This concept of annulling a vow derived from Torah common law precedent commandments concerning a father and his daughter or a husband and his wife, where both could annul the vow made by either a girl or a woman. The Roman attempt to expunge the memory of the Jewish state of Judea likewise serves as an example of the intent of annulling a vow. As does UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/19, adopted on December 21, 2017. This resolution declared the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void” and called on all states to refrain from establishing diplomatic missions in Jerusalem.

The Xtian and Muslim concepts – concerning worship of their Gods – fundamentally contradict the 2nd Sinai commandment. T’NaCH and Talmudic traditions define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment through the Torah precedents which forbid pursuing the ways of the Goyim which reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev; and the specific commandment not to intermarry foreign wives. King Shlomo worshipped avoda zarah; when he copied the Goyim practices of building grand Temples and married foreign wives.

The mitzva of building the Beit HaMikdash centers upon establishment of Sanhedrin Common law courts across the land, rather than bankrupting the country build some grand palatial cathedral. Hence the Sages placed the Great Sanhedrin within the Temple itself; they made a tiqqun on king Shlomo’s assimilated avoda zara! Jews do not worship wood and stone idols, how much more so ornate extravagant buildings! The oppressive slavery where Par’o withheld straw, yet beat Israeli slaves, upon this basic Torah precedent – stands Torah faith to pursue judicial justice.

Neither Xtianity nor Islam ever attempted to return the Jewish people to our homeland as, by stark contrast, did the great king of Persia. The Persian king Cyrus, referred to as a “messiah” or “anointed one.” This reference found in Isaiah 45:1, which states: “Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him— and the gates shall not be closed.” In this context, the term “anointed” (מָשִׁיחַ, mashiach), used to describe Cyrus, indicating that he was chosen by God to achieve a specific purpose, namely, to facilitate the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Torah mitzva of Moshiach: anoints a Jewish king to police the land, working in close conjunction with judicial common law Sanhedrin lateral courts of justice.

The Persian king learned from the successful conquest of the Assyrian empire by the Babylonians. The Assyrian barbarians uprooted entire populations of conquered nations and replaced those refugee populations with foreign aliens who had no connection to that land. This reality permitted the Babylonian Armies to conquer the Assyrian empire much like water goes through a sieve.

Roman new testament propaganda stands in stark contrast with the great king of Persia. The Romans sought to ignite social anarchy and Civil War among the Jewish people. In this effort they succeeded as well as they did destroying Herod assimilated Temple abomination. The British government duplicated the policies of the hated Romans. During its Palestine mandate period, London foisted a divide and rule policy between Arabs and Jews.

Both the Syrian Greeks and the Romans based their society social order upon the ideas of ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle and others. Aristotle served as a key advisor to Alexander the Great. Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism does not compare to rabbi Akiva’s 4 part פרדס logic system. All logic requires order: the letter order which distinguishes “God vs Dog”, radically changes how a person perceives the idea communicated! In equal manner Order defines the Jewish Prayer Book known as the Siddur. The Siddur contains the root word סדר – Order.

Why do Jews view Xtianity and Islam as Av Tuma avoda zarah? Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. JeZeus did not observe the mitzva of shabbat. This mitzva requires that Jews make the הבדלה/distinction that discerns like from like; מלאכה from עבודה. Failure to understand the subtle distinction which separates these two verbs, both of which translate as “work”; an Am Ha’aretz never keeps the mitzva of shabbat observance – ever in his or her life.

Mesechta Shabbat learns מלאכה whereas mesechta Baba Kama learns עבודה. The question do the toldot follow the Avot asked by both mesechtot; this question based upon the Av time oriented commandments in בראשית, compared to the toldot positive and negative commandments in the Books שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר. Torah scholarship always strives to make the essential understanding which makes the מאי נפקא מינא הבדלה between like from like “understandings”. The Talmud defines this attribute as the interpretation of the tohor midda of רב חסד. Baba Kama distinguishes between tam and muad damagers. The latter applies to Man because it requires intent, as do all time oriented Av commandments. Four Avot Muad damagers: Oppression, theft, ערוה, and judicial bribery, learned by means of a דיוק logical inference made upon the four tam damagers explicitly stated in the Av Mishna of Baba Kama.

Shabbat observance dedicates not doing forbidden מלאכה on the day of shabbat; דיוק, likewise to not do forbidden עבודה during the 6 days of the ‘week of shabbat’. The Goyim religions of Av tuma avoda zarah never grasped this fundamental distinction of shabbat observance as a mitzva inclusive of every day of the week. Proof that the polecat “daughter religions” never learned the Torah לשמה.

Both Xtianity and Islam superficially claim to respect shabbat, but their religious rhetoric, as empty as Arabs eating camel flesh but abhorring pork! These religions of avoda zarah have no awareness of the chosen Cohen people and the Divine oath inheritance to the oath sworn brit lands, or the spiritual awareness which discerns between tohor vs. tumah spirits which breath within the Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. the Yatzir Ha’Rah within the bnai brit hearts.

Repentance, a totally empty Xtian idea of personal regret; it shares no common ground with t’shuva, that bases itself upon annulling vows. Neither the father nor the husband “regrets” annulling a vow made by his daughter or wife. Therefore, t’shuva shares no common ground with the Xtian void concept of repentance.

Similarly, the translation of “covenant” shares no common ground with the Hebrew concept ברית. The latter – an oath alliance sworn לשמה. To swear an oath alliance requires שם ומלכות. The new testament and koran forgeries never bring the שם השם as revealed in the first Sinai commandment. Therefore, both books of Av tuma foreign religions – worship other gods; both Av tuma religions profane the 2nd Sinai commandment. Both know nothing that a Torah brit requires swearing a Torah oath לשמה, with the intent to cut an eternal alliance touching the chosen Cohen people.

All T’NaCH prophets command mussar strictly to the chosen Cohen people. Herein defines the intent or k’vanna of all T’NaCH prophecy. The new testament Roman forgery does not comprehend these subtle distinctions. It together with Islam believes in some type of Universal God. The Xtian forgery seeks to promote civil war within Jewish society, by perverting prophecy into an Av tuma witchcraft, which makes predictions concerning the future. Throughout the gospel narrative this type of silly narishkeit spews from the new testament like farts.

Chaos and anarchy defined the Jewish revolt attempt(s) against the Romans. Multiple and many Jewish sects dominated the 66 rebellion. Bar Kokhba’s revolt failed to unite Jews of Judea with a well-timed & coordinated Jewish revolt together and united with the Jews of Alexandria Egypt. Furthermore, that general failed to drive the Roman legions out of Damascus, Syria, a critical error.

Bar Kokhba’s critical errors of judgment doomed this second Jewish revolt at Betar. Jewish social anarchy and civil war greatly contributed to the Roman victory over the Jewish revolts in both 66 and 135. The key concept of Torah faith revolves around the righteous pursuit of judicial justice within the borders of the oath-sworn brit lands – the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen nation, Bar Kokhba as a military messiah failed to achieve.

The Av tuma avoda zara religions, worship other gods; they pervert the Torah vision of faith – forcibly converted into some theological creed-based personal belief system. These substitute theologies attempts to subvert the Torah faith that spins around the central axis: the righteous pursuit of judicial justice obligations; which makes a fair compensation of damages inflicted by party A upon party B. Av tuma avoda zara religions seek to substitute the pursuit of righteous justice with a personal belief in JeZeus or Allah.

Av tuma Avoda zara substitute theologies attempt to supplant their creed based personal belief in theologically defined belief systems, that define their gods as either a 3-part One God mystery or a simple One God monotheism. Despite the simple fact that monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Because if only one God then no need to command not to worship other Gods. Moshe travelled to Egypt, and the 10 plagues judged the gods of Egypt. Just as did HaShem judge the Gods worshipped by the Canaanite kings. Avoda zara plagues all generations of Israel; all generations struggle with assimilation and intermarriage.

The sworn oath brit cut at GilGal, as expressed through the Rashi tefillen recalls the fact that Goyim worship other Gods. No such reality as a Universal God. The lights of Hanukkah, for example, reject Greek philosophy. Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס four basis logic system radically differs from Aristotle’s 3 part syllogisms. Attempts made by assimilated rabbis to interpret the T’NaCH and Talmud based upon Greek logic formats – an utter abomination on the order of Xtianity and Islam.

Greek philosophy qualifies as a foreign substitute theology; an Av tuma on par with the Christian and Muslim avoda zara repeated attempts to convert Jews with their replacement theologies. Hence Jews who study ancient Greek philosophy, they err in Av tuma avoda zara as much as do Jews who convert to Xtianity and Islam; as much as did Moshiach Bar Kachba failure to coordinate the revolt together with the Jews of Alexandria Egypt and to carry the war into Syria with the objective of conquering both Damascus together with all its major naval ports.

The Jewish concept of Moshiach a פרט to the כלל function of the Torah and the Oral Torah in interpreting key aspects of Jewish common law and prophecy; Moshiach: an Oral Torah commandment. Indeed, the Jewish approach to the concept of the Messiah, as found in both the T’NaCH and the Oral Torah Talmud codification, quite different & distinct from how the gospel counterfeit portrays Jesus within Christian theology. The following discussion reflects the different views on this matter, particularly in relation to how Jewish scholars might interpret the failure of the Gospel narrative to align with both the Torah’s precedence based common law legalism, and the traditional understanding of the Moshiach as understood through T’NaCH prophetic mussar.

The Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach, deeply rooted in how the Oral Torah interprets the k’vanna of the Written Torah; just as the time oriented commandment of tefillah requires שם ומלכות as its oath k’vanna. Particularly through the common law precedents set by Moshe’s anointing of the House of Aaron, as well as the later anointing of King Shaul by the prophet Shmuel.

The notion that the Moshiach must come from the lineage of David, himself a descendant of Judah, a latter tiqqun added to the mitzva of Moshiach. This latter tiqqun sought to ensure that the line of the House of David, completely rejects the Xtian theological “Father God” of JeZeus mythology. This latter revisionist history attempt directly compares to the mythology of how Zeus fathered Hercules! Adultery an Av tumah Capital Crime. JeZeus the offspring of Zeus as the father of the Gods, represents a Torah abomination.

The Talmud’s emphasis on the Torah sage being held in greater regard than a king of Israel, a critical piece Talmudic understanding concerning the priority of spiritual leadership. The Torah Talmid Chacham, perceived by the sages of the Talmud as the one who understands and interprets the Torah common law; possessing the wisdom to guide the nation in matters of our destiny path of truth-faith, which commits the chosen Cohen people to pursue righteous judicial justice. The role of the Moshiach in Oral Torah logic, not just a political or religious leader. Nor some military figure comparable to Bar Kachba; rather, Moshiach represents the Oral Torah interpretation of someone who restores the Torah as the Written Constitution of the Republic; the Oral Torah as the basic model of lateral common law courtrooms. As such, the Moshiach’s anointing, deeply tied to the oath brit relationship established by Avram at the brit cut between the pieces and the tradition Oral Torah learning.

Just as “swearing” an oath blessing requires שם ומלכות, so too the Order established by the Framers of the Talmud affixed a warp/weft loom like relationship between the Aggada narratives opposed by the Halachic portions of the Gemara common law precedent based commentary to the Mishna. Stripping a garment of either its warp or weft threads destroys the fabric of that garment. The statute law halachic codifications of the Middle Ages made this precise abomination. To correct the Rambam halachic perversion requires affixing any and all Rambam posok halacha in his statute law perversion to the identical halacha within the B’HaG, Rif, or Rosh common law halachic codifications. These kosher halachic common law codes always affix their Halachic Gemara rulings to a Primary Source Mishna.

Torah scholarship requires a sharp critical eye which can discern Like from Like. The Talmud refers to this skill as the definition of understanding. Just as swearing a oath blessing requires the warp/weft of שם ומלכות, so too and how much more so ritual halachic observance requires its Aggadic דרוש\פשט learning to T’NaCH Primary sources which makes a common law precedent comparison search that explores the depths or facets of prophetic mussar which defines the פשט of the Talmudic aggada warp. Oral Torah: just as the Gemara makes a multiply faceted משנה תורה\legislative review (re-interpretation) of the diamond like faces of Mishnaic language, so too and how much more so precedent based research gleans prophetic mussar tohor middot comparisons from sugyot of NaCH compared to the identical sets of tohor middot located in other sugyot of NaCH. This depth analysis of prophetic mussar determines the k’vanna of Torah mitzvot and Talmudic halachot observances.

The concept of anointing with oil in the context of sacrifices (korbanot) in the Temple, also fundamental to understanding the Jewish approach to Moshiach. This oil, used in the service of the Temple, symbolized the sanctification of Israel’s offerings and the anointing of its leaders. The Messiah, in Jewish thought, will be anointed in a similar manner to those figures who came before him—especially the kings and priests of Israel, in accordance with the Torah’s stipulations. A concrete act of divine selection and empowerment.

The Xstian claim that JeZeus fulfills the role of Moshiach simply at odds with the traditional Jewish understanding of the term. From the Jewish perspective, Jesus’ life and actions do not align with the Oral Torah’s requirements for Moshiach. The Gospels narrative fail to engage with the Oral Torah’s teachings about the Moshiach, and they do not acknowledge the precedent established in common law, the anointing of the House of Aaron or the priests and kings of Israel. In Jewish tradition, the Moshiach must be a descendant of King David (through his father, not his mother), a precondition which the so called ‘virgin birth’ failed to achieve. Furthermore, the bogus Xtian narrative specifically failed to “fulfill” the specific roles, re-establishment of the Federal Sanhedrin common law system of Torts and Capital Sanhedrin courtrooms which achieved judicial justice in the oath sworn lands of the chosen Cohen nation. None of these pre-conditions did JeZeus accomplish in any the historical context.

The failure of the Gospel narrative to align with the Torah’s precedent for the anointing of the Moshiach another of the many points of contention. In Jewish tradition, anointing with oil – an essential part of the mitzva of Moshiach. As exemplified in the Torah’s precedents of Moshe & Aaron, and of course kings Shaul & David. JeZeus never depicted as being anointed, except by a prostitute. Such a narrative compares to the judicial injustice and brutal torture which the gospel narrative portrays the JeZeus “sacrifice” upon the Roman altar of death. For Jewish scholars, this vile depiction makes only a fictional story. The gospel narrative does satisfy the Torah’s vision of Moshiach, which requires restoration of the Torah Constitutional Republic and the Sanhedrin lateral common law Federal court system. A prostitute anointing the feet of a man hardly qualifies as holy korban.

The Talmudic teachings on the Moshiach, make clear that the Messiah not only restores the Torah as the constitution of the Republic, but just as significant, the Moshiach re-establish Torah Sanhedrin lateral common law courts. The gospel narrative of a spiritual Moshiach, while not entirely foreign to Judaism, based upon the false messiah movements lead by Sabbatai Zevi and Yaacov Frank; based upon these latter false messiah examples the gospel fictional narrative hardly stands as authentic. Talmudic common law rejects such ‘spiritual messiahs as utterly false.

The Oral Torah\Talmud give a specific definition of a prophet as someone who guides the people of Israel toward t’shuva and adherence to the mitzvot (commandments) expressed through Av tohor time oriented commandments. Prophets, employ the 13 tohor middot as the basis of T’NaCH mussar common law sugya comparisons to other T’NaCH sugyot. Prophetic mussar, functions as the warp/weft loom like opposing threads of Talmudic halacha. T’NaCH prophetic mussar, based on a comparison of similar middot configurations within NaCH sugyot, defines the wisdom of learn the NaCH kabbalah לשמה. Time oriented commandments require prophetic mussar as the basis of k’vanna within the heart.

The concept of prophecy in Judaism, not about foretelling the future, a trait known to tuma false prophets, who according to the gospel narrative “fulfil” the words of the prophets. Utterly absurd. Time oriented Av Torah commandments, which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna of tohor Oral Torah middot, apply equally to all generations of the chosen Cohen people. The gospel narative did not grasp the essence of Torah observance of Av tohor time oriented commandments. Time oriented commandments require prophetic mussar for the generations to observe this unique type of Av commandments לשמה. The idea that JeZeus fulfilled the words of the prophets as absurd as a prostitute pouring oil onto his feet transforms this work of fiction into both Moshiach and the son of God.

The Xtian tradition, judged upon the scales of Oral Torah Av time oriented commandments, clear as the Sun on a cloudless day a false messiah depiction on the order of Harry Potter fiction. Allah Voldemort – dead. JeZeus particularly not only specifically ignorant of the mitzva of Shabbat & the כלל of Av time oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar which define the k’vanna of Oral Torah middot. JeZeus, as a specific example taught “prayer” as “Our father who lives in Heaven” rather that tefillah a matter of the heart. Prophetic mussar k’vanna – a matter of the heart. Tefillah entails swearing a Torah oath לשמה to dedicate a specific defined tohor midda in order to make a tiqqun how a man interacts in the future with his wife, children, family, neighbours and people. The k’vanna of tefillah dedicates tohor defined prophetic mussar middot לשמה.

Xtian theology places JeZeus in a perverse position where the gospel narrative declares that he “fulfilled the Law”, oblivious that the gospels have not the least bit of a clue what Torah common law means nor how it functions. JeZeus’s departure from Torah common law, particularly in matters like Shabbat observance, cited as but one obvious example of how this imaginary man cannot and does not ‘fulfil’ the prophets.

The Jewish rejection of Jesus as Moshiach, or even as the koran narrative as a Torah prophet rests squarely upon the failure of the gospels to address Av tohor time oriented commandments. Besides the failure to align with the Torah’s specific precondition which learns the mitzva of Moshiach from korbanot anointed with oil together with the restoration of the Sanhedrin lateral common law court Federal court system. The Roman fraud gospel framers did not understand Constitutional Torah law.

This fundamental blatant error concerning the nature of prophetic mussar as the definition through precedent comparison which define the k’vanna of tohor middot, as the definition and purpose the Oral Torah Horev revelation. Implications of strange Xtian doctrines, such as salvation through grace, or Jesus’ fulfilment of the Law, judged as Av tuma avoda zarah; the forerunner of Sabbatai Zevi’s antinomian doctrine. The absolute ignorance of the gospel narrative to Av tohor time oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna within the heart definitively proves that JeZeus failed the “one in 10,000” may attain the level of Torah scholarship and prophetic merit.

The Gospel narratives simply understood as a perversion of T’NaCH and Talmudic Moshiach mussar prophecies. Xtian theology and creeds ignores the foundational principles of achieving Av time oriented commandments, wherein the bnai brit Cohen people breath the tohor spirits of the Creator of the Universe from within the Yatzir Tov of our hearts; the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev.

Muslim theologians approach the issue of JeZeus and Muhammad being referred to as Old Testament prophets, based upon the false assumption that the gospel narrative merit respect. Latter day Islam which declares the Torah as corrupt compares to the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith. Many Xtian theologians draw a line of comparison between Muhammad and Smith. Both “prophets” introduced their own new order of scriptures.

Both Islam and Mormonism highly revers the treif gospel narratives. Goyim have a deep infatuation with T’NaCH prophets, despite their total ignorance of tohor middot and Av time oriented commandments. Muhammad’s message of monotheism, likewise declares that JeZeus predicted the coming of Muhammad. JeZeus in the Quran has absolutely no concept of the mitzva of Moshiach as interpreted by the Oral Torah פרדס logic system and tohor middot.

The koran regards Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets (Khatam an-Nabiyyin), despite not having the least bit of a clue how the T’NaCH understands the function and role of prophets. Clearly Islamic thought resembles the prophet Adam Smith far more than any T’NaCH prophet. The koran does not position Muhammad as a continuation of the Jewish prophetic line in a direct, historical sense. Muhammad according to the koran narrative lived as the final prophet who brought the ultimate revelation from God. Both the koran and Mormon holy books supersede all the scriptures which preceded them.

Neither the gospels, koran nor book of Mormon brings the שם השם revealed in the first Sinai commandment. These latter day Goyim “prophets” confuse the Hebrew “oath alliance”/ברית as one in the same with the sophomoric translated term covenant. Lacking the שם השם no man can cut a Torah ברית. Hence, covenant cannot mean brit. A difference of apples and oranges. Which these Goyim prophets remained completely oblivious in their bliss & ignorance. In many ways these spiritual reformers compare to Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Knox, John Wesley, and Mary Baker Eddy. While not all these individuals directly hated or despised one another, certainly significant theological disagreements and conflicts erupted among them.

Luther believed in the doctrine of consubstantiation. Zwingli, on the other hand, viewed the Eucharist as purely symbolic. John Calvin’s theology was influenced by both Luther and Zwingli, but he developed his own distinct doctrines, particularly on predestination and the sovereignty of God.

William Tyndale focused on translating the Bible into English, and his fugitive status continually forced him to hide from English authorities. John Wesley, came much later and had different theological focuses. He disagreed with Calvin’s predestination doctrine, emphasizing free will and personal holiness. Wesley’s Arminian views such as: Free Will, Prevenient Grace that precedes and prepares the soul for salvation; Conditional Election upon faith, Universal Atonement: that salvation is available to everyone, but only those who accept it will be saved. These “prophesies” put him at odds with Calvinist traditions.

Mary Baker Eddy, her teachings were often seen as unorthodox or heretical by mainstream Xtian denominations. The debates and tensions among them highlight the diversity and complexity of the Reformation and subsequent religious movements. Comparatively speaking, Muhammad fits right into the crowd of these religious reformers and prophets.

Bottom line: Justice: fair judicial compensation for damages inflicted. Not forgiveness for sin. The Pauline substitute theology of original sin perverted the key Torah theme of g’lut\exile. Starting with the exile of Adam from the garden, Noach’s exile in the Ark, and the exile of Israel in Egypt. And concluding with the 40 year exile in the Wilderness. The Holy Writings Book of Job likewise teaches the mussar of g’lut/exile.

An Oral Torah critique of Avoda Zara

My Judaism – An Introduction (Part Two)

Why the Jews Reject the Christian and Muslim Worship of Avoda Zarah Gods.

The term ONE, the last word of the kre’a shma, the person who accepts the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, he accepts the oaths separately sworn by Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov as ONE upon his heart.

Hence when a Cohen didicated a korban upon the altar in Jerusalem, the portion of Israel in the korbonot avodat HaShem service, they read the Creation story in the beit knesset.

These alien Gods have no connection with the plagues in Egypt, the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, nor the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. They directly compare to the Av tumah Golden Calf.

A simple precedent by which to grasp this prophetic mussar of g’lut. A fundamental Torah theme which the Apostle Paul’s “original sin” substitute theology totally uprooted in Goyim minds.

Why? Because both korbanot & tefillah both swear a Torah oath which dedicates tohor middot לשמה.

Amalek raise its ugly head when Jews assimilate and intermarry with Goyim who never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai & Horev

https://salaficentre.com/2024/12/13/historical-and-contemporary-antisemitism-a-brief-dialogue-with-julio-levit-koldorf/
Why the Jews Reject the Christian and Muslim Worship of Avoda Zarah Gods.

The term ONE, the last word of the kre’a shma, the person who accepts the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, he accepts the oaths separately sworn by Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov as ONE upon his heart.

Hence when a Cohen didicated a korban upon the altar in Jerusalem, the portion of Israel in the korbonot avodat HaShem service, they read the Creation story in the beit knesset.

These alien Gods have no connection with the plagues in Egypt, the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, nor the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. They directly compare to the Av tumah Golden Calf.

A simple precedent by which to grasp this prophetic mussar of g’lut. A fundamental Torah theme which the Apostle Paul’s “original sin” substitute theology totally uprooted in Goyim minds.

Why? Because both korbanot & tefillah both swear a Torah oath which dedicates tohor middot לשמה.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: