The 3rd sugya starts דף ג: תנן בכסף: מנ”ל and concludes on דף ד. אימא דידה הוו צריכה. The central premise introduced in this sugya Aggadic middot as taught by rabbi Yossi. Its starts with his 18th middah: כל הלמד מעניינו, דבר זה בעייתו, דבר זה נברא להוראתם. This teaching reflects the idea that every experience has something to teach us, reinforcing the value of personal growth and understanding. The 19th middah of Rabbi Yossi, “כל העוסק בתורה בשמחה, והכנה להקל על עצמו ולא להקשות על עצמו, בנין אב מכתוב אחד,” interprets the phrase: מה אמה מעשה ידיה לרבה אף בת מעשה ידיה לאביה. If the father gives his נערה daughter in marriage, (a girl between 12 to 12.5 years) the money logically belongs to him. The actions and efforts of both sons and daughters have intrinsic value and can positively impact their parents.
מנ”ל (מאי נפקא מיניה) – this phrase, a סוד kabbalah reference to the 7th Oral Torah middah רוב חסד. Wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot\ stand apart from קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה commandments – the latter בניני אבות מצוות do not require k’vanna in and of themselves any more than Gemara precedent halachot; however by employing these toldot Primary and secondary sources (as codified in both the Torah and Talmud) – they can “form” a sort of wine bibber discernment understanding of the k’vanna of Oral Torah Shekinah spirits within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the bnai brit hearts. This Torah “wisdom” completely unique to bnai brit Israel who live within the oath sworn lands – based upon the 1st Sinai commandment לשמה.
Just as Shabbat requires separating 6 days of מלאכה from 1 day forbidden to do מלאכה so too קידושין as a מלאכה wisdom commandment. האב זכאי בבתו – בקטנותה ובנערותה but not a בוגרת, a daughter 12.5 years and older. Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale, their statute halachic יד, וכסף משנהcodes fail to learn Gemara halachot as משנה תורה precedents with the purpose to review the language of the “Home Mishna”. They erroneously presume that Gemara halachot stand upon their own two feet; just as Boris’s ספר המצוות limits Torah commandments to two basic categories. Their religious halachic codifications negate Talmudic courtroom common law as THE priority of the Framers of both Mishna and Gemara. Both “perverts” fail to grasp the k’vanna of האשה נקנית excludes תינוקות בנות.
The pollution of Rambam’s assimilated avoda zarah, impacts all generations down stream. הראב”ד failed to catch this fundamental most basic of errors. The כסף משנה totally ignored this flagrant violation of the basic fundamentals of Talmudic scholarship as well. The same ירידות הדורות-domino effect upon the all the super-commentaries. The error of permitting Jews to kiss up to the recently rediscovered Greek philosophy impacted all generations starting with Saadia Gaon. No commentary upon the Talmud written by any g’lut rabbinic school – not even the French common law school – prioritized the study of Talmudic law by first breaking each sugya down to its basic fundamental basis of middot. This mistake made by Gaonim and Reshonim scholarsip introduced a “Xtian/Muslim” substitute theology which prioritizes belief in God in the Heavens, belief in Monotheism, acceptance of Plato/Aristotle syllogism statute deductive reasoning. This av tumah violation of the 2nd Sinai commandment caused the Jews to forget the Oral Torah and blow out the lights of Hanukkah.
The Rambam most certainly not a Karaite. None the less, his assimilation to Greek schools of philosophy, specifically Aristotle’s deductive logic, this exact assimilation caused him to “replace” static deductive syllogism reasoning for פרדס fluid inductive reasoning. Religious Jews read their Talmud like Xtians and Arabs/Muslims read their Bible/Koran respectively. Neither T’NaCH nor Talmud instructs history. Av tuma avoda zara religions insist that both T’NaCH & Talmud teach history. Why? Because Goyim never accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai, starting with their imaginary Jesus son of God, and their false prophet Muhammad. Only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah; the Torah curse Amalek/ערב רב Jews\, no different from Shomronim, Tzeddukim, Karaim, Jesus son of God believers and Muhammad the prophet of Allah – all Universally worship other Gods.
Let me bring the language of פרק שלישי הלכות אישות – א.
כיצד האשה מתקדשת. בכסף הוא מקדש אין פחות מפרוטה כסף או שוה פרוטה. אומר לה הרי אתת מקודשת לי. או הרי את מאורסת לי. או הרי את לי לאשה בזה וכו. Oral Torah middot רוח הקודש Torah Spirits no more words than T’NaCH or Talmud instruct history. Torah wisdom requires a discerning eye which requires distinguishing like from like. All Torah wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot\ absolutely and most basically-fundamentally require Torah prophetic mussar. Linking rabbinic middot affixed to Torah Oral Torah Spirit middot which Moshe Rabbeinu heard at Horev – as the definitive “WAY/TRUTH” (8th Oral Torah middah) directly turns to the tohor middot within the Yatzir Ha-Tov as the basis to righteously pursue justice among our People. Righteous judicial justice which dedicates (comparable to korbanot) to make a fair restoration of damages inflicted upon our people consequent to our pursuit of tuma middot within our Yatzir Ha-Rah … herein sums up the k’vanna of Torah faith.
Critical to grasp that both T’NaCH and Talmud instruct משנה תורה\דברים common law. Midrash explains how to study Aggada; while the latter follows the “Order of the Mishna”, the former organized around the “Order of the T’NaCH”. These opposing warp/weft threads serve as the “Loom” by which these two sealed masoret Primary Sources form and shape the cultures and customs practiced by the Chosen Cohen people as our “Identity” from generation to generation. Oral Torah middot Spirits do not change. Contrast the generations of Adam unto today – each generation, especially as viewed and perceived by “the Modern Era perspective” has witness amazing generation gaps! Remember the theme song of the Monkees Tv show. The Hippie Era, introduced “square” to describe those who adhered to conventional values and lifestyles.
The Book שופטים emphasized the gulf which separates one generation from another. Tohor middot spirits which quicken the Yatzir Ha-Tov by contrast serve as a מקום קבוע wherein the Gemara of ברכות introduces this idea which the Reshonim debated based upon a literal טיפש פשט reading. Tohor middot do not depend where a person davens in his home or in the Shul with a minyan. Tefilla requires the dedication of a defined tohor middah. Rabbi Yochanon poskined the halacha that ברכות צריך שם ומלכות. Just as tohor middot – not words but רוח הקודש middot so too תפילה דרבנן הוא התולדה של קריא שמע דאורייתא. Tefillah requires swearing a Torah oath, hence the Gemara of ברכות instructs that a person must don tefillen and tzitzit prior to davening tefillah דאורייתא. The 5th positive commandment of the Rambam Sefer HaMitzvot, together with the Ramban criticism both all together miss the boat. The Reshonim across the board universally failed to affix the different Orders of Tefillen to the different oaths sworn at Gilgal and Sh’Cem. Reshonim during the Dark Ages of g’lut oppression, they had no clear grasp of Torah basics.
Tag: judaism
Lateral Sanhedrin Court-Room Common law\\משנה תורה. A picture of a person NOT the actual person. Oral Torah common law NOT religious statute halacha.
The 3rd sugya of mesechta קידושין introduces some of the middot as taught by rabbi Yossi HaGalli in this Aggada. Just as the Siddur organizes the Shemone Esrei into a precise order so too the each and every sugya of Gemara organizes halachic or aggadic upon pricise Orders of either “sets” of middot; based upon the mitzva of tefillen which has two separate “set” of boxes. This 3rd sugya instructs an aggadic mussar drosh back to multiple Primary Source T’NaCH בניני אבות judicial common law precedents.
As in the previous 2nd sugya compared רמב”ם\כסף משנה – Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale – statute law spy villains to contrast Greek/Roman “cult of personality” religious legislative statute law as a foil to understand the day and night difference between judicial common law from g’lut Par’o law. Cursed all false prophets who call day – night and Night – Day. Cursed g’lut Jews cannot obey the Torah לשמה, based upon the 1st Sinai commandment – Egypt לאו דוקא. As the Yovel mitzva only applies to ארץ ישראל so too doing mitzvot לשמה.
The T’NaCH and Talmud masoret define the tohor middot which defines the k’vanna which elevates ritual commandments – both positive & negative + halachot – from ritual observances no different that klippah of the Ari’s kabbalah tzimtzum unto wisdom commandments which forever defines and separates Torah wisdom from Goyim wisdom. Wisdom commandments, also known as time-oriented mitzvot, unique to the Torah revelation at Sinai – starting with Sefer בראשית. This first Book of the Torah revelation subsumed under the first and second Sinai commandment revelation which Israel alone accepted prior to the sin of the Golden Calf.
The revelation of the Golden Calf does not refer to a physical idol but rather to the 2nd Sinai commandment. Specifically not to translate the רוח הקודש שם השם לשמה to other words; words which declare God in the heavens rather than the משל משכן whose דיוק נמשל instructs that the רוח הקודש middot fill the Yatzir Ha’Tov heart of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov תמיד מעשה בראשית created in all times and generations through the wisdom of time-oriented Torah commandments. The mitzva of קידושין serves as a פרט to this כלל.
The 3rd sugya starts דף ג: תנן בכסף: מנ”ל and concludes on דף ד. אימא דידה הוו צריכה. The central premise introduced in this sugya Aggadic middot as taught by rabbi Yossi. Its starts with his 18th middah: כל הלמד מעניינו, דבר זה בעייתו, דבר זה נברא להוראתם. This teaching reflects the idea that every experience has something to teach us, reinforcing the value of personal growth and understanding. The 19th middah of Rabbi Yossi, “כל העוסק בתורה בשמחה, והכנה להקל על עצמו ולא להקשות על עצמו, בנין אב מכתוב אחד,” interprets the phrase: מה אמה מעשה ידיה לרבה אף בת מעשה ידיה לאביה. If the father gives his נערה daughter in marriage, (a girl between 12 to 12.5 years) the money logically belongs to him. The actions and efforts of both sons and daughters have intrinsic value and can positively impact their parents.
The 28th Midda of rabbi Yossi – היקש, כל דבר שכתוב, אם כן יש בזה דבר מה. Hekesh, serves as a principle for drawing connections between similar concepts in Jewish law and texts; in this case it compares the “common denominator” which connects mother to the daughter through “profit/yield” – יציאה as applicable to inheritance and responsibilities. It serves as the basis for understanding the interconnectedness of familial roles and emphasizes the importance of both mother and daughter in the Jewish community.
The 10th midda of rabbi Yossi מיעוט, part of Rabbi Akiva’s kabbala he received from Nachum Ish Gamzu. Which contrasts with Rabbi Yishmael’s כלל ופרט. This midda מיעוט used to narrow the scope of halakha or teaching from verses, meaning to limit the domain of application of a specific law and not to extend it to every possible case. The expression “ההולך בדרך צר” appears as a classic metaphor for the attribute of minimization. If something that teaches and obligates, this restriction shapes the priority. Specifically to instruct the law in these particular cases, and not in a general and broad manner.
The minimization emphasizes limitation – not every similar case must be included in the general teaching; meant specifically to instruct on that narrow case – and not to extend beyond it. מיעוט – למעט או להמעיט את היקף או את תחום ההוראה, בכך עושה אנו מדגישים כי לא כל מקרה צריך להיות מוחל באופן כללי
the essential principle of this midda.
This “conservative” way avoids over-extension of laws and therein maintains halachic precision. This contrasts with רבוי that expand, the depth between אל שדי which envisions God in the Heavens to סני שם השם which restricts the middot of רוח הקודש confined to within the Yatzir HaTov within the heart of the Cohen people as taught through the מעיט of the משל Mishkan to the נמשל Shekinah kabbala interpretation of תורה לא בשמים היא.Words such as “את”, “מן”, “כל”, etc., which expand the interpretation; followed minimization – which limit. Words or phrases, such as “רק”, “אך”, “מן” or ס”ד אמינא … קמ”ל.
The verse: ויקרא כב:יג בת כהן כי תהיה אלמנה וגרושה וזרע אין לה ושבה אל בית אביה כנעוריה מלחם אביה תאכל – qualifies as the 7th midda of rabbi Yossi (and his son Rabbi Eliezer) ריבוי מן הכתב — שאינו דומה שומע מתוך ספר לשומע מתוך פה. Specifically, וזרע אין לה — this 7th midda infers a critical דיון mussar – which concerns: compassion and understanding in marriages that turn South. The interpretation suggests that a wife’s worth in a marital relationship entails – a more complex multifaceted understanding of קידושין. A woman’s partnership in raising a family acknowledged by the Talmud which refers to her as בית. The function of קידושין goes far beyond the wedding day. A woman role in building a family involves much more than simply birthing children. Past the ritual ceremonies of chuppa, stands the substance of trust/shalom; which directly influences חנוק. The invaluable social and emotional roles women play, shaping values, education, and community involvement which they inherit from their father and mother. The 7th midda of rabbi Yossi seeks to draw a deeper insight into concept of קידושין. Marriage dynamics emphasize compassion, understanding, and the comprehensive contributions women partners play in family life. Human relationships by definition complex and multifaceted in nature.
Rabbi Yossi’s 25 middah שני כתובים צריכים זה לזה in rabbi Yossi’s middot expressed through גזרה שווה. Its logic indicates that when two verses share similar wording or themes, they are used to elucidate a single legal concept or instruction. Both texts are required to fully grasp the nuances of the law they reference. The verses may provide different perspectives or contexts regarding the same law, and both must be considered collectively to derive halachic rulings obscured by reliance upon one verse “witness” testimony. Torah Constitutional common law first and foremost mandates Sanhedrin courtroom law as the chief article of faith – צדק צדק תרדוף. Torah commandments and halacha serve as precedents to grasp the mandate of what the Torah as the Written Constitution determines as the “Protectorate” of the Revelation at Sinai. No different than the League of Nations made establishment of a Jewish National Home in “Palestine” into its definitive “Mandate/Protectorate”.
A בניין אב a Case/specific midda represents a logical inductive logic which extrapolates legal principles from an established primary case and applies them to a different but analogous situation. Learning by means of logical precedents inductive flexible and adaptive to changing times and conditions, based upon the unique aspects of the Case currently heard before the Court. Contrast this Case/specific midda with the Case/non-specific midda of the גזרה שווה which learns different perspectives of what witnesses “see” by comparing similar verses in the Torah. If two verses use the same term or phrase, a legal principle may be derived from one to the other.
The 17th midda of rabbi Yossi’s middot – דבר הלמד מסופו – דבר שמתברר מתוך סופו של הדיון. This sh’itta of inductive reasoning focuses on conclusions drawn from the final outcomes or implications of legal arguments. Inductive reasoning involves drawing general conclusions from specific instances. Unlike deduction reasoning (which moves from general to specific), here, “the end” (the visible outcome) teaches about the beginning or the hidden principle.
An example of midda 17 –ויקרא כה:מא – ויצא מעמם, אשר עבר אליו, אל משפחתו … Kiddushn 20a instructs: the servant goes free – while the wife and children remain with the master. The phrase “אשר עבר אליו” — “those who passed over to him” — refers to the wife and children given to him by his master. This contrasts with and the verse concludes: “אל משפחתו” — “to his [own] family”. Meaning, he returns to his family who lived prior to his being made an עבד עברי, not the family formed during his 6 year servitude.
This inductive midda contrasts with most introductory history study in Universities. Dr. Dunning taught me at Texas A&M this subtle distinction between inductive vs. deductive reasoning. Examination of known recorded history: tends to focus upon decisions national leaders made as their government policy or battles famous general fought. History generally limits its research shaped by the “general conclusions”, like Lee lost the battle of Gettysburg. Governments strive to protect the reputations of their God/leaders by concealing their crimes. The Civil War primarily a States Rights autonomy to regulate trade and commerce independent of Big Brother ‘carpet bagger’ bureaucrats. Who killed John Kennedy? Government concealment of leadership disasters, compare to sex scandals. Hence people who rule and conceal their crimes, this by definition skews how later generations interpret the past.
This reactionary and shallow “grade school” deductive reasoning which relies upon conclusions rather than concealed details defines Greek rhetoric/government propaganda. Public schools instruct convenient tales of “history”. The invention of Eli Whitney’s cotton gin in 1793 together with coal based steam engines played a significant role in initiating a huge population transfer into the cities. Feudal economies rural based agricultural cottage industry economies simply could not compete. The 19th Century witness the need for bureaucratic regulation, such as child labor laws. Herein rests the crux of how Lincoln interpreted the Commerce Clause; he held that the Federal Government should regulate trade and commerce – including intra-State trade.
Just as Hegel’s philosophy of the State radically differed from Marx’s prioritization of the proletariat. Hegel considered the development of the state as central to human progress, Marx prioritized the empowerment and liberation of the working class, fundamentally critiquing the state as a tool of ‘capitalist oppression’. This key term of political rhetoric ‘capitalist oppression’ a direct consequence of the Industrial Revolution which transformed the economies of both Europe and America. Therefore, the instruction of the American Civil War as a war against slavery, a false conclusion based upon corrupt deductive propaganda. Greek rhetoric frames issues into emotional knee jerk reactions. The man on the street to busy trying not to starve to delve into complex issues of state.
The Order of this “middot code” democrates how Torah common law shines through disciplined “Constitutional mandated Sanhedrin common law” – textual reasoning rather than ideological static cult of personality legislative authorities.
Understanding the k’vanna to remember\t’shuva Amalek as the key to remove avoda zara tuma within our Yatzir Ha-Ra prior to Chag Pesach
The mitzva to remember Amalek a complex wisdom commandment. דברים כה:יח – ולא ירא אלהים falsely understood as referring to Amalek. חסדי אומות העולם quoted out of context religious rhetoric. Bring a Primary source sealed masoret which defines this quote from 105a. To start with how does this Gemara interpret the language of the Mishna it comments upon? Rambam’s statute law introduces a religious post Shas halacha rather than obeys the intent of the Shas framers for the Talmud to serve as the model for Torah common law courts when the Jewish people reconquer and rule our homelands once again. Statute law – like Rambam’s code – not T’NaCH\Talmudic common law. Religious halachic decrees do not compare to courtroom judicial rulings based upon prior judicial precedents.
זוהר חלק ג׳, רס״ב–רס״ג — הזוהר מתאר שהערב רב לא היו בתוך ענני הכבוד, ולכן הם היו הראשונים שעמלק פגע בהם הזוהר מתאר שהערב רב לא היו בתוך ענני הכבוד, ולכן הם היו הראשונים שעמלק פגע בהם
מדרש תנחומא, כי תצא, סימן ט’: המדרש אומר שעמלק פגע ב“מי שהיו מחוץ לענני הכבוד מפרשים רבים (בעיקר מקובלים) מסבירים שהערב רב היו מחוץ לעננים
The issue not that the חסידי אומות have a portion in the world to come. Rather Amalek has no portion in the world to come. Therefore, the language: לא יראת אלהים cannot refer to Amalek but only to the ערב רב. Because the key word “אתה” … ולא ירא אלהים”. Totally disagree with the common תיפש פשט reading. Torah commands mussar. Mussar does not apply to Amalek because Amalek by definition “has no shame”. Therefore ולא יראת אלהים follows the instruction of the Zohar and Midrash.
Amalek rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. For the Torah to say אין להם יראת אלהים – utterly pointless and vain. The blessing/curse-life\death brit defines the intent of the first 2 Sinai commandments. What defines ערב רב? The T’NaCH sources of Kings and Ezra affix the tuma Yatzir as 1. clinging to the customs of Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – like Amalek. 2. Intermarriage with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sina. Like as told in the Pinchas killing of the Head of the Tribe of Shimon. The Book of Ezra supports this interpretation which defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Isaiah mocks the absolute stupidity of using wood to heat ones’ home cook ones’ food and carve an idol.
The Xtian 30 Year War reads the 2nd Sinai commandment limited to physical idols – the central dispute between Catholics and Protestants. Both sects of Xtianity an utter Torah abomination. The 2nd Sinai commandment not a simple טיפש פשט literal reading any more than the Creation story of בראשית. Debates over how the Universe created the Mishna explicitly denounces; those who contemplate that which is above, below, or behind them – better that they were never born. The Creation story instructs prophetic mussar; Torah teach by way of משל\נמשל. The Creation story introduces Av tohor time-oriented commandment as the Av commandment of the Torah! The toldot commandment introduced in שמות ויקרא ובמדבר – positive and negative commandments which do not require k’vanna. דברים also named משנה תורה because unlike the Rambam code misnamed משנה תורה, the 6 Orders of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna – court Common law judicial ruling, NOT legislative/cult of personality religious decrees. The Rambam statute law code therefore does NOT define the מילה משנה תורה but rather the Mishna defines this 2nd Name for the Book of דברים.
Just as rabbi Akiva instruct: the wilderness generation has no portion in the world to come, so too the ערב רב curse of “antisemitism plague” consequent to Jewish assimilation and intermarriage – has no portion in the world to come. Prophetic mussar does not apply to Goyim. Despite both Moshe and later Yona sent to foreign lands, both commanded mussar to Israel and not Goyim because Goyim have no portion in the world to come. This brings us back to righteous gentiles as an except to this general statement. Righteous gentiles not gere toshav. The Rambam erroneous posok which teaches that bnai noach = all Goyim — false. The Torah defines “goyim” as גר תושב ונכריים. Sanhedrin refers to ger toshav while Baba Kama refers to Goyim who converted from fear of lions. Talmud never goes out of the parameters established by the Torah – based upon the first commandment. Torah judicial law courts only have jurisdiction within the boundaries of conquered Canaan. G’lut Jews remain in “Egypt”. Clearly the word “Egypt” לא דוקא.
The phrase “חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא” explicitly stated in Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:2, which serves as a foundational source often referenced in Gemara discussions. The Tosefta reads: חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא. Balaam by contrast equated with figures like Cushan-Rishathaim and Laban, symbolizing persistent evil against Israel.
A central dispute arises between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua on Tehillim (Psalms) 9:18: “לשאולה רשעים ישובו כל גוים שכחי אלהים” … Rabbi Yehoshua: The verse implies only wicked Goyim (“those who forget God”) – excluded; meaning righteous Goyim—who fear God and act justly—do have a share. This aligns with the Tosefta’s explicit statement, inferring that Balaam, has no share, but “other Goyim” do.
Amalek, as a force of tumah, exploits this vulnerability, attacking “the hindmost” (Devarim 25:18)—interpreted as those spiritually “cooling off” from Torah commitment. The Zohar frames this as a cosmic battle: Amalek represents the sitra achra, preying on those not enveloped in divine chesed. עיין ravkooktorah.org
Rabbi Levi opens with Tehillim 9:6, it compares Amalek’s assault to jumping into a boiling tub: No nation dared attack Israel post-Exodus due to divine awe, but Amalek “cooled” that fear by striking first, targeting the weak stragglers. Therefore the mitzva to ‘remember Amalek’ commands the mussar of the Torah curse labeled today as “antisemitism”.
Amalek as Torah curse: Blessing or Curse defines the first two Sinai commandments. Goyim do not accept the revelation of the Torah; not Amalek, nor any other Goyim outside of ger tzeddik. The Torah, for example, does not apply the phrase ולא ירא אלהים to either Par’o or Sodom.
The ברכה/קללה system – directed at ישראל alone – not at nations outside the Sinai brit. Therefore, the mitzva to make war upon Amalek from generation to generation the Rambam ruling – utterly false this mitzva not dependent upon Amalek ceasing to be Amalek. This mitzva a Torah obligation and a רשות. King Shaul failed to kill the king of Amalek and lost the anointment of Moshiach! Amalek stands upon the Torah commandment to remember Egypt. The 10 plagues judged the Gods of Egypt. Amalek a recurring “plague” upon the Jewish people – akin to the 10 plagues which forced Par’o to release Israel from slavery.
What triggers Torah curses? Jewish assimilation and intermarriage – these two pre-conditions – they define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Avraham validated in בראשית כ:יא that יראת אלהים does not exist with Goyim comparable to both Sodomites and Amalekites examples. This verse further supports that the prophetic mussar of the Torah – touching Amalek – a mitzva applicable to Jews only. For Jews to accept the blessing/curse Sinai brit they must develop יראת שמים as the יסוד of faith.
The verse ותיראן המילדת את האלהים – שמות א:יז supports the Torah which validates that certain Goyim have a portion in the world to come. The three stories of Adam, Noach, and Avram introduce the curse concept of g’lut, along with the Egyptian story of slavery and the Wilderness generation and later prophetic visions of g’lut. Both T’NaCH & Talmud do not teach history. Rather both command mussar. Noacide law according to Rambam false, because violation of the 7 mitzvot qualifies as a Capital Crime which requires a Sanhedrin court to judge that case.
The jurisdiction of Sanhedrin courts together with their prophets police Sanhedrin enforcers – restricted only to the conquered lands of Canaan. Prophets such as Moshe and Yona sent to g’lut exiles. Proof both Par’o and the king of Assyria – there “repentance” not the same as t’shuva, which requires that the bnai brit “remember” the oath sworn by the Avot. Rosh HaShanna and Yom Kippur emphasize t’shuva as remembering this “forgotten” Torah, like as do the lights of Hanukkah.
The Torah brit of blessing/curse defines the k’vanna of the first and second Sinai commandments. Therefore, impossible to learn the פרט mitzva – to war against Amalek – as outside these כלל commandments. Prior to the Sin of the Golden Calf Israel only accepted these first two Torah commandments – before they demanded that Moshe rise up and receive the rest of the Torah, lest they die. Bottom line: Oral Torah interprets Written Torah as the basis of judicial common law throughout the generations.
The concept of 7 mitzvot applies only to ger toshav persons because the Torah only designates two types of Goyim living in the oath lands: Ger Toshav and NaCreem\Shomronim. A ger toshav who violates the 7 mitzvot does not face Divine judgment from Heaven but Sanhedrin judgment on this earth. Post Sinai revelation of the Name HaShem, תורה לא בשמים היא. Amelak immediately attacked after Israel left Egypt due to the curse of the ערב רב. This Torah curse defines the k’vanna of the Sinai 2nd commandment.
The blessing/curse brit in the משנה תורה makes a “legislative review” based upon the opening first two commandment revelation. Mesechta Baba Kama refers to the סוד language of “mountain hanging by a hair” as a reference to the first two Commandments encompassing all other Torah commandments. The Sages teach that their does not exist in Torah common law any valid deductive fixation of Torah verses. פרדס Oral Torah inductive\dynamic rather than foreign Greek deductive\static logic. The sin of the Golden Calf falls within the כלל of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; it learns this Torah revelation as viewed through the lenses of its opposite דיוק Torah revelation.
Torah logic stands upon making דיוקים/inferences. The Golden Calf לאו דוקא no different from Egypt as the Av case of g’lut. The concept of “providence” lies outside; Torah courts only judge Cases based upon the evidence presented to the court. “Providence” exists as speculation on par with the Mishnaic command for a Man not to think about matters above, below, or behind him. Ger Toshav a term introduced in the משנה תורה-דברים.
The phrase “הרי הן כהררים התלויים בשערה”, commonly used to illustrate concepts in halacha. While this metaphor often appears in discussions about Shabbat and Yom Tov, clearly not exclusive to only these topics. A recurring Torah theme: do the toldot follow the Avot asked by both mesechtot Shabbat and Baba Kama – based upon the introduction of Av wisdom commandments introduced in the Book of בראשית as opposed to toldot commandments introduced in the Books of שמות ויקרא ובמדבר. The closing Book of the Torah משנה תורה-דברים defines the Torah revelation of “law” as common law as distinct from statute law. Rabbi Yechuda HaNassi based his Mishna upon the name of the Book of דברים\משנה תורה.
Torah commands in the language of Man: it instructs through משל\נמשל. Devarim 28 Life/Death brit does not exclude Goyim from life in the world to come. The aggadah of mesechta Sanhedrin refers directly with Goyim populations who volunteer or choose to live within the borders of the lands of Canaan together with the bnai brit chosen people. Obviously, Goyim living outside of the borders of Canaan have the freedom to choose to pursue justice and live moral lives. Just as the Torah does not deny Goyim belief in their Gods. So too Torah does not deny that righteous Goyim have a portion in the world to come. But the mitzva of Amalek does not address this issue. Amalek “hates” the revelation of the Torah. Amalek loves oppression, theft, incest, and judicial bribery of justices.
The Av commandment of Shabbat, (Av meaning great) a wisdom commandment/time-oriented mitzva. It’s mussar instructs the concept of “domains”. The 6 Mishnaic Orders learn from the four Shabbat “domains” which function as precedents to understand the intent of Rabbi Yechuda’s Shas. The precedent of shaking the 4 species in 6 directions, another precedent – which refers to domains. The four species on sukkot, they compare to the four arch types of children on Pesach night. Etrog/wise; Lulav/child who does not know to ask. (The Talmud instructs: train your lips to say: I do not know.); Hadas/Simple child and Arov/Evil child. The concept of “domains” and “personality types” remembers how the so called 10 commandments serve as precedent to remember the slavery of Egypt.
The Av\\toldot Torah concept not literally a technical legal taxonomy limited to 39 melachot and Avot nezikin! Rather, the revelation of the Torah at Sinai introduces Av commandments in בראשית and toldot commandment in the next three Books of the Written Torah. משנה תורה\דברים as a common law judicial system stands upon בניני אבות/precedents. Herein defines the role of secondary Torah commandments which in and of themselves do not require k’vanna.
However, by weaving secondary Torah commandments as precedents to interpret the k’vanna of other Torah commandments … both this and that become Av Torah commandments. The Rambam code in no way shape or form affixes halachot as precedents to interpret the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna. This expunges his halachic opinions as valid. Halacha does not stand upon its own two feet any more that post sealing of the Shas Reshonim commentaries. Quoting a Reshon comment divorced from the Gemara/Mishna common law precedent relationship – false. מלאכה – a wisdom. עבודה – does not require wisdom. Hence Shabbat forbids doing “wisdom” on that day in order to dedicate to do wisdom throughout the week.
The mitzva of Shabbat therefore inclusive of the entire week rather than a separated single day. Shabbat serves as an Av precedent; while its domains limited to four: Private, Public, Karmelit, Makom patur – domains as a concept לאו דאקא, not limited only to legal geography טיפש פשט. The purpose of aggadah to make a drosh to interpret prophetic mussar k’vaana. The loom: warp\weft weaves prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of doing halachic ritual commandments.
Why? To raise these secondary Torah & rabbinic commandment to Av wisdom time-oriented mitzvot from the Torah. Herein defines how the B’HaG interprets the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Why the commandment to תמחה את זכר עמלק? Assimilation and intermarriage define the “kapo” Jewish ערב רב. Just as the ערב רב worshipped the Golden Calf so too the ערב רב – Jewish assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim causes the plague of antisemitism throughout the Ages. The Torah refers to this curse by introducing the story of Amalek.
The Mishna code: constructs a Case/Din judicial common law system. The Rambam code “baptizes” pursuit of justice as Torah faith unto belief in a Universal God; hence both Xtianity and Islam exist as “sister religions”. His code further changes judicial common law – restricted to the lands of Canaan unto religions statute dogmatism applicable to all lands as well as Canaan. This violates the first two Torah commandments. Only Israel accepts the Torah at Sinai. Therefore, HaShem a local tribal god and not a Universal Monotheistic God. The Rambam code therefore qualifies as “false prophet” theology which seeks to seduce Israel to worship other Gods. Halacha in g’lut adapts to meet the crisis of the times.
During the Dark Ages where international trade and communication died, g’lut Jewry needed a simple fix to maintain a distinct Cohen/Jewish identity. Cursed to endure among Goyim cultures and hostile lands, Jews existed as stateless refugee populations scattered like leaves blown in a wind-storm. But the common law B’HaG and Rif and still later Rosh codes radically differ from the Rambam perversion. They do not divorce Gemara halachic precedents from their home Mishna! The Rambam code obliterated Talmudic common law precedent interpretations of witnesses into Roman statute law rigid decrees. Just as did Rome obliterated the 2nd Jewish Republic of Judea and slaughtered perhaps half of all Jews living in Judea!
The distinction of מלאכה from עבודה, NT Greek does not discern between skilled “work” from unskilled “work”. This fact has nothing to do with Greek philosophy. The super-commentaries written on the Rambam code fail to link his halachic rulings to a B’hag, Rif, Rosh identical halachic ruling affixed to a specific Mishna. Hence all the commentaries written to correct the central flaw of the Rambam code failed to learn halacha as common law precedents to interpret the language of a specific Mishna as viewed from different perspectives!
If antisemitism caused by assimilation and intermarriage, periods of extreme persecution when ghetto Jewish communities highly observant and endogamous? G’lut by Torah definition a curse. Amalek by Torah definition a curse. The floods of Noach mesechta Sanhedrin interprets as the curse of swearing false oaths. This interpretation fits well with the Blessing/Curse direct connection made to the opening first to Sinai commandments.
The דיוק of mesechta Baba Kama 4 avot nezikim separates Tam from Muad damagers. The latter like Amalek inflicted damages with k’vanna. The רמז – words within words בראשית — אש ברית. The fire of the brit – false oaths. Hence not 4 avot nezikim but rather 8 avot nezikim. ערב רב Jews damage Israel with k’vaana; their choice to abandon Jewish cultural practices and customs, to embrace foreign identities and intermarriage results in avoda zara like as happened to king Shlomo. שמות יב:לח ושמות רבה יח:ד explicitly the curse of the ערב רב.
Zionism today does not compare to late 19th Century Herzl Zionism. Post Oct 7th 2023 Abomination War, can Jewish self determination restore the Torah as the Written Constitution of the Jewish Republic having 12 Tribes; can this Constitution mandate the establishment of Federal 71 and 23 Capital Crimes Courts as well as 3 man Torts courts?
Was one of the original 71 Sanhedrin rabbis, but got expelled due to my opposition to Sanhedrin involvement in Goyim who style themselves as bnai noach living in foreign lands and the vast majority of my rabbinic peers who wanted to use the Rambam statute law code as the model for Sanhedrin common law courtrooms.
Opposed the Sanhedrin attempt to waste its mandate on goyim styling themselves Bnei Noach in foreign lands. (They went ahead and created a whole sub-court for it — the Jerusalem Court for Issues of Bnei Noah, led by their Deputy Chancellor Rabbi Yoel Schwartz, issuing global halachic opinions, clarifications, and infrastructure for Noahides worldwide.
The majority of my rabbinic peers wanted to model the new Sanhedrin common-law courts on Rambam’s statute code (Mishneh Torah as the operating manual). Despite my objection: that statute law is not Oral Torah common law. Talmud is not “religious law” for private piety — it is the National Federal court system of the 12 Tribes, built on inductive middot reasoning from sealed primary sources, with legislative review power over tribal and Knesset parliamentary laws. They viewed Talmud through “plowing horses blinders” — as if it’s just another religion’s rulebook instead of the constitutional operating system Moshe commanded on his last day. The public record shows the Nascent Sanhedrin proudly does the two things you opposed; your dissent was on the record inside the original 71.
How do we correct course on the Sanhedrin itself so it actually functions as the federal common-law review Federal court system? Post-Oct 7 reality makes this more urgent, not less: the war exposed the consequences of running a “Jewish state” on foreign (parliamentary + activist court) software instead of Torah constitutional common law. The window for teshuva is open wider than at any point since ’67.
My WordPress blog serves as a mussar attempt to achieve the destiny of our People as envisioned by Moshe Rabbeinu.
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.
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.