The T’NaCH requires close analysis. קוהלת\Qoheleth–Ecclesiastes 10: Qohelet = case law on public folly; particularly in aspects of speech and leadership. It instructs mussar case law for judges, leaders, and citizens; exploring how even small acts of folly can overshadow wisdom and destabilize social order. It warns that wisdom is fragile, and society collapses when fools rule. A profound meditation on the fragility of wisdom and the dire implications of folly, especially in public spheres. The prophetic teachings of Amos and Zephaniah provide critical context, capturing the essence of how individual folly can escalate to societal crises.

קוהלת\Qoheleth 10, about the public consequences of irrationality or lack of wisdom in decision-making. The Torah idea of “fear of heaven” = “reputation”, a much later ethical‑Hasidic development Oral Torah logic interpretation נמשל, and not directly comparable to the biblical משל. However, mesechta ברכות teaches that the משל dream follows the נמשל interpretation; later generations employ Oral Torah logic to interpret the k’vanna of the Torah revelation as it meets the needs of their current generations. Clearly g’lut Jewry during the horrors of the Dark Ages did not “need” to interpret the Torah as a political Constitutional document.

In its original frame, Torah is a Constitution for a free people ruling their land through courts and mishpat. G’lut by stark contrast, the same Torah – read primarily as inner avodah and survival wisdom, expressed through Judaism “converted” into a religion. Both address the reality of different times and different lands and societies Jews g’lut forced to endure. Consequently the k’vanna of time-oriented Torah commandments changes to address the situations the brit Cohen people face and endure—and modern readers should not confuse the later nimshal with the original mashal.

Torah does not “change,” but the kavanah with which it is lived shifts dramatically depending on whether Israel is sovereign in its land or living as a scattered minority in g’lut. The stark contrast between Blessing and Curse obviously apparent. G’lut Jewry had no courts with coercive power. They had no National Army. As despised refugees with no political rights, the church outlawed Jewish ownership of land; despite the economies of all Dark Ages societies based upon agricultural based economies!

The Sanhedrin courts together with their Prophet police enforcers of judicial Din rulings, specifically through the prophesy of mussar limited to times when Jews rule their Homelands as an Independent free nation. G’lut Jewry enjoyed no political autonomy – EVER. Written Torah does not Change. However the lights of Hanukkah teach that g’lut Jews (Jews ruled by Goyim) forget the Oral Torah which instructs the mussar the k’vanna of wisdom commandments/time oriented mitzvot throughout the Ages. The determination of kavanah, absolutely required to sanctify wisdom Torah commandments, lived differently in sovereignty and in exile.

The Holy Writings – 3rd part of the T’NaCH – serve as the basis/comentary which interprets the k’vanna of the NaCH prophets mussar. In like and similar fashion the later Gemara functions in the role of the Holy Writings to interprets the k’vanna of the Mishna. Hence both this and that qualify as Primary Sources in Jewish Torah literature.

This contrasts with the still later Reshonim scholarship, which at best exists as merely a secondary “gossip” source, unfit to serve as a court witness; Torah common law courtrooms only accept eye witness testimony. The Book of D’varim, also know as משנה תורה – which has absolutely nothing (no common ground) with the Rambam’s statute law Greek deductive logic. Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic defines how the Sealed – Primary Talmudic sources – interpret the intent of the earlier sealed – Primary T’NaCH sources of Jewish common law. Courtroom common law shares nothing with the much later Goyim theological belief systems, and/or their obtuse av tuma avoda zara theologies; any more than Rambam’s halachic statute law code serves as a commentary to the Talmud. G’lut Jewry cursed by the Torah curse – impossible for Jews to obey the Torah לשמה – based upon the First Sinai commandment; g’lut Jews remain in לאו דוקא Egypt.

Rabbi Yechuda named his Sha’s – Mishna based upon משנה תורה as the second name of the Book of דברים; both Written Torah and Oral Torah instruct common law. The Mishna’s Case/Rule style and Gemara’s Difficulty\Aswer (Prosecution/Defense) both address the central theme of court room common law. Hanukkah teaches that forgetting Oral Torah = forgetting how to live Torah as law.

In like manner the Holy Writings of the T’NaCH function as the Gemara (Case/Din) precedents which make a משנה תורה-common law re-interpretation of the language of the NaCH (Mishna) Prophets. Both T’NaCH and Talmud instruct common law; the former “mussar common law, and the latter “halachic common law”. The common law commentary of the Baali Tosafot brings “off the Dof” precedents which defines its commentary to the Talmud because common law stands upon the foundation of Judging a judicial case by comparison of pro vs. con judicial precedents against the current case heard before the codified Mishnaic Sanhedrin courtroom rulings. Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud stopped and did not make a g’lut משנה תורה k’vanna definition of the language of the Mishna. Torah – most simply – a common‑law courtroom legal system, not a religious statute law code.

Protection of ones’ good name – defines the k’vanna of fear of Heaven based upon אל מלך נאמן –awe, moral accountability, oath brit obedience; a key understanding of k’vanna required to obey Torah wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot which require k’vanna. Drosh a key basis of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס interpretive kabbala of Oral Torah.

T’NaCH does not teach history, Oohelet’s “good name” not the issue. T’NaCH commands prophetic mussar because the Torah revelation applies equally to all generations of the chosen Cohen people in all generations. Isaiah 28:9–13 instructs the mussar: about mocking, expressed through the משל – God’s word; rejecting prophecy, and suffering oath brit curse consequences. Qohelet 10 simply does not instruct this mussar.

Therefore, what NaCH prophet(s) most resembles as a common law precedent? Excluding Isaiah 3, Jeremiah 5, Hosea 4, and Micah 3. Invite the reading audience to tell me why these prophetic sources fail to qualify as precedents to understand the intent of Ecclesiastes 10 as a T’NaCH common law Primary Source commentary to the Torah Constitution?

Israel did not come out of Egyptian bondage to sit in Grand tents to get religion. Rather, once freed from slavery they embraced with zeal the Torah commandment to invade, conquer and rule the oath sworn lands with righteous judicial justice which dedicates (just like a korban dedicated) the pursuit of justice among our people – meaning court imposed fair compensation of damages inflicted.

Does “small folly outweighing wisdom” represent the essence of Oohelet 10? No — it’s one of the chapter’s themes, but not the essence of the whole chapter. Oohelet10, a collection of wisdom sayings, not a single unified argument. It deals with: The fragility of reputation which contrasts between wisdom and folly. The danger of foolish speech, seems to go together with instability of political power – Shlomo’s collapse as king following his avoda zara.

The opening proverb — “Dead flies make the perfumer’s ointment stink” — illustrates a principle, not the 10’s entire message. Wisdom – valuable but fragile; folly is small but destructive. The “folly” of g’lut Jewry: they forgot the Oral Torah and replaced it with Greek deductive logic and Roman statute law models. In the world of Torah common law, the NT/Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery fraud prioritizes the metaphor of Paul’s “original sin” or “piety which believes in JeZeus as the Messiah of Mankind;” despite the simple fact that by the words of Paul: “Goyim not under the law” and therefore Goyim cannot determine the k’vanna of wisdom commandments such as the time-oriented commandment of Moshiach. Argue that the NT likewise a Roman forgery not different than the Protocols – both this and that exist as revisionist history & substitution theologies on par with the Muslim Koran.

The emphasis of this interpretation seeks to “Crack the ethical containment force” of Xtian societies. Much like as the American & French revolutions cracked the ethical containment force of Church/State, Arristocrat\citizen parameters which likewise defined Czarist Russia till the 1917 Russian Revolution. The Bolsheviks, according to both Troskii and Lenin, based their understanding of Marx’s socialism upon the French revolution. Other examples of cracking the ethical containment force as the basis of revolution: the Nazi revolution which like the previous examples too rejected the Church/State parameters. And the Iranian revolution which rejected the Church/State parameters established by the Shah of Iran. In all these precedent case study examples: cracking the ethical containment force resulted in Troskii’s “Permanent Revolution” … Civil War expanded to surrounding societies … know as WWI and WWII and the Iraq/Iran war etc. As described by the opening verses of the Book of בראשית.

Chaos and anarchy define every “Civil War” throughout Human History. Both Xtianity and Islam resulted in horrific wars which produced great empires which later fell into a repeating anarchy and decay cycle. Every civil war in human history – defined by chaos and anarchy. Any civil war simply not limited to a local conflict—but rather represents the radical Tower of Bavel breakdown of the shared moral framework, there described as “language”, that holds a society together. The Nazi revolution returned Xtian Europe back to primitive barbaric societies, specifically through the Shoah crimes duplicated by both Mao and Stalin, and later by Pol Pot and other sub-human barbarians. Something like scratch a Xtian or Muslim and expose a barbarian. Revolution therefore “cracks the ethical containment force” which holds human society together. And this results in a Human blood bath. The specific references to Church and Mosque – simply לאו דוקא by definition.

The latter serve as models. No different that the T’NaCH and Talmud function as “models” to establish the Torah Constitutional Republic which mandates common law Federal Sanhedrin courtroom justice. Every civilization rests on an ethical containment force—a shared moral language that holds society together. When that containment force cracks, the result: chaos, anarchy, and often civil war. This pattern qualifies as a universal and not tied to any one.
religion or culture. Revolution cracks the ethical containment force that holds a society together. When that force collapses—whether in religious, secular, imperial, or revolutionary contexts—human beings of any background can descend into chaos, anarchy, and atrocity.
This pattern described in Bereshit and repeated throughout human history. This is exactly how T’NaCH uses Egypt, Bavel, Assyria, and Rome—not as ethnic judgments, but as models of political‑moral systems. Exactly how T’NaCH uses Egypt, Bavel, Assyria, and Rome—not as ethnic judgments, but as models of political‑moral systems.

The Power of Small Things: a small act of folly can outweigh a lifetime of wisdom and honor. Refers to “fear of heaven” understood as Baal Shem Tov/Master of ones’ Good Name reputation. This represents the essence of Ecclesiastes 10 mussar. This does not make a depth analysis precedent interpretation of Isaiah 28: 9-13? The T’NaCH concept of “fear of heaven” requires a stretch to include the name of a much later Hasidic post Cossack pogrom master called Baal Shem Tov.

Such a stretch known as טיפש פשט. The spiritual Torah ideal of “fear of heaven” has nothing what so ever to do with a 17th Century founder of Hassidic dynasties. The reference which connects “baal shem tov” understood long before the Cossack revolt – that a wise man strives to protect his good name reputation. Herein the Talmud interprets the k’vanna of “יראת שמים” as a wisdom commandment commonly referred to as a “time-oriented” commandment.

Isaiah 28:9–13 criticizes people who mock prophetic teaching and refuse to listen. Therefore what prophetic mussar most resembles to the main theme expressed by Oohelet 10? Oohelet 10 perhaps best understood viewed through the lens perspective of Amos and Zephaniah. They both emphasize the societal impacts of folly and the importance of ethical behavior, which closely aligns with the chapter’s themes. The excluded sources, they focus on broader themes of oath brit fidelity, collective behavior, and systemic issues rather than the individual consequences of folly that Oohelet specifically addresses.

Oohelet 10: Main focus of mussar – Public consequences of small folly, speech, power; foolish rulers, dangerous speech. Amos: Social injustice, corrupt elites, hypocrisy; ruling class self centered arrogance destroys society. Zephaniah: Complacency, bloated Ego-I, moral decay in public life; oath blessing/curse brit (based upon the 10 plagues of Egypt – remember Egypt) on a society dulled by self-centered stupidity.

Isaiah 28:9–13 about mockery of prophecy itself—the refusal to hear mussar. That’s a different “case” than Qohelet 10, which assumes the reality of leaders corrupt over estimation of themselves, and asks: what happens when it leaks into speech and power? Qohelet: “Folly – set in many high places… slaves on horses, princes walking like slaves.” Amos: rulers’ folly and injustice invert the moral order and rot the social fabric. Qohelet describes the phenomenon; Amos delivers the indictment and sentence.

Zephaniah: This prophetic mussar targets the Yatzir Ha-Raw: complacent, self‑secure Jerusalem; officials, judges, prophets, priests kiss-ass & corrupt. Those who say “Hashem will not do good nor evil” live in a kind of spiritual folly—practical atheism. Qohelet: warns how foolishness in leadership and speech destabilizes life. Zephaniah: shows that such folly simply not just “unfortunate”—it summons divine Torah brit curse judgment. Qohelet gives the mussar psychology of “masturbation”; Zephaniah gives the oath brit\blessing or curse consequences.

Qohelet 10 = mussar precedent on the public consequences of individual popped bloated Egos—especially in speech and power. Amos & Zephaniah = mussar precedents on how that same stupidity, when normalized and systemic, becomes a basis for din against a society. Isaiah 28 = meta‑precedent: what happens when a people no longer even accept mussar as binding—when they mock the very category of rebuke; Isaiah 28 – related, but one level up: it’s about the refusal to hear any of this.

How Torah scholarship rejects Xtian theological constructs as Av tumah avoda zara

Your blog preaches a skewed narrative and censors my comments. תהלים נה:כג — הטל על השם משאתך והוא יכלקלך
  הטל – to cast or throw. “יְכַלְקֶלְךָ” translates to “He will sustain you” or “He will support you” – – typically used in the context of nurturing, supporting, or sustaining someone or something. The Hebrew root verb כ-ל-ק-ל “to stumble” or “to falter.

Learning T’NaCH has a cardinal rule which the Xtian bible – starting with the gospels – rapes because it constructs a theological polemic rather than a halachic narrative. It’s forbidden to do מלאכה\work, but permitted to do עבודה/work on Shabbat. This critical nuance disappears because Greek lacks a term that maps onto melacha.

Healing of the Man with a Withered Hand (Mark 3:1-6). Healing the Woman with a Spirit of Infirmity (Luke 13:10-17). Healing of the Blind Man (John 9:1-12). Healing qualifies as which type of verb: a מלאכה or עבודה? In the context of Jewish law concerning Shabbat, healing qualifies as the category of מלאכה (melacha) rather than עבודה (avodah), due to שחיקת סממנים — grinding herbs (a derivative of melacha). Hence mesechta shabbat introduces Av/toldot mekachaot.

A sharp distinction between two “work” type verbs. The gospel accounts permit doing acts of מלאכה on shabbat. But the Creation story where HaShem rests from the creation acts of מלאכה, the gospel accounts negate. Publicly profaning shabbat the Torah lists as a Capital Crime. Under Roman occupation the Sanhedrin lacked the Constitutional power (Roman occupation abridged the Torah as the Constitution of the Republic.) to impose Capital Crime death sentences: not upon Herod nor upon JeZeus.

Governors appointed by Rome likewise lacked the authority to impose the death penalty. Pontius Pilate, as a governor appointed by Rome, did indeed face similar limitations, regarding the imposition of the death penalty. His authority while significant, existed under Roman law restricted certain judicial powers reserved for higher authorities, such as the Senate or Caesar. Vertical courts where the State pays the salaries of the judges and prosecuting attorneys serves as a proof, that Rome limited both Roman governors and Sanhedrin Capital Crimes courtrooms.

Roman governors permitted to enforce various administrative tasks and enforce law. But significant punishments, especially the death penalty, often required direct approval from Roman authorities. The NT story of Paul sent directly to Rome – another proof of these restrictions. Furthermore, a direct Torah negative commandment forbids mob lynching. Weigh now the Capital Crime of JeZeus publicly doing acts of מלאכה on shabbat; or JeZeus “strung up” on a cross due to mob pressure. Mitzvot do not come by way of sin – a fundamental Torah root concept of justice which the gospel fiction story violates.

These themes highlight the difficulties faced by individuals operating within conflicting legal and moral frameworks which separate T’NaCH/Talmudic common law from Roman Statute Law. Clearly the gospels follow Roman statute law and not T’NaCH-Talmudic common law. Roman governors like Pontius Pilate had to navigate through a complex bureaucratic legal landscape. No different that General Westmorland in Vietnam; LBJ ran the war while sitting in Washington DC. Roman governors authority limited to administrative tasks, specifically taxation. Rome kept its governors on a tight leash, they operated with serious caution, and often needed approval from higher authorities regarding severe matters such as imposing the death penalty.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – gospel narrative – promotes a blood libel slander – public healing on shabbat. Had JeZeus prioritized such healing in a private setting rather than publicly profane shabbat, then the Pharisees would not have sought the death penalty. Public chillul HaShem מחלל שבת בפרהסיא far more strict than private chillul HaShem. This serves to prove that the imaginary character JeZeus – at best an ערב רב assimilated Jew. A direct negation of the 2nd Sinai commandment.

The Gospels reflect Roman legal assumptions, not Jewish ones. The gospel portrayal of the trials of JeZeus, the cruel punishments endured, has zero halachic basis or categories. Roman statute law clashes with Jewish legal reality across the board. To compare an elephant with a buzzing fly, closer than Jewish common law vs. Roman statute law. The gospel portrayal of JeZeus invalidates the 2nd commandment, the halachic structure of shabbat, the authority of the Sanhedrin lateral common law courts, and the negative commandment which invalidates mitzvot that comes by way of transgression.

Returning back to Tehillem נה:כג, this tefillah resonates with David’s experiences during his flight from Av Shalom, his tefillah expresses feelings of betrayal and fear. To study this “Gemara/Holy Writing” requires a “NaCH/Mishnaic” source. ישעיה מב:י-יג, that T’NaCH sugya compares to תהלים נה. This sugya specifically prioritizes these Oral Torah middot נֹשֵׂא פֶשַׁע; וְחַטָּאה; וְנַקֵּה וְלֹא יְנַקֶּה. T’NaCH a mussar common law legal system. The דרוש for precedents centers in this small sugya upon these specific middot – listed above.

Torah wisdom compares middot with a similar order with similar middot – in other sugyot across the NaCH. Torah wisdom permits Torah scholars Oral Torah knowledge throughout the generations; as the definition of prophesy. This מלאכה-חכמה — how to make a quick precedent reference mussar search seals the T’NaCH as Oral Torah common law. Compare ירמיה ט:ו-יא, this sugya likewise contains this identical set of tohor middot! These Oral Torah middot affix to the last three Middle blessings of the Shemone Esrei. The Order of the Shemone Esrei blessings: 3 + 13 + 3. Blessings 11 through 13 express the k’vanna idea of these three Oral Torah tohor middot.

You cannot know this because your criminally corrupt church denies the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. The prophetic mussar k’vanna of תהילים נה:כג describes the bitter details of the Torah curse of exile consequent to Civil War, the result of judicial injustice & betrayal. The prophet Natan cursed David with eternal Civil Wars for his profaning the Moshiach oath to rule the land with judicial justice; specifically in the matter of the husband of Bat Sheva! This ‘blood on his hands’ made David incapable of establishing the Federal Sanhedrin court system. His foolish son Shlomo, worshipped avoda zara דוקא/precisely because of his ערב רב assimilation and intermarriage; he like his father – both failed to establish the Federal Sanhedrin common law courts – as the Torah Constitution mandates.

The יכלכלך promise of steadfast support, classical sources like Rashi explain יְכַלְכְּלֶךָ as bearing/sustaining the burden, akin to “holding” or “containing” it (e.g., comparing to מלכים א ח:כז, where heavens cannot “contain” God but the Yatzir Ha-Tov within the hearts of the chosen Cohen people, the נמשל of Shlomo’s Temple משל – can! This psalm – a poignant tefillah expression of David’s distress during Absalom’s rebellion — and the most bitter betrayal by his most trusted and closest of allies (e.g., Ahitophel). The verse David clings his trust in HaShem as the ultimate sustainer amid human treachery which his son AvShalom’s betrayal surpassed the rape by Amnon (the firstborn son of David through Ahinoam of Jezreel) who raped his half-sister Tamar the daughter of Makkah. .

Yeshayahu 42:10-13, a call to sing a new song praising God from the ends of the earth, culminating in the משל of HaShem – marching forth like a גבור/mighty man – aroused with zeal against enemies. Thematically, both passages address themes of divine intervention amid crisis: Tehillim 55 amid personal/national betrayal and exile-like suffering; Yeshayahu 42 prophetic mussar of redemption, Constitutionally mandated Sanhedrin courtroom justice prevailing over ערב רב assimilated and intermarried oppressors שאין להם יראת אלהים. The “new song” motif echoes renewal after upheaval, paralleling David’s plea for deliverance, from this Torah curse known by the mitzva of Amalek. King Shaul lost title to the mitzva of Moshiach through his failure to destroy Amalek. The Torah speaks in the language of Man. The Torah mitzva of Amalek throughout the generations Anti-Semitism the result of av tuma avoda zara – assimilated and intermarried Jews – the 2nd Sinai commandment.

Yirmiyahu 9:6-11 frames the theme of deceit, betrayal, refusal to keep Torah judicial common law as – “the faith” with its ensuing injustice. Hence Tehillim נה functions as a duplicate role the Gemara serves the Mishna—the treachery in Tehillim 55 interprets and understands the k’vanna of the prophetic rebuke expressed in Yeshayahu. Yirmiyahu 9 laments pervasive falsehood and violence in society, desiring escape to the wilderness, with its plea for divine judgment implied by way of a דיוק-inference. The shared Oral Torah middot framework allows cross-referencing from T’NaCH multiple witnesses to understand prophetic mussar k’vanna. HaShem sustains the righteous (as in Tehillim) while holding accountable those who betray justice (as in prophetic warnings of exile due to judicial corruption and civil war).

This sh’itta\approach/methodology treats T’NaCH as completely interconnected through middot and k’vanna (interpreted prophetic mussar), revealing layers of mussar — rather than isolated texts as the fraud NT Protocols of the Elders of Zion blood libel screams to angry mobs to lynch Christ killer Jews. The prophetic context of Tehillim 55:23 indeed ties to exile’s curses (e.g., from civil discord, betrayal, injustice, taxation without representation and ghetto gulags etc.), where casting burdens on HaShem becomes the path to endurance chaos, anarch, and Civil Wars. The mussar k’vanna here — bitter exile from judicial injustice and betrayal — resonates deeply in Jewish thought as a recurring theme from David’s era through the prophets and equally played out in the Rambam Civil War time of troubles.

Building against the foundational critiques of the Xtian false messiah and Muslim false prophet revisionist theologies whereby Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai & Horev introduced ‘New God’ theologies aimed to supplant the oath alliance brit Sinai faith which permanently cuts a brit faith that HaShem ruling in this Earth לא בשמים היא – through the spirits of tohor Oral Torah middot, which permanently dwell and occupy the משל משכן of the Sinai revelation contained and interpreted by the נמשל יצר הטוב within the heart as differentiated by the Torah language of kre’a shma’s: בכל לבבך\לבבכם, as interpreted by rabbi Yechuda.

Just as the NT and Koran negate the Oral Torah’s dynamic common law in favor of static, universal doctrines—replacing the particularistic local brit with their theological dogmas of “Universal God for all Goyim” — the Rambam’s sh’itta likewise assimilates Greco-Roman statute law and Aristotelian philosophy as a replacement for פרדס logic; specifically through the 7 middot of Hillel, 10 middot of Akiva, 13 middot of Yishmael, and 32 middot of Yossi Galil’s 32 Aggadic middot – building blocks נמשל, which replace logical Case/Rule comparisons to other Case/Rule disputes heard by different courtrooms; with the Torah משל of straw required to make bricks interpreted by the above נמשל of inductive logical comparison to interpret “k’vanna” of time-oriented mitzvot as the definition of Torah wisdom. (That’s quite a mouthful, please don’t choke.)

The Torah contrasts with how Goyim define idolatry – limited to graven images which the NaCH prophets completely mock in absolute and total derision. Torah negative commandments directly פסול-declare as treif-Jewish assimilation wherein Jews abandon the culture and customs of the chosen Cohen people as established by the sealed מסורת – the T’NaCH, Talmud, Siddur – replaced by Goyim cultures and customs; ultimately resulting in Jewish intermarriage with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – the brit of the chosen Cohen people. Forsaking the oath Sinai brit, abandons the 3 oaths sworn by the Avot whereby they eternally father the chosen עולם הבא Cohen seed; it rejects the yoke of the kingdom of heaven which define the k’vanna of tefillah; wherein Israel accepts through tefillen permission to swear Torah oaths which absolutely define the k’vanna and intent of the Written and Oral Torah revelations.

Assimilated Reshonim scholarship upon the T’NaCH/Talmud\Midrashim failed to arouse Jews to rise up and re-conquer our homelands like as did Herzl’s “Jewish State” political Zionism and Ahad Ha’am’s Cultural Zionism, expressed through his essay titled: “The Jewish State and the Jewish Problem”. A millennium after the Hanukkah Civil War, the Rambam Civil War made a “mishna torah”; but whereas Jews in Israel who can do mitzvot לשמה lit the Menorah lights of victory over the ערב רב Tzeddukim … charisma foreign counter-cultures in g’lut lead by the Rambam in particular and the vast majority of Spanish assimilated Reshonim scholars in general – g’lut Jewry lacks the Yatzir Ha-Tov tohor middot dominance which permits them to likewise observe Torah commandments לשמה – consequent to the Torah curse of g’lut.

According to the RambaN’s Chumash commentary, g’lut Jewry observe mitzvot primarily as a zikaron (remembrance) of their identity, heritage, and connection to the land of Israel, rather than fulfilling them in their complete and original ideal לשמה. The Ramban acknowledges examples of obvious mitzvot cannot be fully realized when the Jewish people are not in their homeland, particularly those related to the “Temple” משל of the judicial justice נמשל and agricultural laws. Based upon the Talmud’s prioritization of time-oriented k’vanna of tefilla over Cain’s sacrifice as a barbeque to heaven positive Torah commandment which requires no k’vanna. G’lut Jewry directly compare to the ger tzeddik who rejects to do certain Torah commandments; who favors how the Shomronim, Tzeddukim, and Karaim observe Torah as religious ritual law, rather than how the P’rushim, instructors of the Oral Torah masoret, validate the Writtten Torah as the Constitution of the Republic which mandates Oral Torah court room common law to establish the rule of righteous justice in the Cohen eternal inheritance land!

Off the דרך curse g’lut statute law assimilated Judaism culminated its “Berlin is our new Jerusalem” by duplicating the rebellion of the Wilderness generations who refused to conquer Canaan from fear of giants! Chaim Weizmann in 1937, “Jews of the world, where are you?”, shortly followed up with the White Paper and FDR closing the Golden Medina to Jewish refugees in 1939 & thereafter. The story of the curse Wilderness Generation repeated in the virtual destruction of Western European Jewry in the Nazi gas chambers of three years duration.

The Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, a systematic code of halacha, represents a departure from the Oral Torah’s common law tradition, which thrives on dialectical debate, precedents, and inductive reasoning as seen in the Gemara’s sugyot. Instead, it adopts a Roman-style statute law format—concise, authoritative rulings without the underlying disputes—mirroring the codified canons of Christianity (e.g., the Nicene Creed’s dogmatic assertions) and Islam (e.g., the Sharia’s fiqh compilations). This negation of the Oral Torah’s fluidity prompted swift condemnation.

In 1232, the rabbis of northern France, steeped in the Ashkenazi tradition of Rashi (1040–1105) and the Tosafot, issued a ban against studying philosophy, explicitly targeting the Rambam’s works for their rationalist bent. Led by figures like Solomon ben Abraham of Montpellier, this ban was amplified by Rabbeinu Yonah Gerondi (d. 1263), who traveled to gather support, viewing the Rambam’s integration of Aristotelian logic as a threat to traditional Torah study. Rabbeinu Yonah, a relative of Nahmanides (Ramban), initially spearheaded the anti-Maimonidean agitation in Provence and Spain, seeing it as akin to Hellenistic corruption. The French school’s emphasis on Tosafist common law commentaries upon the Talmud denounced the Rambam’s declarative style, which omitted sources and debates, much as the NT & Koran omits Sinai’s context to proclaim a “new covenant,” or “final prophet”.

This controversy escalated into the Maimonidean Controversies (1232–1305), involving bans and counter-bans across Europe. Rabbeinu Yonah later repented after witnessing the Inquisition burn all the Talmud manuscripts in Paris France in 1242. A disaster which duplicated the dynastic Hashmonean Civil War which pitted Hyrcanus II against Aristobulus II. Both brothers appealed to Roman general Pompey to resolve their dynastic dispute over the Crown. Pompey’s Army marched into Jerusalem unopposed and appointed the Goy Herod as king around 37 BCE. Herod the Idumean a non Jew, Pompey appointed as king. This marked a crucial transition towards Roman hegemony and set the stage for future conflicts and the eventual emergence of early Xtianity within this tumultuous context.

This controversy escalated into the Maimonidean Controversies (1232–1305), involving bans and counter-bans across Europe. The Rambam’s philosophy risked eroding the mystical and ethical dimensions of Torah. This mirrors the Torah’s negative commandment against foreign worship (Shemot 20:3–5), extended to intellectual idolatry—assimilating Greek logos over prophetic mussar. Just as Xtianity and Islam universalize and supplant their “monotheistic God” detached from Israel’s election, the Rambam’s code likewise imposes a static halacha alien to the living Oral Torah common law פרדס inductive logic expressed through middot models.

In Hilchot Melachim u’Milchamot 8:10–11, he posits these seven laws—prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual immorality, eating a limb from a living animal, and the command to establish courts—as binding on all humanity, enforceable by death for non-compliance. This universal framework echoes Christian and Islamic theologies of a singular, accessible God for all peoples, framing monotheism as a global imperative rather than Israel’s particular oath brit which תמיד מעשה בראשית through time-oriented Avot commandments creates the chosen Cohen people יש מאין – comparable to the Ger Tzeddik. Rambam elevates Noahide observance to grant non-Jews status as “chasidei umot ha’olam” (righteous of the nations) if accepted due to divine command, despite the limitation of the jurisdiction of Sanhedrin courts limited only to the boundaries of the Jewish State!

The Aggada of mesechta Sanhedrin limits the 7 mitzvot bnai noach unto the gere toshav Goyim living within the borders of the land. Mesechta Baba Kama limits the exclusion of all legal rights to the Shomronim “new Israel impostors who “converted out of fear” just as did Herod; both mesechtot Sanhedrin and Baba Kama base their instruction on D’varim which instructs Israel to either give treif flesh to the ger toshav or sell that flesh to the Na’cree. Sanhedrin refers to the ger toshav as bnai noach. Whereas Baba Kama describes the despised “Samaritan charlatans” as Canaani.

Rambam’s view assimilates a “universal God,” akin to Christianity’s Trinity or Islam’s Tawhid, violating the Torah’s distinction: HaShem’s Name is revealed solely through Israel’s brit (Shemot 6:3). He even praises Islam as non-idolatrous monotheism (Hilchot Teshuvah 3:7), while deeming Xtianity idolatrous, yet both alien religions equally share the av tuma universalist avoda zara ONE GOD abomination. This “monotheistic universalism” negates the Oral Torah’s focus on Israel’s role as or l’goyim through prophetic mussar.

Xtianity defines prophesy as witchcraft fortune telling. Whereas the Koran declares that Allah sends prophets to all nations and those prophets speak the native tongue of the nations . The Arab nation being the last nation to receive its prophet’s warnings. This negates the prophet Yonah sent to Assyria! His mussar rebuked g’lut 10 tribes not the kingdom of Assyria whom the Babylonian empire almost immediately thereafter conquered. Rambam’s rationalism offers no mussar for suffering, paralleling the absent Jesus or Allah. His fiat halacha does not remotely compare to the Prosecution vs Defense courtroom setting which the Gemara models.

Led by figures like Solomon ben Abraham of Montpellier, this ban was amplified by Rabbeinu Yonah Gerondi (d. 1263), who traveled to gather support, they viewed the Rambam’s integration of Aristotelian logic as a threat to traditional Torah study. Both the rabbeinu Yonah’s court in Spain and the common law school of Rashi/Tosafot in France placed a ban upon the Rambam’s assimilated to Greek/Roman legal customs: statute law halachic fiat codification which negated Oral Torah “commodity based” common law–much as does both the NT and Koran. Rabbeinu Yonah later repented after witnessing the Inquisition burn Rambam’s books in 1233 and after the Goyim torched all the Talmud found in France. He interpreted these “disasters” as divine retribution for his zeal. Nonetheless, the initial ban against the study of Greek philosophy stands in Yeshiva education unto this very day, as a bulwark against assimilation.

For example a defining פרט to the previous paragraph’s כלל – Rambam’s perverted views on Noahide laws. The Rambam assimilated, a direct Torah negative commandment, and embraced the Xtian & Muslim theologies of God – framed as a Monotheistic Universal God; his Roman statute law halacha and Greek Aristotle philosophy clashes with the Talmud which teaches that only the 12 Tribes of Israel accepted the Written Torah at Sinai and the Oral Torah at Horev. The Rambam replaced the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive dynamic logic with Aristotles static deductive logic – absolutely identical as did the Tzeddukim 1000 years previous during the Hanukkah Jewish Civil War.

The Rambam, influenced by Aristotle’s Organon, employs deductive logic in his philosophical work: Moreh Nevuchim. There he reduces prophetic mussar perverted to intellectual perfection, much like his posok halacha of the av Mishna Chullin touching the אפיקורוס slaughter of animals as lacking knowledge and understanding of the true essence of Jewish teachings. The Rambam Greek philosophy prioritizes intellect as the highest human faculty. The Talmud by contrast instructs that יראת שמים serves as the foundation of faith. This Torah rebuke applied to the ערב רב – שאין להם יראת אלהים as the root cause of the Torah curse of Amalek throughout the generations.

Just as the Tzeddukim denied resurrection and angels to align with Greek thought, Rambam reinterprets miracles and eschatology allegorically, clashing with Kabbalistic traditions like the Zohar. But the mitzva of Shabbat which forbids doing acts of wisdom known specifically as מלאכה and generally as time-oriented commandments! Doing מלאכה repressed through time-oriented commandment create מלאכים שברא יש מאין; based upon the precedent that Yaacov sent מלאכים unto his brother Esav and wrestled in turn with the מלאך of his brother!

This substitution negates the tohor middot spirits animating the yetzer ha-tov, reducing Torah to intellectual exercise. Christianity’s logos (John 1:1) and Islam’s kalam theology similarly adopt Aristotelian deduction, supplanting Sinai’s inductive mussar. The bans by Rabbeinu Yonah and the French schools affirm: True Torah resists such assimilation, prioritizing Sanhedrin common law over codified fiat statute law. As a commodity based currency day & night different from fiat monopoly play-game board funny money so too and how much more so Torah common law/משנה תורה rejects fiat statute roman laws; which extend to intellectual idolatry—assimilating Greek logos over prophetic mussar.

Hence in summation: The foundational critiques of the Xtian false messiah (JeZeus) and Muslim false prophet (Muhammad) revisionist theologies stand firm: Goyim who rejected the dual revelation of the Written Torah at Sinai and Oral Torah at Horev fabricated “New God” theologies to supplant the eternal oath alliance brit of Sinai. This Sinai oath brit/alliance alone cuts the faith of justice wherein HaShem dwells permanently through the spirits of tohor Oral Torah middot in the משל משכן of the Sinai revelation, interpreted by the נמשל yetzer ha-tov within the heart—as differentiated by the Torah language of kriyat Shema (“בכל לבבך/לבבכם”), per Rabbi Yehuda’s interpretation emphasizing the whole heart’s tohor intent.

Rambam’s sh’iita assimilates Greco-Roman statute law as the basis\priority which defines his statute halacha which makes secondary the language of the Talmud which his code translates into Hebrew. Common law – no translation can duplicate – because common law requires precedents. Rambam’s code relies upon foreign imports of Greek syllogism deductive logic which lacks the means to inductively compare ever changing halacha based upon ever changing life conditions throughout the generations. Just as the bible translations of בראשית fail to account for the רמזים of ב’ ראשית, ברית אש, and ראש בית, so too and how much more so static fiat halachic codes fail to employ Gemara halachot as precedents whereby scholarship through the generations can re-interpret the language of the Mishna based upon different perspectives suitable for the times and generations.

The Rambam’s sh’itta assimilates Greco-Roman statute law and Aristotelian philosophy as a replacement for פרדס logic. The Torah משל of straw required to make bricks finds its נמשל in inductive logical comparison to interpret k’vanna of time-oriented mitzvot, defining Torah מלאכה wisdom, which the Rambam totally failed to grasp much less prioritize and understand. The downfall of the ‘Golden Age of Spain’ resulted from Jewish assimilation/intermarriage.

Torah “idolatry” (a gross erroneous translation) far exceeds Goyim’s graven images (mocked derisively by Nevi’im). It encompasses any Jewish assimilation where Jews abandon the sealed mesorah culture and customs of the chosen Cohen people—T’NaCH, Talmud, Siddur—and favor/approve of Goyim cultures, customs, and intermarriage with those rejecting Sinai’s brit, like have themselves. This forsakes the 3 oaths sworn by the Avot to father the chosen Cohen seed and rejects the yoke of Heaven’s kingdom in tefillah, where tefillin oaths affirm Written and Oral Torah revelations.

Assimilated Rishonim scholarship on T’NaCH/Talmud/Midrashim failed to arouse Jews to reconquer the homeland, unlike Herzl’s political Zionism (“Der Judenstaat”) and Ahad Ha’am’s cultural Zionism in his essay “The Jewish State and the Jewish Problem” (1897/98), which critiqued purely political approaches for neglecting spiritual/cultural revival. A millennium after the Hanukkah Civil War against Tzeddukim assimilation, the Rambam Civil War produced the “Mishneh Torah”—a statute law fiat codex. By logical דיוק contrasts with Israel performs mitzvot l’shmah raised the Menorah lights of victory over the Erev Rav Tzeddukim and foreign counter-cultures. Galut Jewry, cursed by the Torah’s galut decree (Vayikra 26, Devarim 28), lacks yetzer ha-tov tohor middot dominance to observe commandments l’shmah. The off the דרך Orthodox Judaism confuses the 3 vows: 1. Not to Attempt to Conquer the Land 2. Not to Rebel Against the Nations 3. God Will Bring Them Back prioritized over the 3 oaths sworn by the Avot which eternally create the chosen Cohen people through time oriented מלאכה חכמה. This mesechta of Ketubot simply does not supersede the Torah obligation to conquer the land. Moshe qualifies as the av model of Moshiach, and he did not general the war by which Israel fought multiple wars to conquer Canaan!

This off-the-derech galut statute-law assimilated Judaism culminated in “Berlin is our new Jerusalem,” duplicating the Wilderness generation’s rebellion—refusing to conquer Canaan from fear of giants, absolutely no different from the prophetic mussar where the Shomronim converted for fear of lions or Herod’s “inquisition like” convertion – for fear of his life. Rambam’s fiat halachic משל currency counterfeit fails to “weave” halachic ritualism which requires no k’vanna together as with “gold” aggadic prophetic mussar as the time-oriented commandment k’vanna which makes aliya of secondary commandment to Av time-oriented commandments and results in the garments worn by the chosen Cohen people נמשל to the Cohen garments worn by Aaron and his sons משל.

Roman “fiat currency” statute law—concise authoritative rulings without disputes—forms the basis of Middle Ages Roman Catholic Church Canon Law. The Rambam code duplicates Catholic dogmatism and Islamic Sharia fiqh compilations. Rabbeinu Yonah (d. 1263, relative of Ramban) amplified the agitation in Provence/Spain, viewing Aristotelian integration as Hellenistic corruption akin to Tzeddukim. The French school’s Tosafist precedent pilpul denounced Rambam’s declarative style omitting sources/debates, much as NT/Koran omit Sinai context for “new covenant” or “final prophet” substitute theology/revisionist history. All Torah prophets command mussar. Torah prophets not required to speak in Goyim languages because Goyim never accept to this very day the revelation of the Torah at Sinai & Horev.

The Rambam’s gross error in the Av Mishna of Chullin matched by his equally stupid error in Kiddushin wherein his halacha declares, ignorant of the Gemarah רבוי מיעט-קמ”ל which excludes young girls as fit for the mitzva of kiddushin, just as the Av Mishna excludes Chuppa; or his halachot of Shabbat which fails to distinguish between the two verbs מלאכה כנגד עבודה. As commodity-based currency (day/night value) differs from fiat monopoly funny money, so too—and infinitely more so—Torah common law/Mishneh Torah rejects fiat Roman statute law Caesar decrees which forcibly expelled Jews from Judea and resulted in an 2000+ year Jewish g’lut which the Rambam code grossly emulates.

Assimilated Rambam and his rabbinic ilk directly compare to the disaster of Herod! This disgraceful Civil War serves as proof that g’lut Jewry in those dreadful days – totally failed to due t’shuva. The shame of this disgrace compares to the betrayal of the British White Paper and FDR closing the borders of the Golden Medina to Jewish refugees attempting to flee from Nazi sub-human barbarians. Match only by the cold-blooded Allied calculation which sacrificed the Jewish people upon the Goyim altar of war – their refusal to bomb the Nazi rail lines which lead to the Death Camps.

The medieval “religionization” of Torah—Mishneh Torah, Tur, Shulchan Aruch—does something different. But both Church and Islam have produced the fruits of genocide. Large swaths of their histories – indeed marked by forced conversions, inquisitions, or holy wars justified by pompous claims of universal truth. Xtian Europe under the Nazis, and Islam where the ’48 and ’67 wars — wars of genocide to throw the Jews into the Sea.

Torah defines the 8th Oral Torah midda — TRUTH — (which the church denies to this day) as “path”. Meaning that each person and/or people have their own true path destiny walk before their Gods. Since only Israel accepts the God of Sinai ipso facto Goyim worship other Gods. The local tribal god of Sinai does not compare to the Universal Monotheistic Gods of either Xtianity or Islam. Since only Israel accepted the Sinai, all non-Jewish God-talk is, by definition, “other Gods;” no where does the Xtian Bible or Muslim Koran once bring the שם השם revealed in the first Sinai commandment. Furthermore the false counterfeit religions fail to distinguish the fundamental concept of faith which discerns between the Divine Names יה, האל, אל, אלהים, אל שדי, איש האלהים from the Shekinah שם השם.

The Book of בראשית, the Avot called upon these Divine Names because the Torah in the Heavens; whereas at Sinai the revelation of the Torah upon the earth, expressed through the revelation of the שם השם. Thereafter in the Book of D’varim explicitly taught that Torah does not come from heaven. Goyim rejection of the Torah means that for them their God remain in Heaven and not within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the bnai brit hearts.
 
Torah understands truth as path. Xtianity & Islam understand truth as set in stone a monopoly dictate. Truth as “Path” validates that many paths exist that a person him or herself can choose to walk therein. “Path” as a monopoly dictate means that the dominant Xtian or Muslim theology slaughters any and all heretics. The two definitions of “TRUTH” not at all the same. Torah revealed only to the Jewish people. We as a tiny tiny tiny minority of Mankind do not pretend to any psychotic notions of “Universal” anything least of all the local tribal god of Israel.
 
Its truly an honor to discuss with you the different “textures of languages”; cotton fiber feels different from wool or linen fibers. The Torah directly forbids mixing linen and wool in clothes. Linen a summer fabric whereas wool a winter fabric. The oversimplification of “Universal Monotheism” an utter abomination of faith. Rambam’s Mishneh Torah a comprehensive code of halacha perversion; its יד\14 arranged not around tribes and land allotments, but around abstract legal categories and mitzvah-topics. His halacha code designed to permit Jews in g’lut to learn and lived religiously obey. The subject becomes the yachid (individual) asking, “What is my chiyuv?” more than a polity asking, “What is our constitutional structure?” The national-constitutional elements subsumed and lost under the religion of Yidishkeit.

Certain strands of Jewish thought emphasizing particularism—the idea that the Torah originally revealed specifically to Israel alone; which excludes all universal pretensions. That other nations have their own valid paths because they refused to accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. For example the false Rambam opinion known as the 7 mitzvot bnai noach (primarily Sanhedrin 56a-60b) which he interpreted as 7 Universal commandments for all Mankind. The Book of D’varim classifies two types of Goyim residing in the oath sworn lands; the gere toshav and the Canaanite NaCree or Samaritan refugees who have no legal rights because they falsely claim themselves to be the “real Jews”; a claim taken up by both Xtian and Muslim replacement theologies.

Despite Rambam’s bombastic bunk claims, his code does not remotely resemble the revelation of Oral Torah at Horev because his code prioritized alien Aristotle deductive Order & logic over the kabbala of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive Order & logic. The lights of Channuka testify that only פרדס logic explanes the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev on Yom Kippur 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf. Meaning the P’rushim catagorically rejected the assimilated Tzedukim/Karaite attempts to convert Jerusalem into a Greek polis and forget Oral Torah inductive logic.

The Aggadic source in mesechta Sanhedrin which address the subject of 7 mitzvot “bnai noach” strictly and only applies to gere toshav Goyim living within the borders of Judea. The Sanhedrin courts Capital Crimes mandate only applicable to within the borders of Judea when Jews rule the land as an Independent nation. The Sanhedrin court failed to correctly judge Herod, and put him to death for his Capital Crimes because Herod was appointed as king by the Roman occupiers!

Some want to argue that Nazi ideology was not “purely” Xtian because it blended pagan Germanic elements, racial pseudoscience that favored culling inferior races, anti-clerical tendencies etc. But this argument utterly fails to ignore the plain and simple fact that for 2000+ years the church has publicly boasted that Europe converted to Xtianity and accepted that faith. Hence the curse: “by their fruits you shall know them” applies equally to both Xtian Europe and Muslim Arab lands which make the same boast! That those Middle East lands converted to embraced Allah as God & Muhammad as the last prophet.

Arab propaganda has pulled a rhetoric rabbit out of its hat! Nakba originally referred to the defeat of 5 Arab Armies and their failure to throw the Jews into the Sea; the nascent Jewish state (as coined by Constantin Zureiq in his 1948 pamphlet, blaming Arab disunity and aggression).. Changed Nakba unto the Arab refugees, while ignoring the greater “Nakba” of Jews thrown out of Arab lands!

The Oral Torah stands upon the משל metaphor of Israelites making bricks through the medium of straw in ancient Egypt. The “bricks” נמשל, the logical middot taught by Rabbi Akiva’s 10 middot, Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot, and Rabbi HaGalilee’s 32 middot. The study of both Talmud and Midrashim – halacha and aggada builds the “construct” of understanding the intent of these texts through the basic building blocks of these 10, 13, and 32 respectively. The middot of Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Eliezer HaGelili are literally paths of reasoning—ways we walk from text to halacha. Even inside Torah there are multiple derachim—Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, Bavli and Yerushalmi—“eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim chayim.”

Rambam’s Universal God follows the Avoda Zara of Xtian and Muslim theology just as his Universal bnai Noach represents only his own personal opinion among Reshonim peer scholars! The Reshonim did not poskin halacha from aggadic sources as did the Rambam. Halacha follows the majority and not a single minority opinion. The Rambam supporters centuries later confuse the lone Rambam misinterpretation of 7 mitzvot bnai noach as applicable to all Goyim Universally – simply bat shit crazy.

The Rambam codification of halacha called Yad Chazakah as opposed to the false name Mishna Torah. Why the latter a false name for the Rambam halachic code? Because the Book of D’varim has the 2nd Name of Mishna Torah! Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi named the 6 Orders of Sanhedrin courtroom rulings “Mishna” based upon the 2nd name of the Book of D’varim. Mishna Torah means “Common Law” – meaning law derived from courtroom common law precedent Case/Rule comparisons! The Rambam’s halachic code a Statute law that follows the model of Greek and Roman law imposed by governmental decrees rather than courtroom rulings. The two legal systems day and night different from one another.

The post Shoah term “Righteous Gentile” refers to Goyim who risked their lives to save Jews from barbaric European Xtian European Nazis. World to Come refers to the brit cut between the pieces wherein Avram cut a brit alliance concerning the eternal future born birth of the people having the status of “Chosen Cohen seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov and not the future born seed of Moshe Rabbeinu which forced HaShem to make “t’shuva” and remember the oaths sworn to the Avot. Even HaShem cannot annul a Torah oath. But even Man can annul vows!

The “Sanhedrin” under Roman authority compares to the “Sanhedrin” established by Napoleon. Both existed only as a rubber stamp – tits on a boar hog. Torah as constitution of a sovereign people vs Torah as religion of a powerless minority. Everything else—Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, Bnei Noach, Christianity, Islam, Nakba—fits into that split.

Torah as constitution vs Torah as medieval “religion”; A republic of tribes in its land, not individuals shopping for “salvation.” Torah, dat, halacha, derech eretz, minhag—never “Judaism” as a private Sunday-style faith. Rambam’s 14 books (yad) are arranged thematically, not by tribes, land, courts, or real political institutions. This latter g’lut “Earth-quake”: shifts from “How does the people govern?” to “What is my individual chiyuv?” These codes are optimized for galut Jews, to survive as a religious minority without sovereignty. This represents a “medieval religionization” of Torah—the turning of brit Sinai into a statute-based religion.