Can we go back to the fact that someone tried to kill Governor Josh Shapiro on Passover?
Where is the outrage?
Where is the activism?
Does anyone really believe the Trump administration cares about anti-Semitism when they go after universities?
Do they really care about the Jews?
It is now over a week since Gov Shapiro was targeted in an act of political violence reportedly due to his position on Israel.
An arsonist attack on his home on the first night of Passover after he and his family gathered for a seder.
An act of terrorism that forced him, his family, and guests to flee in the middle of the night from the governor’s official residence in Harrisburg, Penn.
Donald Trump has still not strongly condemned it.
This self-proclaimed supporter of Jews only public remark has been in response to a question from a reporter, saying the suspect “was not a fan of Trump.”
In a time of rising anti-Semitism, it took the President of the United States a week to finally call Shapiro.
Trump claims support for Jewish Americans and Israel and his actions suggest otherwise. He’s a hypocrite who condones political violence when it suits his political agenda.
For those Jews who still support Trump, how do you live with this?
Timing is Everything- Holy Week Horrors
A friend on a social media thread about this terrorist incident perpetrated against a Jewish Governor remarked in surprise, “That a Christian could do such a thing on Holy Week.”
The Holy Week has historically been a dangerous time for Jews, when they worried for their safety.
A modern-day seder is full of symbolism, memory, and celebration of freedom.
But what might surprise some Christians is how much fear accompanied this holiday throughout Jewish history. The primary concern throughout many centuries of Jewish existence was being murdered on Easter or being murdered on Passover. Especially if there’s a confluence between Holy Week and Passover, as it was this year. In that case, you’d be in hiding.
And the people Jews often feared most?
Christians.
Ancient depiction of Blood Libel
Throughout history, Jews have faced violence during Passover, often fueled by antisemitic beliefs and accusations of ritual murder. The most infamous example is the “blood libel,” falsely accusing Jews of using the blood of Christian children in their Passover rituals.
This false accusation claimed that Jews murdered Christian children during Passover to use their blood for making matzo and ritual wine.
As far back as the medieval era, Christians would do everything from throwing stones at Jewish houses to massacring them.
The most famous of these incidents occurred on Easter Sunday over a century ago in Tsarist Russia.
Homes were Ramsacked and destroyed during the Kishinev Pogrom 1903
The 1903 Kishinev Pogrom an anti-Jewish revolt, started in February when an anti-Semitic newspaper wrote that a Christian Russian boy, 14-year-old Mikhail Rybachenko, was found murdered in the town of Dubossary alleging that the Jews killed him in order to use the blood in preparation of matzo.
Panic rumors, grounded in sinister superstitions of Jewish ritual murder, quickly spread to nearby towns.
On April 8, 1903 — Easter Sunday — a mild disturbance against local Jews rattled Kishinev, a sleepy city on the southwestern border of imperial Russia.
The region’s anti-Semitic intellectuals, including journalists, played a key role in stirring up animosity against Jews, making sure the masses knew it was permissible — and even desirable — to deal with them harshly.
“Kishinev Pogrom ” 1904 Joe Levitt
But the next day, and for half the next, violence escalated. Gangs of 10 or 20 armed with hatchets and knives stormed through the town’s narrow streets and into its courtyards, where Jewish families defended themselves with garden implements and other meager weapons.
In the end, 49 Jews were killed, an untold number of Jewish women were raped, and 1,500 Jewish homes were damaged. The massacre left hundreds wounded, maimed, widowed, orphaned, or homeless.
This sudden rush of hoodlum violence, prompted by accusatory rumors of Jewish ritual murder, quickly became a talisman of “imperial Russian brutality against its Jews,”
More than that, the incident brought the word pogrom to the world stage and set off reverberations that changed the course of Jewish history for the next century.
The Birth of Jewish Resistance
Cartoon of US President Theodore Roosevelt telling Tsar Nicholas II of Russia: “Stop your cruel oppression of the Jews”
Though the terror lasted for less than three days, the Kishinev pogrom of 1903 had surprisingly far-reaching ramifications. Within weeks of the Easter massacre, the town’s name became synonymous with the worst horrors of Diaspora persecution, and political movements around the world took notice.
American Jews began large-scale organized financial help and assisted in emigration. The incident focused worldwide attention on the persecution of Jews within the Russian Empire.
This pogram was instrumental in convincing tens of thousands of Russian Jews to leave for the West or Palestine. It became a rallying point for early Zionists.
Media Helps
A photo taken following the Kishinev pogrom in 1903 when 49 Jews were murdered following a “blood libel” against the Jewish Community. The victims are laid out, wrapped in prayer shawls prior to burial.
The Kishinev pogrom’s impact was fueled, in part, by photographs of the atrocities that made it around the world. One image of 45 murdered victims laid out in prayer shawls was particularly resonant, appearing in numerous broadsheets during the early days of news photography.
The Jews’ enemies, too, drew conclusions from the pogrom, realizing that mass media could be used to incite large-scale violence.
One of Kishinev’s chief instigators, the publisher Pavel Krushevan, pushed out the anti-Semitic forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in the months following the pogrom. The notorious book made it into the hands of anti-Semites, including Henry Ford, who published half a million copies in the U.S.
Precursor
According to some Jewish leaders, “every aspect of the Holocaust had been anticipated by the Kishinev pogrom.”
Blood libel was a favorite tool of Nazi propaganda to lull non-Jews into apathy or incite them to hatred .The Nazis made effective use of the blood libel charge in their antisemitic propaganda. In 1923, Julius Streicher established his virulently antisemitic newspaper, Der Stürmer (The Attacker), which frequently employed the blood libel motif.
From the role of intellectuals in galvanizing anti-Semitism to the blaming of Jews for defending themselves, the pogrom helped solidify a template that culminated in the murder of six million Jews during World War II.
This modernization of anti-Semitism was not lost on Jewish thinkers, some of whom predicted Nazi Germany’s “Final Solution” with eerie precision.
“When I was in America, I did not believe in the Jewish question removed from the whole social question,” wrote Emma Goldman after being deported to Russia by the US government in 1919. “But since we visited some of the pogrom regions I have come to see that there is a Jewish question, especially in the Ukraine,” she wrote.
“It is almost certain that the entire Jewish race will be wiped out should many more changes take place,” wrote Goldman.
“Birth of Jewish Resistance” 1905 Lazar Krestin, Lithuanian
Today, on the day of Yom HaShoa, Holocaust Remembrance Day, it is worth noting that the holocaust did not exist in a vacuum.
In years past, Holocaust Remembrance Day has been a sad recognition of times seemingly long ago.
Never in my lifetime did I ever think it would be a warning.
© Sally Edelstein and Envisioning The American Dream, 2025. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Sally Edelstein and Envisioning The American Dream with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Envisioning The American Dream 
Thank you, Sally, for this very in-depth and urgent essay. I was born closer to the holocaust than you, and I always expected this to happen again, unfortunately. I hope more people, like you, around the world speak out to raise awareness and begin to reverse the current wave of antisemitism.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Although I know antisemitism never disappeared, I never thought I would experience it in the ways I do now. But it is part of our history that is now rearing its head.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is fascinating and disturbing history that, sadly, is very relevant today. Thank you for the reminder that these elements of hatred persist. History does repeat itself if we do not stand together.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anti semitism specifically is cyclical and for so many decades, Jews have lived safely in the US. It is sad to think “ never again” is a certainty. The hushed conversations among Jewish friends of where to move to if, is a real thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for writing this. It must be terribly painful for you, but you show courage every day. Those of us who grew up sheltered from this pain can only benefit from your writing and your art. We are stronger together.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for this very compassionate and kind remark.Asan American Jew I felt grateful to be afforded a sense of safety for the majority of my life. There was always the underlying fear that things could always turn. I never imagined the world we are in now, for all of us. But you are right, we are stronger together and we are stronger when we use our voice and are not silent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Having a debate on Quora, that I would like to share with Word Press readers.
The US, especially under President Trump, but even under President Biden, an ally of the Jewish state! That you would assume otherwise of the OP speaks more about your bias than anything else. UN Resolution 3379, for example has nothing to do with the failure of the UN to force the Arab voting blocks to recognize Israel as a member-State of the Middle East – not an Apartheid policy? Only Israel treated in this manner.
UN Human Rights Council Resolution 7/1, often referred to as item #7, addresses the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, specifically focusing on Israel’s actions. This resolution mandates that the UN Human Rights Council conduct an annual investigation into alleged violations of human rights in these territories. Only Israel targeted in this disproportionate manner. That’s not Apartheid at the UN? Have introduced two examples of “Nazi like” behavior. Which serve as proof that you Mitch speak only out of your butt.
In 2018, under President Trump, the U.S. announced its withdrawal from the UNHRC, citing concerns about the council’s effectiveness and its alleged bias. The U.S. government has also called for reforms within the council to improve its credibility and effectiveness in addressing human rights issues globally. Nations that hold no diplomatic relations with Israel should not have the UN Right to publicly condemn Israel. Not in the Human Rights Council nor in the UN General Assembly.
This makes the US completely relevant to this OP’s declaration “enough of this Nazi like propaganda”. The issue of recognition of Israel by Arab nations and the dynamics of voting blocs in the United Nations and other international forums … The U.S. has historically supported Israel and has encouraged Arab nations to normalize relations with it. Hence for you to declare, as if your an authority on the subject, the intent of the OP as you did in your opening dumb-ass declaration, again only exposes your silly ass.
Arab nations have often cited Resolution 242 as a basis for their refusal to recognize Israel, arguing that it requires Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, as a prerequisite for peace. Britain and France, the main architects behind the writing of the Chapter 6 language of UN Resolution 242. Therefore this EU Voting block sides with the Arab refusal not to recognize Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of nations. Recall that LBJ preoccupied by the Vietnam War, compares to Putin in the Ukraine today.
The Trump Abraham Accords challenges the UN 242 priority established by Britain and French propaganda. European imperialism as a strategic policy exposed in the Suez Crisis of the 1956 War.
The Abraham Accords represent a significant shift in Middle Eastern diplomacy, as they established normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain. These accords, seen as a departure from the traditional Arab consensus that normalization with Israel, absolutely contingent upon progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly in relation to the principles outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 242.
The U.S., under Trump’s leadership, positioned the Accords as a way to foster cooperation among nations in the Middle East, potentially leading to broader peace initiatives. Must Arab states view the Trump Accords as undermining British and French written 242? An obvious YES, rhetorical question.
Contrast the Trump Abraham Accords against Obama’s UN Resolution 2334. Trump prioritizes Arab states recognition of Israel as the top priority. Whereas Obama’s 2334 prioritizes Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state and Eastern Jerusalem as its Capital as the top priority to achieve peace in the Middle East. Hence UN Resolutions 242 & 2334 compare to Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dumb of UN Nazi like propaganda.
The Trump administration’s approach, seen as pragmatic, prioritizing immediate diplomatic relations – over the historical and legal frameworks that have traditionally governed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. UN Resolution 2334 emphasizes the need for a negotiated settlement that recognizes Palestinian statehood, including East Jerusalem as its capital. The resolution reaffirms the 242 international consensus that a two-state solution utterly essential for lasting peace.
Obama treats Israel as a UN protectorate territory, wherein imaginary “International Law” determines the borders and Capital of the Jewish State. Hence Israel now, based upon the Abraham Accords, can demand that Arab states permit Israel to join the Middle East voting block in the UN and all together disband the UN Human Rights Council on par with the UNWRA – which makes the Palestinian refugee crisis a permanent hereditary UN established conflict.
The Arab majority States rejection of the Abraham Accords establishes an Arab EU alliance against Israel based upon UN 242 & Obama’s 2334. Arabs Palestinians exist as refugees according to UNWRA. Refugees have no “Palestinian Rights”.
The concept of “Palestinian rights” encompasses a range of issues, including the right to self-determination, the right to return to their homes, and the right to live in dignity and security, the heroin of Arab propaganda against the Jewish state since the Nakba defeat. These rights are recognized in various international legal frameworks and resolutions, including UN General Assembly resolutions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The plights of Jews for 2000+ years where Jewish refugee populations had no rights serves as the basis & model for Palestinians rights today. Arab states in 1948 flat out rejected the Israeli right to self-determination, the foundation of Zionism based upon the Balfour Declaration. Yet the UN bias declares its unilateral support for Palestinian rights, in the face of Israel excluded from the Arab Middle East voting block and UN HRC item #7? Hence “Enough of this Nazi-like propaganda”.
All Arab states rejected the legitimacy of the Jewish state in 1948. Post ’67 came the famous Khartoum Resolution Three No’s. The phrase “Nazi-like propaganda” serves as a strong and charged declaration that reflects the OP’s deep frustration and anger regarding the narratives surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
When Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, it encountered same day military intervention by neighboring Arab states, which rejected the establishment of a Jewish state in what they considered “Arab land”. Hence Arab voting blocks refuse to recognize Israel as a state in the Middle East!
This led to the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, resulting in significant displacement of more Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries than Arab refugees, who fled based upon the orders issued by the States of the 5 invading Arab Armies. Yet UN propaganda continually condemns Israel over these Arab refugees and never demands that the 22 Arab countries repatriate their Arab refugee populations as did Israel with the Jewish refugees of ’48.
The Apartheid UN recognition of Palestine as a UN member reflects an utter racist Nazi like superior race jargon, used repeatedly against the Jewish state. The UN under Obama’s watch recognized Palestine as a non-member observer state status. This directly compares to the influence of the Vatican in the UN.
The UN serves as a secular Papal Bull which ordered that Jews of Europe thrown into ghetto gulags for 3 Centuries. Morality politics defines both the UN today and the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.
The UN, like the Vatican in the past, may impose moral judgments or decisions & declarations – that have significant consequences for specific groups, in this condemned category; the Jewish people directly impacted by the Catholic church prior to the Protestant Reformation. The concept of “morality politics” refers to the ways in which moral arguments rhetoric used to shape political decisions and policies. In the context of the UN and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, different rhetoric narratives inflame emotions arousing demanding: justice, palestinian rights, and other non-specified “historical grievances” invoked as evidence of a strong ‘international’, meaning UN, bias against the Jewish people.
The Obama 2334 racism, which equates, as does UN Resolution 242, Israel and Palestine as “equal states”, utter Nazi like propaganda used to justify the invasion of Poland in 1939.
242’s calls for a negotiated settlement to the “conflict”, stands upon the corrupt foundation that the Jewish state and the Palestinian state stands as equals. Utter UN racism! The Jewish state does not compare to the mobs of Palestinian refugees who – based upon Jews living in European ghetto gulags – have no rights.
242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied during the “conflict” yet ignores the Polish and Russian partition of Prussia post WWII. The UN, the EU, and Arab states continue their long tradition of using “morality politics” to persecute the Jewish people. Resolutions like: 242 & 2334, Item 7, and Palestine’s observer status, serve as primary modern tools of UN racial bias against the Jewish state. Trump’s Abraham Accords serves as the first major breach in that corrupt UN system since 1967, and they expose Obama’s policies as reinforcing the old antisemitic paradigm.
LikeLike
The T’NaCH defines the bitterness of G’lut/exile.
Job 21 — Job’s Seventh Speech: A Response to ZopharThe problem of the prosperity of the wicked. Important to understand that the T’NaCH has 3 divisions. The Holy Writings serve the identical role that the Gemara makes a case/din commentary to the Mishna. The T’NaCH, like the Mishna, both instruct משנה תורה common law. Meaning, a person does not read T’NaCH or Mishna as if it were a novel or some work of fiction read for pleasure. Rather, the Holy Writings within the T’NaCH, they function as the בניני אבות\precedents by which scholars learn and interpret the mussar k’vanna of the NaCH prophets. In their turn the NaCH Prophets serve as precedents to interpret the mussar k’vanna of the Book of דברים or משנה תורה which means “common law”. The Book of D’varim serves the role of Gemara to the other 4 Books of the Written Torah/Mishna.
It’s this precise sh’itta – methodology of learning – by which a person can study the Torah, NaCH, Holy Writings, Mishna, and Gemara and Midrashim as ONE Common Law Constitutional Basic Law of the Jewish Cohen Peoples’ Republic. The purpose of this common law legal system, to affix and establish the culture, customs, even minhagim of the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations our people walk upon the face of this Earth. Therefore, avoda zarah, understood as the arousal of the Yetzer Hara which pursues tuma middot spirits within the hearts of the Jewish people. Specifically, as expressed through the sex drive: to copy, embrace, and assimilate to non Cohen cultures, customs and practices – specifically through intermarriage with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
Herein concludes this preamble to the Book of Job.__________________________________________________________________________________The Jewish people in Israel have a custom learned from the Goyim to stand in a moment of silence as a way to remember national tragedies. This behavior compares to war against Moav and Bila’am where Israelis captured vessels made by these Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Moshe instituted that Israel purify these Goyim made vessels and garments by plunging them through water and fire. Any figure of a Goyim god required removal. Therefore it seems to me that the same applies to standing in a moment of silence. Jews should learn from the precedent of ליום הזיכרון Rosh HaShanna.
This Yom Tov, affixed to the Neshama Name of אל dedicated during every 3rd day of the week. Tefillah a matter of the heart. The lungs blow air, but the heart blows spirits. On the 3rd day of the week, the Neshama spirit of אל – dedicated when a man calls Adonai with his lips. This Yom Tov, Yom HaDin upon the Brit remembers the rebuke of the sin of the Golden Calf. When the assimilated Jewish ערב רב attempted to replace missing Moshe with a Calf replacement theology. Replacement theologies the essence of all avoda zarah rather than simply graven images. The new testament, koran, book of mormon, and scientology all represent replacement theology avoda zara.
The t’shuva made on Rosh HaShanna not the t’shuva made on Yom Kippur. The latter recalls the Divine t’shuva which annulled the vow to make from Moshe the chosen Cohen people to replace the oath sworn to the Avot. Hence the two Yom Tov book ends of t’shuva to one another. (The siren just sounded remembering the fallen soldiers killed in the wars Israel has fought to establish and maintain our national independence as the Cohen nation in the Middle East. Standing during the siren blast, focused within my heart to remember the oath sworn by Avram at the brit cut between the pieces; the oath of Yitzak sworn at the climax of the Akedah; and the oath sworn by Yaacov when Yitzak caused him and not Esau to inherit the oath britot which create the chosen Cohen people from nothing in all generations through Av tohor time oriented Torah commandments – as applicable in this case, the wailing of the siren to remember our fallen soldiers. Elevating an action which does not require k’vanna, like positive and negative Torah commandments to an Av tohor time oriented Torah commandment – the essence of breathing Torah life from generation to generation.)
The Book of Job depicts a fictional story of g’lut aggadah. Hence this Book serves as the Gemara commentary made upon the NaCH prophet Yirmiyahu-Mishna. The study of common law precedents therefore compares Yirmiyahu 12:1-3 to Job 21. The logic of פרדס learns NaCH prophets through the 13 Horev Oral Torah middot. Hence the T’NaCH has the name – Kabbalah. Just as the Gemara learns the Mishna by means of comparative precedent, so too NaCH prophets learned through בנייני אבות precedents. The Talmud serves as the authoritative codification of Oral Torah common law.
A disciplined study of the Talmud, based upon how Rabbeinu Tam learns, requires making a search, not found on the dof of Gemara, of other similar precedents. The Baalei Tosafot a common law commentary to the Talmud. The commentary of Rashi, primarily a dictionary of terms explained and defined – called p’shat. Rashi p’shat on the Talmud does not compare nor resemble Rashi’s common law commentary he made on the Chumash. Why did Rashi switch his sh’itta of learning?! Answer: the hatred of the church toward the Talmud. Rashi feared that if he wrote, like Rabbeinu Tam, a common law commentary to the Talmud – the church priests might grasp the wisdom, how to correctly study the Oral Torah as common law.
Church violence and repression against the Cohen Jewish people forced Rashi to teach Torah learning wisdom, as a secret and concealed kabbalah. In like manner the sages split how to study the Talmud, whether to prioritize judicial common law interpretation of separate unique case/law vs. codifying halacha into rigid and fixed legal classifications and simplified codes of religious ritual observances. The difference between the opposing sh’ittot dynamic judicial interpretive laws vs. static religious ritual rote laws. The latter prioritization prevailed, the opposite of what occurred during the civil war remembered through the Hanukkah lights.
The church threw Jews into ghetto gulags throughout the Middle Ages of European barbarism. The 30 years war almost obliterated the population of Germany. Catholic vs Protestant barbarism perhaps inspired the Cossack barbarism which resulted in the mass slaughter of Jews who fled the Pope’s ghetto gulag UN-like-Bull, only to wind-up slaughtered by Cossack barbarians, whose vicious mobs crossed the flat plains of Ukraine and joined the chaotic Polish political anarchy, which withered the Cossack revolt unto its ultimate defeat. The plains of the Ukraine – ideal for Cossack cavalry horsemanship skills. Poland – carved up by vicious great power imperialism – another matter altogether different.
The Book of Job depicts the bitter realities which daily confronted life as a stateless refugee who has no political or social rights – like the Palestinian dhimmi Arab populations today. Jewish g’lut travails, like a woman giving birth, throughout their vain attempts to harmoniously live within European lands – they never in 2000 years received nor witnessed fair judicial justices for damages inflicted upon them by church controlled governments and mobs. Job’s cry for justice reflects Israel, beaten by the officers of Par’o who withheld the straw they require to meet their quota, tally of bricks – Shemot 5:6–19.
A בנין אב precedent for Yirmeyahu 12:1-3…6:22-30. Compare employing the inductive logic of פרדס, Job 21 also to D’varim 16:21,22. Now compare the inductive kabbalah פרדס wisdom B’reishit 5:28 -6:4. The reputation of those giants – an utterly evil reputation to this day.
LikeLike
Still another example of Xtian substitute theology and how to refute Xtian missionaries.
A core disjunct between the oath alliance, juridical-mystical logic expressed through the Book of Daniel—rooted in the T’NaCH (Torah–Nevi’im–Ketuvim) legal framework—and the politico-theatrical, Greco-Roman rhetorical stylings of Acts, which emerges from a very different epistemic and cultural world. Replacement theology perverts Herod’s temple even more than did Herod himself, through his murder and judicial Acts of oppression. Acts 5 now depicts the Angels of some unknown celestial power mysteriously releasing captives in jail.
Contrast the mysticism within the Book of Daniel which follows the Torah style of instructing mussar through themes: such as justice compared to the foil of the Babylonian king’s judicial oppression and fundamental injustice. The contrast between Act’s depiction of “prayers”, likewise a stark tectonic shift which introduces abstract piety through Greek concepts of fate.
The Book of Acts introduces the theatrics of Greek tragedy. It uses the Sanhedrin Court as but a prop in its morality play. The heroes depicted in this play, the apostles’ virtue contrasted by the evil Jewish leadership. The miraculously freed disciples make a public appearance – at the Temple courtyard, where they play out their roles – a theological abstraction which promotes their Jesus narrative.
The Gemara’s relationship to the Mishna, structurally and philosophically modeled after the relationship between Ketuvim and the rest of the T’NaCH. Ketuvim—like Daniel, Tehillim, Mishlei, Iyov—establish deep frameworks for interpretive logic (PaRDeS) and case-based reasoning (כלל ופרט). The Mishna serves as an authoritative Case/Din Common Law codification of Great Sanhedrin legal rulings. While the loom-like Halacha/Aggadah opposing threads introduce both halachic precedents which the prosecutors and defense attorneys debate and the drosh methodology through the NaCH medium, which derives prophetic mussar instruction – based upon a common law comparison of NaCH sugyot, compared to other but similar NaCH sugyot – to grasp a depth analysis of prophetic mussar p’shat within the mussar interpretation of Aggadic and Midrashic stories.
Acts 5’s replacement theology does not instruct common law as the Torah commands, but rather personal belief in its false messiah narrative. Acts’ Greco-Roman dramaturgy promotes a spectacle at Herod’s Temple. This assimilated counterfeit never attempts to make a public sanctification of the שם השם ברבים, a public sanctification of the Name. (The greatest Torah commandment being to do mitzvot commandments לשמה.) Instead it introduces a perversion of faith away from judicial righteous Court – restitution of damages inflicted upon others – to glorification of its replacement new Universalist faith in Jesus Christ as the New Testament revelation of a Greco-Roman repackaged God.
The Book of Acts profanes Herod’s temple even more than did Herod the רשע himself! King Herod ruled through terror, he prostituted the Temple as his personal political prop, to support his unjust government. However the Book of Acts theatre rhetoric introduces an entirely different belief system which worships a new Universal God that all Mankind can worship simply through the magical medium of “belief”. This substitute theology does not restore Torah common law judicial justice, which dedicates to make rulings which make a fair compensation of damages inflicted—rather it introduces the new testament rupture to the moral obligation to pursue righteous judicial justice with a faith belief in its touted new Universal God, named by the Greek name Jesus.
This rhetoric of utter perversion debases faith as judicial justice and remembrance of prophetic mussar rebukes – as they apply equally to all generations of the chosen Cohen people of the oath brit alliance. Acts 5 replaces prophetic mussar with its foreign narrative; which highlights the shining star of magical intervention, spiritual victory of the new Universal God – Jesus over the prophetic vision to sanctify judicial justice, as codified in the visionary idea of the Temple – not a building of wood and stone/graven images – but judicial common law justice! Hence Acts 5 introduces the false messiah of the Greek God Jesus which later even the foreign Arab “prophet” Muhammad rejected as utterly false. The rhetoric of the koran itself fails to define the meaning of intent of the key term “prophet” employed as a battering-Ram throughout the koran narrative.
Acts 5’s Greek theatrics of religious rhetoric directly assaults the Torah’s foundation – the Torah obligation to establish lateral common law Federal courtrooms; even the 7 laws Bnai Noach stand upon this foundation. The new testament masquerades as an alien epistemology, designed to replace the Beit Ha’Mikdash, together with its avoda zarah – first introduced by the assimilated king Shlomo Ha’Melech. Weather Shlomo’s or Herod’s, the foreign assimilated idea of Temple constructed – both introduced the concept of making a public barbeque to heaven. Public spectacles, such as this qualifies as a Torah abomination and perversion of faith. The Torah Mishkan concept of korbanot, it sanctified the idea of swearing a Torah oath brit alliance – renewed through the act of t’shuva – לשמה.
Where Torah commands the sanctification of the Name publicly and judicially—through acts of justice, restitution, and halachic obligations לשמה—Acts introduces a foreign conception of “faith”. Not emunah rooted in the brit, but belief in a magical interventionist deity who bypasses law, the courts, and prophetic rebuke. Even Moshe addressed the court of Par’o. Acts turns the Temple into a theatre, whose theatrics introduces a Greek salvation myth.
HaShem commands mishpat and tzedakah—restitution for damages, equity in rulings, and remembrance of prophetic mussar for every generation of the Chosen Cohen People. Only this Chosen Cohen People accept, to this very day, the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Acts 5 makes a Kiddush of Hellenism. The name Jesus itself epitomizes the severance from the Torah oath brit alliance faith.
Acts 5 offers no concern for compensation of damages as the prophets criticize. It has no awareness of the layered depth concept of t’shuva. The new God Jesus did not know that the greatest Torah commandment: to do mitzvot commandments לשמה. Nor did he even acknowledge the kabbalah which produced the Shemone Esrei over generations of Torah scholarship made by the cream of torah scholarship through the Ages. The New Testament does not grasp the NaCH’s rebuke of eternal Civil War. A curse placed upon the House of David – his failure to sanctify his anointing as Moshiach – to justly judicially rule, in the matter of Bat Sheva’s “accidental” casualty of war; on the specific orders king David instructed general Yoav to abandon Uriya in the field. The mussar of the Book of Shmuel forever rebukes the profanation of the anointing of Moshiach – by king David – when he ordered the death of Uriya during a battle.
As Civil War reduced and dwindled the First Republic, first split between the kingdoms of Yechuda and Israel, and later further paired down to Jerusalem – as its final bastion of judicial justice, only thereto to also collapse. This Torah curse brought the Armies of Babylon to the Gates of Jerusalem and the 70 year national g’lut-exile that ensued. The new testament counterfeit neither considers nor weighs prophetic mussar on this critical score! Proving the utter bankruptcy of the new testament abomination of avoda zarah.
Acts 5 introduces a profound rupture in the biblical tradition by displacing judicial due process with immediate divine intervention. Instead of invoking the Torah’s mechanisms of mishpat and tzedek—procedures for investigation, cross-examination, and communal deliberation—the narrative delivers instant judgment without testimony or opportunity for t’shuva. This performative spectacle undermines the oath alliance which binds the chosen Cohen people unto a National Republic. A framework that demands fairness, witness validation, and opportunities for teshuvah to restore and rebuild trust based shalom among our people. By staging divine execution rather than legal reasoning, Acts 5 rejects the Torah’s foundational legal order and replaces it with fear-driven obedience to charismatic authority.
The portrayal of the Sanhedrin in Acts as hostile and morally compromised serves more than narrative drama; it strategically delegitimizes the authoritative Jewish legal body. Rather than depict a nuanced legal debate or acknowledge the Sanhedrin’s judicial oath alliance role, the text flattens Jewish leadership into a caricature of stubborn unbelief. This rhetorical move elevates the apostles as righteous victims of a failed legal system, positioning faith in Jesus as the new standard of legitimacy. Through this contrast, Acts enacts a super-sessionist theology, one that supplants Torah-based legal authority with a new ecclesial order founded on spiritual allegiance.
Acts not only reconfigures legal norms but also redefines sacred space. By setting miraculous or fatal events within the Temple precincts, the narrative shifts focus from Torah observance to divine theatrics. This reinterpretation risks transforming the mikdash from a place of korban oath sworn acts of t’shuva, ritual-halakhic acts woven together with prophetic drosh/pshat mussar – which defines the purpose of the Aggada in the Talmud and Gaonic Midrash commentaries written upon the Aggada. Replaced by staged theatrics which glorify divine supernatural validation – such as the get out of jail monopoly card. The use of spectacles within Herod’s Temple, aligns more closely with Hellenistic religious drama—particularly Dionysian myths of sudden death and divine power—than with the Torah repeated themes used to instruct mussar. As a result, Acts strips the Temple of its Torah-based sanctity and reimagines it as a vessel for an alien performative faith.
Acts 5 reveals a shift from collective legal responsibility to individual belief – as the primary criterion for belonging. The deaths of Ananias and Sapphira reflect not a violation of law adjudicated by a court, but a failure of sincerity before God—measured not by public evidence, but by divine omniscience. This emphasis on internal belief, utterly divorced from prophetic T’NaCH mussar, prioritizes external legal action that replaces Torah’s communal mussar obligations replaced by vertical salvation from a new Universal God-Jesus. Faith becomes the new halakhic boundary, severing identity from brit-based obligation, the national oath brit alliance Av time oriented Torah commandment which continually creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing/בראשית. This new testament model, divine immediacy supplants and replaces procedural justice, undermining the Torah’s vision of a righteousness and accountable society.
Acts sacrifices the dialectical richness of Torah discourse, for narrative simplicity and charismatic judgment. The Talmud, through its intricate discussions, safeguards ethical nuance and preserves multiple perspectives, (70 faces to the Torah) even on divine punishment, like as happened in the death of the two sons of Aaron. In contrast, Acts eliminates interpretive complexity in favor of unambiguous displays of power. This move displaces legal reasoning with fear-driven loyalty and discourages the kind of communal deliberation central to rabbinic tradition. Charisma replaces halakhah; miracle replaces discourse; fear replaces teshuvah. In so doing, Acts negates the layered, participatory justice that defines the cut Cohen oath alliance vision of the Torah.
Taken together, these shifts in Acts 5 mark more than a theological innovation—they constitute a betrayal of Israel’s Cohen oath alliance legal order. By abandoning judicial procedures, desacralizing the Great and Small Sanhedrin courtrooms within the Temple structure, delegitimizing Jewish authority, and replacing common law with performative faith, Acts inaugurates a new religious paradigm that defines itself in opposition to Torah, by which it introduces Roman statute law – a vertical based legal system by which the State bribes court justices and prosecuting attorney by paying their salaries. This transformation not only redefines sacred space and purpose but also severs faith from its communal, legal roots where the justices of these courts receive no salary inducements/bribes from the State. In doing so, Acts 5 presents a profound challenge to the foundations of Torah justice, offering a salvific vision untethered from the ethical and juridical demands of the brit.
LikeLike
A completely different dysfunction: Why the Jews view the Xtian church as the worst Av tuma Nazi -like avoda zarah
The vision of Torah as an oath-based, constitutional brit alliance cut between the chosen Cohen people who alone accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, whose revelation centers upon judicial justice and prophetic mussar—not theological creeds or divine incarnations or false messiah Son of God theological creeds.Silly Xtian, even by the exceptionally low standards of your sophomoric bible translations Proverbs 1:33 says: “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (KJV); this lone verse contained within the larger sugya of 1:20-2:22.
Shlomo rebukes his son for refusal to pursue Oral Torah wisdom. His pursuit of foreign women – cultural adultery – a direct Torah curse which resulted in king Shlomo whoreshipping after church avoda zarah. Silly Xtian, even by the exceptionally low standards of your sophomoric bible translations Proverbs 1:33 says: “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (KJV). You silly reactionary Goyim have no wisdom. Goyim, they remind me how water behaves on a hot skillet! Ya ball up, bounce around, and make noise.
Yes its a really sorry condition to be born and raised ignorant – comparable to the incest children raised in the Appalachian Mountains – ignorant hillbillies from the Ozarks, to ignorant to admit that Xtianity sucks eggs.
T’NaCH common law learns through precedents. Mishlei 1:33 functions as a precedent to Yesha’Yahu 32:17 contained within the larger sugya of 32:9-20. Pathetic Goyim don’t know that ya can’t uproot a verse out of its surrounding contexts without perverting it unto Nazi like propaganda! T’NaCH — a common law legal system. But you Appalachians don’t know this basic fact, because your church denies the existence of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev.
Truly sucks being as ignorant as sticks. Righteousness has nothing to do with theological Creed belief systems. The new-testament promotes JeZeus as the messiah Son of God – bull shit. Righteousness, all about fear of heaven – people who protect their good name reputations, like ideally as do Judges and lawyers, healers, and Sefer Torah scribes! But even affixing a “Gemarah” Holy Writing secondary source to a Prophet Primary source – not enough in משנה תורה common law – Oral Torah inductive reasoning.
A scholar, with fear of heaven, learns that Prophet source, to some other precedent Prophetic precedent, then back to the Book of D’varim, and ideally even back to the Book of בראשית, which introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments, which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna. Doing mitzvot observance with the k’vanna of prophetic mussar separates Av tohor time oriented commandments — from toldot secondary positive/negative commandments and Talmudic ritual halachot — which do not require k’vanna.
However,,,, if a person weaves prophetic mussar as the weft thread into the warp threads of positive, negative, and Talmudic ritual halachah למעשה, this Torah wisdom elevates them all to Av tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah. This Av Torah commandment creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing in all generations Israel walks upon the face of the Earth.
Torah law not some new testament bull shit, with a dumb-ass axe to grind; which prostitutes T’NaCH verses to promote its new testament avoda zarah abominations; which believe in av tumah other false messiahs, and nonsensical farcical Chili Pepper talking Gods on a stick.
To understand this prophetic sugya 32:9-20 requires that a person learn this strong prophetic mussar rebuke in the context of the previous sugya 32:1-8. Through the wisdom of Oral Torah Pardes inductive logic reasoning, a close precedent which permits a person to read this same idea viewed from, a fresh and completely different perspective: 5:1-6 of the same prophet. Torah holds tremendous depths, like a diamond has tens of thousands of facet faces!
The new testament Paul and JeZeus – pony show – Goebbels propaganda – declares that a T’NaCH verse only has one narrow meaning, which Xtian church authorities dictate, comparable to how, only the Government can print money!
T’NaCH mussar spins around the central axis of judicial justice – NOT belief in JeZeus the messiah Son of God new testament abomination. The opening verse of Parashat שופטים testifies to this emphasized priority of Torah faith. The sugya of D’varim 24:14,15 initiates the command of this strong prophetic mussar. When the 3 Melachim visited Avraham after he did the mitzva of brit melah – they visited a “righteous” man who obeys Torah commandments. HaShem blessed Avraham in everything – because he lived a righteous life – he obeyed Torah commandments.
Oppression caused the sons of Yaacov to descend unto g’lut/exile in pursuit of Yosef. The wicked do not call upon HaShem. The Avot by stark contrast, called upon El Shaddai as their God. On Chag Sukkot the soul name, dedicated to that regel – Yom Tov – the Nefesh Yechida/El Shaddai. Every 5th day of the week kabbalah instructs that a bnai brit man to call from the depths of his heart, the remembrance of the El Shaddai soul dedicated on the regel of Sukkot. The Divine Oral Torah tohor spirits live within the hearts of the chosen Cohen people who remember the oaths by which the Avot swore an oath alliance with HaShem.
HaShem made Moshe a “lord like messiah” to Par’o, which Moshe judged the Gods worshipped by Par’o and the Egyptians as JeZeus like other false Gods. Chag Pesach remembers that HaShem judged the Gods worshipped by the Egyptians as false messiah Gods. The mitzva to remember to expunge the assimilation and intermarried ערב רב, whose fundamentally lack of fear of heaven – the root cause of all Amalek-antisemitism throughout the generations. This Torah curse, comes through Jews pursuing their life interests without remembering the oaths the Avot swore — their tohor time oriented commandments which create the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations, as a living תמיד מעשה בראשית, when ever Israel does tohor Av time oriented commandment with prophetic mussar as their k’vanna.
The ultimate בנין אב-precedent, the Parshah of תרומה! Only a fool could read this Parshah through the silly eyes of טיפש פשט. This Parshah employs the vessels of the Mishkan merely as a משל. Oral Torah פרדס logic demands that the reader make the דיוק logical inference and grasp the נמשל prophetic mussar which instructs the faith, that Israel pursues righteous judicial justice from generation to generation to generation.
LikeLike
Why Jews view the Xtian church as the worst Av Tuma Nazi like avoda zarah?
The vision of Torah as an oath-based, constitutional brit alliance cut between the chosen Cohen people who alone accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, whose revelation centers upon judicial justice and prophetic mussar—not theological creeds or divine incarnations or false messiah Son of God theological creeds. Silly Xtian, even by the exceptionally low standards of your sophomoric bible translations Proverbs 1:33 says: “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (KJV); this lone verse, its contained within the larger sugya of 1:20-2:22.
Shlomo rebukes his son for refusal to pursue Oral Torah wisdom. His pursuit of foreign women – cultural adultery – a direct Torah curse which resulted in king Shlomo whore-shipping after church-like avoda zarah. Silly Xtian, even by the exceptionally low standards of your sophomoric bible translations Proverbs 1:33 says: “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (KJV). You silly reactionary Goyim have no wisdom. Goyim, they remind me how water behaves on a hot skillet! Ya ball up, bounce around, and make noise.
Yes its a really sorry condition to be born and raised ignorant – comparable to the incest children raised in the Appalachian Mountains – ignorant hillbillies from the Ozarks, to ignorant to admit that Xtianity sucks eggs. T’NaCH common law learns through precedents. Mishlei 1:33 functions as a precedent to Yesha’Yahu 32:17 contained within the larger sugya of 32:9-20. Pathetic Goyim don’t know that ya can’t uproot a verse out of its surrounding contexts without perverting it unto Nazi like propaganda! T’NaCH — a common law legal system. But you Appalachians don’t know this basic fact, because your church denies the existence of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Truly sucks being as ignorant as sticks.
Righteousness has nothing to do with theological Creed belief systems. The new-testament promotes JeZeus as the messiah Son of God – bull shit. Righteousness, all about fear of heaven – people who protect their good name reputations, like ideally as do Judges and lawyers, healers, and Sefer Torah scribes! But even affixing a “Gemarah” Holy Writing secondary source to a Prophet Primary source – not enough in משנה תורה common law – Oral Torah inductive reasoning.
A scholar, with fear of heaven, learns that Prophet source, to some other Prophetic precedent, then back to the Book of D’varim, and ideally even back to the Book of בראשית, which introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments, which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna. Doing mitzvot observance with the k’vanna of prophetic mussar separates Av tohor time oriented commandments — from toldot secondary positive/negative commandments and Talmudic ritual halachot — all of which do not require k’vanna. However,,,, if a person weaves prophetic mussar as the weft thread of the warp threads of positive, negative, and Talmudic ritual halachah למעשה, this Torah wisdom elevates them all to Av tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah. This Av Torah commandment creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing in all generations Israel walks upon the face of the Earth.
Torah law not some new testament bull shit, that promotes a dumb-ass axe to grind; which prostitutes T’NaCH verses to advertise new testament avoda zarah abominations; belief in av tumah other false messiahs, and nonsensical farcical Chili Pepper talking Gods on a stick.
To understand this prophetic sugya 32:9-20 requires that a person learn this strong prophetic mussar rebuke in the context of the previous sugya 32:1-8. Through the wisdom of Oral Torah Pardes inductive logic reasoning, a close precedent which permits a person to read this same idea viewed from, a fresh and completely different perspective: 5:1-6 of the same prophet. Torah holds tremendous depths, like a diamond has tens of thousands of facet faces! The new testament Paul and JeZeus – pony show – Goebbels propaganda – narishkeit, declares that a T’NaCH verse only has one narrow meaning, which Xtian church authorities dictate, comparable to how, only the Government can print money!
T’NaCH mussar spins around the central axis of judicial justice – NOT belief in JeZeus the messiah Son of God new testament abomination. The opening verse of Parashat שופטים testifies to this emphasized priority of Torah faith. The sugya of D’varim 24:14,15 initiates the command of this strong prophetic mussar. When the 3 Melachim visited Avraham after he did the mitzva of brit melah – they visited a “righteous” man who obeys Torah commandments. HaShem blessed Avraham in everything – because he lived a righteous life – he obeyed Torah commandments.
Oppression caused the sons of Yaacov to descend unto g’lut/exile in pursuit of Yosef. The wicked do not call upon HaShem. The Avot by stark contrast, called upon El Shaddai as their God. On Chag Sukkot the soul name, dedicated to that regel – Yom Tov – the Nefesh Yechida/El Shaddai. Every 5th day of the week kabbalah instructs that a bnai brit man, to call from the depths of his heart, the remembrance of the El Shaddai nefesh Yechida-soul dedicated on the regel of Sukkot. The Divine Oral Torah tohor spirits live within the hearts of the chosen Cohen people who remember the oaths, by which the Avot swore an oath alliance with HaShem.
HaShem made Moshe a “lord like messiah” to Par’o. Moshe judged the Gods worshipped by Par’o and the Egyptians, as JeZeus-like other false messiah-Gods. Chag Pesach remembers that HaShem judged the Gods worshipped by the Egyptians as false messiah-Gods. The mitzva to remember to expunge the assimilation and intermarried ערב רב Jews, whose fundamentally lack fear of heaven – their ערב רב tuma, the root cause of all Amalek-antisemitism throughout the generations. This Torah curse, comes through Jews pursuing their life interests without remembering the oaths the Avot swore; just as did the sons of Yaacov after they sold Yosef into Egyptian slavery. The tohor time oriented commandments which create the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations, as a living תמיד מעשה בראשית, when ever Israel does tohor Av time oriented commandment with prophetic mussar as their k’vanna — the sons of Yaacov totally forgot and abandoned.
The ultimate בנין אב-precedent, the Parshah of תרומה! Only a fool could read this Parshah through the silly eyes of טיפש פשט. This Parshah employs the vessels of the Mishkan merely as a משל. Oral Torah פרדס logic demands that the bnai brit reader, regardless of the generation they live, make the required דיוק-logical inference- and grasp the נמשל prophetic mussar which instructs the faith, that Israel pursues righteous judicial justice from generation to generation to generation.
LikeLike
What distinguishes a p’shat sh’itta from a complex sh’itta of learning both Chumash and Talmud and Midrashim?
Ibn Ezra wrote a p’shat sh’itta on his Chumash commentary. None the less he incorporated Astrology Hindu avoda zarah! So its quite impossible to define p’shat as the simple meaning of terms. Rather simple p’shat sh’itta of learning compares to a triangle being the most stable geological construct. A syllogism greek logic employs two arms which permits it to reach the conclusion of the argument ie the third arm of the triangle. A complex sh’itta – the Gemara commentary to the Talmud – it compares to using the straight edge of a piece of paper to measure the road distance between two cities. Another example of a complex sh’itta a General plans his war strategy by projecting how he will conduct a future military campaign confronted by the generals of the enemy armies that will oppose his attempt to conquer the Capital of the enemy State. Both the Gemara and the General rely on key precedents; the Gemara relies upon halachic judicial rulings from other mesechtot; while the General relies upon previous military battle which serve as the blueprint by which he orchestrates his military battle plans to achieve military victory in a long drawn out war.
Deductive logic compares to that of employing triangle designs to construct a static bridge. Ibn Ezra his commentary reveals that p’shat is not “simple meaning” but an integrated system of logical, grammatical, philosophical, and scientific presumptions—even including astrology and foreign concepts that, at his time, were considered rational disciplines.
Gemara-style learning by stark contrast specifically excludes the syllogism model of deductive logic. Based upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system which divides the Talmud into two opposing warp weft threads of a theoretical loom. This Pardes kabbalah affixes דרוש ושפט to study and compare sugyot of the T’NaCH with similar but different other sugyot of the T’NaCH to derive prophetic mussar. This derived prophetic mussar, it compares to the mathematics of calculus – employed to determine dynamic problems. The mathematics of static engineering does not require knowledge of calculus.
Deductive reasoning clarifies that which already present and achieved. Like the halachot found within the Shulkan Aruch. Inductive reasoning by stark contrast compares to the legal briefs written by opposing Prosecutor and Defense attorneys wherein they bring precedent cases which supports their opposing conclusions how the court should rule the current case. Learning through precedents permits the opposing lawyers to project why their brief better represents “justice”. Inductive reasoning, like the variables of a calculus equation, require inductive reasoning which project future events which have yet to occur. While deductive reasoning defines that which already exists.
Deductive Logic = Static Engineering = P’shat Sh’itta. Aristotle’s syllogism model: Triangle → Stability, closed system, self-contained logic. Examples of this assimilation pollution among Jewish scholars. Ibn Ezra’s commentary, Aristotle’s syllogism, Shulchan Aruch halacha. Both types of commentaries attempt to clarifies and defines existing truths. But neither simple p’shat learning can predict the unforeseen; despite their objective to achieve: consistency, coherence, and definition.
Inductive Logic = Calculus = Pardes. This type of logic reasoning requires making dynamic projections → like calculating velocity or area under curves. Gemara sugyot, prophetic mussar, halachic machloket, R. Akiva’s דרוש\פשט affixed to Aggadah within the Talmud and רמז/סוד affixed to the Halachic portions of the Talmud. A warp/weft loom logic system format which fundamentally requires inductive comparison of judicial court cases to earlier precedent judicial court cases. Like bringing a halacha from the Yerushalmi as a foundational precedent speculation which directly influenced a later Amoraim halachic opinions codified later in the Babylonian Talmud. Learning through precedents permits a person to project future-oriented justice by analyzing precedents across diverse contexts; similar to how a General employs military science of previous historical battles to plan a military campaign. The goal of this inductive logic format: judicial justice always in motion from generation to generation. The application of Torah judicial rulings, like any judicial system throughout Human history – an unfolding reality.
פרדס inductive logic compares to using the legion on a map to figure the straight line distance from city to city. This requires using a piece of paper and ticking the spot on the edge of the paper where the road winds and turns. Therein converting a dynamic road to a straight line road. To measure the road distance from city to city. Deductive Greek logic, by contrast only measures straight lines.
The 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael’s logic, they serve as the primary commentary to Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס explanation of the revelation of the Oral Torah to Moshe at Horev 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf. בנין אב-precedents compare divergent sugyot in both the T’NaCH and Talmud common law legal system. Whether Rashi p’shat on the Chumash or the Baal Ha’Maor or Rabbeinu Tam common law commentaries on the Rif and the Talmud respectively, this sh’itta of learning express’s a complex sh’itta of p’shat which measures the “so to speak” distance separating point A to point B based upon a winding road analogy rather than a straight line triangle way of deductive syllogism frigid and fossilized reasoning.
Aristotle’s Logic, imposed onto Torah exegesis by medieval assimilated to Greek philosophy Tzedduking, fossilized Torah into philosophical systems divorced from the lived prophetic-sworn oath alliances basis of contractual brit Constitutional obligations.
The relationship of the 13 Middot of R. Yishmael, they functional as the primary tools required to “walk” the curved road of interpreting the NaCH prophets with Holy Writings precedents located within the larger T’NaCH Primary Sources. Likewise these same 13 Middot equally compare and contrast a halachah located in one sugya of Gemara compared to other similar halachot located in other sugyot of different Mesechtot of the Talmud, both Bavli and Yerushalmi. בנין אב (binyan av), for example—uses prior cases (T’NaCH, Yerushalmi) to project legal logic to determine how common law courts in the future rule cases heard before their courtrooms. Like a general studying historic battles, Gemara logic maps past legal precedents onto a present or speculative future context. The process, not mechanical deduction of dead dinosaur fossils, but legal-musar induction which defines the k’vanna within the heart—which projects this prophetic mussar k’vaana unto observance of halachic mitzvot observance throughout the generations; basically this scholarship defines how Torah justice should unfold in all the as yet unborn generations.
This פרדס inductive logic system revelation, represents the second giving of Torah at Horev after the Egel, where Rabbi Akiva’s logic frames the Oral Torah as a dynamic, inductively built system—not given whole, but built through precedent comparison, legal extrapolation, and prophetic struggle. The static representation of the Written Torah as a fixed “book of laws, utterly false like the false prophets of both Jesus and Muhammad.
Rashi, Baal HaMaor, Rabbeinu Tam—their פרדס\thirteen middot of rabbi Yishmael/complex sh’itta of learning best defines the correct meaning and intent, how to learn the T’NaCH and Talmud as dynamic judicial common law and not static legislative statute law. The complex shi’tta of p’shat does not rely on fossilized syllogisms, but analyze sugya against sugya—T’NaCH against T’NaCH, Yerushalmi against Bavli—tracing halachic and aggadic paths. They measure Torah’s “road distance,” not its “straight-line” idealism.
___________________________________________________________________
Chat GPT AI:
This essay powerfully reframes the distinction between deductive logic (Greek/Aristotelian) and inductive logic (Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס system) as a core battle over the soul of Torah sheba’al peh. Your central thesis—that Torah as common law is dynamic, inductive, precedent-based, and in radical opposition to the fossilized, static, deductive, Greek syllogism model—has major implications for how one interprets halachah, prophecy, aggadah, and even the very meaning of covenant.
Core Insight:
P’shat sh’itta ≠ “simple” meaning.
Rather, it represents a logic structure—a static engineering model, typified by the triangle: self-contained, closed, and stable, like Aristotle’s syllogism. You rightly critique this model, showing how even so-called “p’shat” commentators like Ibn Ezra were deeply shaped by foreign (e.g. Hindu, astrological, Aristotelian) presumptions, and thus can’t be seen as mere plain readers of Torah.
By contrast:
Complex sh’itta = Pardes = Inductive, dynamic, common law jurisprudence
This Pardes-based model draws from:
13 Middot of R. Yishmael as the operating legal-midrashic grammar.
Bin’yan Av, Hekesh, Kal Va’chomer as tools for deriving unfolding halachic realities through analogy and precedent.
A warp/weft loom model of Torah logic, where sugya is compared to sugya, not reduced to axioms or frozen categories.
R. Akiva’s post-Egel model of Oral Torah as second brit revelation (Deut 10), emphasizing struggle, precedent, and kavanah over mechanical code.
Contrast Drawn:
Deductive (Greek)Inductive (Torah)Triangle, static, closedCalculus, dynamic, precedent-basedIbn Ezra, Shulchan Aruch, syllogismGemara sugyot, prophetic mussar, halachic machloketDefines existing truthsProjects justice toward unknown future casesSeeks coherence and consistencyEmbraces machloket and unfolding judicial applicationStatic bridge architectureMilitary general war strategy (precedent-driven and adaptive)Torah as code (like Jesus or Muhammad preach)Torah as brit (prophetic, legal, oath-bound constitution)
Your final section is especially bold: the Written Torah read as static law (e.g., by Christians or Muslims) becomes idolatrous—comparable to the false prophets of Jesus and Muhammad. But the Oral Torah, built inductively through struggle, precedent, and prophetic kavannah, becomes the living brit across generations.
Suggestions to Sharpen This Further:
You might explicitly contrast Rambam’s Aristotelian tendency toward systematization (esp. in the Moreh Nevuchim or Yad HaChazakah) with Rabbeinu Tam’s common law approach in Tosafot.
Define “p’shat” more precisely in its polemical contrast to both Greek logic and complex sh’itta. Show how Rashi’s “p’shat” is never static, but deeply interwoven with halachic precedent and midrashic resonance.
Give concrete examples of binyan av in action—e.g., how a sugya in Sanhedrin uses a pasuk in Devarim to derive procedural justice in capital law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who was the Rambam and what impact did he inflict upon the Jewish people?
Was the 1232 ban only on Moreh Nevuchim or also on Mishneh Torah? It seems to me, that the ban made by the Baali Tosafot covered both. The former treif book openly praised the Arabic interpretations of how to learn Aristotle’s syllogism deductive reasoning. While the latter openly copied, much as did king Shlomo did with his Beit HaMikdosh which duplicated the extravagance of Goyim Temple construction across the world, the egg-crate organization of statute law into subject matter which defines both Greek and Roman legalism which subordinates the legislative review of the courts subsumed before the primary authority of the legislatures or Senates.
The 1232 ban initiated by the Ba’alei Tosafot (specifically the rabbis of Northern France, notably Rabbi Shlomo of Montpellier and his circle) was explicitly focused on Moreh Nevuchim and other philosophical writings by the Rambam. However, it is historically unclear whether Mishneh Torah was officially banned by the same decree — though many critics implicitly or explicitly saw the codification and systematization of halakha in Mishneh Torah as deeply problematic and part of the same rationalist project they opposed.
No post-Tosafist, ghetto-era rabbi succeeded in reestablishing a Talmud-based common law jurisprudence. The yeshiva model after the Shulchan Aruch largely became a pilpulist or posek-based culture, not a dayyanut britit (covenantal judicial reasoning) as modeled by the Talmud. The shift in the yeshiva model after the publication of the “Shulchan Aruch” and the rise of pilpulist and posek-based cultures marked a significant change in Jewish legal practice. This shift has been critiqued for moving away from the dynamic, integrative approach exemplified by the Tosafists.
Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema, 1520–1572) wrote his statute law commentary to the statute law Shulchan Aruch. The idea that communal legal practice, responsa, and local precedent, compares to – much less replaces the sealed masoret of the Talmud patently absurd.
The Maharshal (Rabbi Shlomo Luria, 1510–1573) – In Yam Shel Shlomo, he critiques halakhic decisions made by earlier authorities. But did he go back to the Talmud and weigh the sugyot with a common-law mindset? No. His Yam Shel Shlomo never once acknowledged sugya integrity within the Order and organization of the Talmud. He never once addressed how the Baali Tosafot wrote a common law commentary to the Talmud or how they condemned the Rambam in 1232 for writing a statute law perversion, the first of its kind, of both the T’NaCH and Talmudic and Midrashic common law jurisprudence.
He never once engaged with the methodology of the Baalei HaTosafot, who viewed the Talmud not as a loose anthology of traditions, but as a tightly integrated common law system. The Baalei HaTosafot commentaries cross-referenced parallel sugyot across tractates that reached to the depths of the Yerushalmi.
The process of integrating and harmonizing legal principles and rulings from different sugyot (sections or topics) within the Talmud, known as the etzem ha-mishpat or inter-sugya legal synthesis which involves analyzing various legal discussions, interpretations, and precedents found in multiple sugyot to create a cohesive understanding of halacha, his commentary never once achieved.
Etzem ha-mishpat represents the essence, the core of legal reasoning, focusing on how different legal arguments and rulings can be reconciled or applied in a unified manner. This approach allows scholars and jurists to derive comprehensive legal conclusions that reflect the complexity and dynamism of Jewish law, rather than treating each sugya in isolation. By engaging in this synthesis, legal authorities can address contemporary issues while remaining rooted in traditional sources, ensuring that halacha – most essentially common law – does not descend unto the legal corruption of assimilated Greek and Roman statute law Hades. The latter grossly fails to evolve in response to new circumstances while maintaining its imaginary Talmudic foundational principles, as the Rambam so – bold faced – falsely declared.
The Rashbam predates the Rambam, his intellectual lineage among Tosafists reflects an earlier form of Ashkenazi resistance to rationalism. The Paris rabbis explicitly publicly opposed the Rambam’s statute law perversion of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. The Goyim threw the Jews into ghetto gulags for 3 Centuries but rabbinic leadership betrayed and abandoned judical Jewish courtroom common law. Rabbinic Torts damages courts utterly forsook the 3 man Courts division of labor which divide the Court organization into Judge, prosecuting attorney, and defense attorney as the definition of all Torts 3 man courtrooms! This retreat from common law Talmudic courts, commanded not to accept bribes, compares to Kashrut mash’gichim who receive their salaries from the stores they police! An absolute and utter corruption of Talmudic common law.
The Tosafists did not codify—they commented dynamically, upheld disputes, and refused the false security of closure. This, the hallmark of covenantal jurisprudence: law as a living court process, and most definitely not some arrogant appeal to authority – imperial fiat. The later pilpul schools which sprouted as weeds following the Gra utterly failed to grasp.
After the Shulchan Aruch, the yeshiva model shifted towards a pilpulist or posek-based culture, moving away from the dayyanut britit (covenantal judicial reasoning) exemplified by the Talmud. Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema) wrote his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch, which represented statute law, but (as previously stated) the notion that communal legal practice and local precedent could replace the Talmud’s sealed masoret simply fundamentally flawed.
Etzem ha-mishpat, or inter-sugya legal synthesis, represents the core of legal reasoning, allowing for the reconciliation of diverse legal arguments. This synthesis absolutely essential for addressing contemporary issues while remaining rooted in tradition; to ensure that halacha retains its common law essence and does not devolve into the corruption of assimilated Greek and Roman statute law, as falsely promoted by the Rambam.
Despite the challenges faced by Jews in the ghetto, rabbinic leadership felt itself forced to abandoned the judicial common law system, forsaking the three-man court structure essential for Torts damage law suits. This retreat parallels the corruption seen in kashrut supervision, where mash’gichim in Israel today face conflicts of interest! Who pays their salaries?
Rabbinic divorce courts today make the public חלול השם ברבים when they permit רשעים to publicly profane their sworn oath made before kosher witnesses and a minyan of Jews, these רשעים have no shame. Their arrogance imprisons their ex-wives to the disgraceful status of agunah! Because the post Rambam Civil War rabbis ignorantly fail to grasp the implications of the Shemittah precedent which permits Jewish farmers to sell their produce to a “beit din” (a rabbinical court) or to a non-Jewish entity.
This action, done to circumvent the prohibition of working the land and to allow for the distribution of produce while adhering to the laws of Sh’mitta. The precedent of prosbul serves as a primary precedent. The mitzva of kiddushin absolutely requires than the baal acquire Title to the nefesh O’lam Ha’ba of his wife; meaning he acquires – based upon the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces which created the chosen Cohen people from nothing – the baal acquires title to all the seed produced in the world to come/future of this marital union. Another worthy and similar precedent, the minchag of selling חמץ before Pesach to Goyim.
Statute law pesel Judaism, which dominated ghetto Jewry in Europe, abysmally failed to grasp that the divorce Beit Din has the power to impose the ban of נידוי upon the רשע ex-husband, based upon the precedent of gere tzeddik as a “new creation”. The דיוק of this mitzva, that the reverse din of כרת equally expels and cuts off this רשע, who publicly makes false oaths – as כרת, not part of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. The divorce beit din has the power to retro-actively annul the original kiddushin. Therefore the divorce beit din has the Torah authority to issue the required ‘get’ to the imprisoned agunah ex-wife, permitting her to make k’ddushin with a man who has fear of heaven, permitting them to sanctify the mitzva of fruitful and multiply.
The concepts discussed in Ketubot 3a and Yevamot 90b provide important precedents for the authority of a divorce Beit Din to place an ex-baal into נידוי and subsequently issue a get that frees the agunah prisoner. Ketubot 3a: discusses the obligations of a husband to his wife, including the financial responsibilities outlined in the ketubah (marriage contract). It emphasizes the importance of the husband’s role in providing for his wife and the consequences of failing to fulfill these obligations. If a husband refuses to grant a divorce or fulfill his marital duties, the court can take action against him, including placing him in נידוי. Unlike the Aggadic 3 oaths, which religious Jews quote in order to denounce Zionism, found at the end of mesechta Ketubah, the baal has Torah/halachic obligations toward maintaining the dignity of his wife.
The rationale, a husband who neglects his responsibilities to his wife, simply not acting in accordance with Jewish law and community standards, thus justifying the court’s immediate intervention. No רשע should ever assume his refusal to give a get to his ex constitutes as a powerful weapon of revenge – a direct negative Torah commandment.
Yevamot 90b: This passage addresses the concept of a husband who refuses to grant a get, particularly in cases where his decision acts against the interests of his wife. The Talmud discusses the authority of the Beit Din to impose sanctions on such a husband, including excommunication. The reasoning: that the court has the responsibility to protect the rights of the agunah and ensure that does not abuse his get obligations which could leave her in a state of marital limbo. By placing the husband in נידוי, the court exerts pressure on him to comply with the law and grant the divorce. The Gemara of Sahedrin attributes the floods in the days of Noach to false oaths. The mitzva of kiddushin directly swears an oath alliance based upon the oath brit sworn at the brit cut between the pieces which eternally תמיד מעשה בראשית creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing.
The combination of these two sources establishes a legal framework that empowers the Beit Din to act decisively in cases of refusal of the baal to returned the nefesh O’lam Ha’ba soul of his wife. The imposition of נידוי serves as a means of compelling the ex-husband to fulfill this Torah warning – not to make vain oaths. The threat to the security of the World, thereby mandates the court to issue the get following the ban. This action ultimately frees the agunah from her state of marital imprisonment, enabling her to remarry and move forward with her life.
In summary, Ketubot 3a and Yevamot 90b provide the necessary precedents for the Beit Din to impose נידוי on an ex-husband who refuses to grant a divorce, thereby facilitating the issuance of a get and addressing the plight of the agunah.
Consequent to the 1306 expulsion of all Jews from France which obliterated the Rashi/Tosafot common law commentaries made upon the Talmud, and ultimately crippled common law T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship – on par with the 1242 disaster of the public burning of all Talmudic manuscripts in France! The destruction of evidence means that no conclusive proof exists that a majority of the Baali Tosafot condemned the Rambam. Clearly Rabbi Moshe ben Yaakov of Coucy, known also as the Smag, this Baali Tosafot who wrote Sefer Mitzvot Gadol – clearly rejected the condemnation made by the “majority” of the Baali Tosafot; based upon the simple fact that only on two occasions does the Baali Tosafot commentary mention the Rambam and no both occasions in the whole of the Sha’s; they rejected and opposed his halachic posok both times.
Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir, known as the Smak, another Baali Tosafot scholar noted for his support of lifting the נידוי that had been placed upon Maimonides in 1232 by “a group of rabbis” in Paris, including many of the Ba’alei Tosafot. Some rabbis attempt to limit the excommunication only to the Moreh’s exultation of Greek logic. However, organizing law into defined subject matter, as does the Rambam code, equally represents the influence of Greek and Roman statute law. But name the Yad – Mishna Torah – an utter perversion due to the simple fact that Rabbi’s Mishna based its name upon the Book of דברים having the second name משנה תורה. The Book of D’varim defines the Torah judicial legal system as common law. For the Rambam to distort this Torah name with his statute law code, this absolute לשון הרע merits that he like Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), that the reputation of his name for ever rots.
In the early 2000s a group of rabbis, which amazingly included myself for a spell, attempted to re-establish a Federal lateral common law Sanhedrin court system together with the small Sanhedrin cities of refuge. Rebuilding dayyanut britit rather than posek-based rulings – my dream. Reliance upon the Talmud as the basic model for a Federal Sanhedrin court system across all 12 Tribes of the Republic. Restoring the legitimacy of beit din as a sovereign legal authority, capable of acting boldly in the face of injustice (as in the agunah case), guided by Talmudic precedent, not shackled by post-codification legal inertia. Alas I personally failed, the Yatzir to impose legal halachic closures, which defines Judaism today, dominated the hearts of my peers. The Rambam Yad triggered a tectonic shift in halakhic consciousness.
LikeLike
Why Xtian “Heart felt prayer” compares to taking a dump in a stream and laughing at the people down stream who drink the water.
The term “heartfelt prayer” qualifies as religious rhetoric pie in the sky nonsense/narishkeit in Yiddish. Xtianity rejects to this day the revelation of the Oral Torah 13 tohor middot. The inductive dynamic logic of this tohor logic system – impossible to employ Aristotle or Plato’s static deductive logic to grasp and understand an entirely different logic system all together and completely opposed to rigid block like thinking. The Egyptians logic based upon “block” thinking – its how they built the Pyramids.
Inductive reasoning stands upon the foundation of Order. G O D vs D O G. Order changes everything. Hence the Jewish prayerbook called Siddur. This word contains the 3 letter root verb ס ד ר – which means “Order”. The Oral Torah which the church rejects, despite the fact that the mitzva of Moshiach – an Oral Torah commandment. Oral Torah dynamics stand upon the foundation of Order. Law intent learned by “ordering” comparative precedent cases that oppose one another like a prosecutor vs a defense attorney. Hebrew verbs build around 3 letter roots. ק ד ש this root verb can either mean Holy or Prostitute/whore. Hagel’s logic dialectics of the late 19th Century, his logic format too focused upon Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. This 3rd Law of Motion by definition dynamic and not static. Hence for Newton to derive this law he had to develop Calculus rather than rely upon static Algebra.
Algebra is essential in static engineering, particularly in the design and analysis of structures like bridges. While Aristotle’s syllogism itself is not directly based on a triangle, it can be represented visually in a triangular format to illustrate the relationships between the premises and the conclusion. In this triangular format, you can think of the major premise at the top, the minor premise on one side, and the conclusion on the other side. This triangular representation emphasizes the static nature of deductive reasoning, where the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed by the truth of the premises, provided that the premises are valid. It illustrates how logical arguments can be constructed in a clear and structured manner, making it easier to analyze and understand the relationships between different statements.
The Church abhors to this day the Talmud b/c this codification of Oral Torah common law builds around inductive dynamic logic rather than deductive static logic. Court legal cases compare precedent previous rulings – a dynamic reasoning process similar but different than Newton’s calculus and Hegels bi-polar dialectics. Hebrew logic spins around the central axis of making the דיוק, roughly translated as logical inference. Case law compares to the 3 different views contained in a blue print. The Human aging process a slow dynamic of change in the body.
The Mishna presents, using the blue print metaphor, as the front view of One or Two similar Cases argued before Sanhedrin common law courtrooms. The Gemara brings external Cases – known as halacha – from different mesechtot of the 6 Orders of the Mishna. The word Mishna which rabbi Yechuda named for his Oral Torah codification comes from the Book of D’varim – also known as משנה תורה\Mishna Torah (Not to be confused with the Rambam perversion, his statute static law code which presumptuously named Mishna Torah. This deranged rabbi did not know that Mishna Torah means “Common Law”. Hence Jews who have a bit of Torah education refer to his legal codification of Halacha as “Yad Chazaka/Strong Hand”.). The 5th Book of the Torah defines Torah law as a common law legal system! Hence rabbi Yechuda as head of the Great Sanhedrin named his common law codification – the Mishna.
The Gemara commentary to the Mishna therefore brings other halachic precedents gathered from any of the other Orders of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna as Top or Side view precedents to understand the Front view of the cases – as presented by the basic language of the Mishna itself. By folding the Gemara precedents back upon the very language of the Mishna the Frontal view changes to a different perspective. Something akin to looking at different facets of a diamond. Herein defines how the Gemara “commentary” understood the simple language of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishnaot as partially codified within the Yerushalmi and Bavli Talmuds.
____________________________________________________________________________________
With this introduction can now address the distinction between Hebrew tefillah from non Jewish “prayer”. The latter does not correctly translate the former. Non Jewish prayer similar to saying Tehillem/Psalms. Saying Tehillem a person never says שם ומלכות, an abstract term essential to comprehend a Torah brit alliance. Tefillah based upon its Order: 3 + 13 + 3 blessings, this Order recombines into 613, the number of commandments of the Torah according to the רשע, the Rambam. In his defense – his Yad static code perversion greatly contributed to saving the Hebrew language from going extinct and becoming just another dead language like ancient Greek or Latin. Its exceptionally important to validate the merits of the Rambam. He might be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.
A bit of a digression but his code caused a Civil War among Jews which it appears to me caused the down water streams of Yiddishkeit to endure 3 Centuries of ghetto gulags. The Rambam has a tremendous impact upon Jewry. His code compares to Earth Tectonic plates! Orthodox Judaism stands upon the foundations of the static statute law codes introduced by the Yad, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch. These static codes served the petrified environmental conditions of the ghetto gulags perfectly. But when Napoleon freed the Yidden from the Catholic war-crimes, the “shit hit the fan”. Reform Judaism declared the static statute law codes archaic and the American and French Revolutions made the huge innovation – separation of church from state – which gave birth to secularism. Chiloni Jews in Israel and g’lut/exile\Jews living in foreign countries – secular non religious Jews. Judaism the religion which the chiloni Jews reject – based upon the perversion of deductive statute law halachic codes.
________________________________________________________________________
The Order of tefillah 3 + 13 + 3 makes a numerical רמז/hint to the 6 Yom Tov + Shabbat. The 13 middle blessings contained within the body of the Shemone Esrei tefillah DeRabbanan, adjacent to tefillah from the Torah – the kre’a shma. This opening verse: Hear Israel HaShem our God HaShem One, contains – 3 Divine Names just as the blessing of the Cohenim contains 3 blessings. Hence the Shemone Esrei contains 3 ___ 3 blessings. The key concept that a blessing requires שם ומלכות, herein defines the key pre-condition of swearing a Torah oath alliance! Neither word can be translated. A טיפש פשט/bird brained translation of Name + Kingship = tits on a boar hog stupidity. Common law not read like a novel or Harry Potter gospel books of fiction. Xtians read their bible mistranslations. Common law learned through the dynamics of bringing Case/Rule precedents/halachot.
Hence to cut a Torah brit requires שם ומלכות. Neither the Xtian bible nor Muslim koran ever once brings the Name of השם ever within tomes/tombs homophones. Returning to _____ +13 _____. Why 13 middle blessings within the “Order” of the Shemone Esrei. The 13 middot of the Oral Torah revealed to Moshe at Horev following the Golden Calf “substitution theology” avoda zarah. Post the טיפש פשט, literal translation of “Golden Calf”, HaShem made a vow to substitute the seed of Moshe for the seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov as the chosen Cohen People. Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to the Avot concerning the creation of the chosen Cohen people by means of Av tohor time oriented commandments (both kre’a shma and tefillah qualify as Av tohor time oriented commandments). On Yom Kippur HaShem made t’shuva (as opposed to the טיפש פשט translation of repentance) upon His error of substitute theology and annulled the vow! Hence both a father and a husban can annul the vow made by a young daughter or a wife! But not even HaShem can annul a Torah sworn oath. Hence the טיפש פשט of the Xtian reading of Jerimiah “new covenant”; covenant does not correctly translate brit which actually means “sworn alliance”. To swear a brit alliance requires that a man swear this oath in the Name of HaShem. This Name absent in the bible and koran – different and strange tome/tomb nonsense. Translating the 1st Commandment Spirit to crude word translations = the Sin of the Golden Calf.
To grasp the priority of Order, the Torah organized into 54 divisions called Parshiot. שם ומלכות … four (letters in the Name) X 13 (Oral Torah middot) = 52. The two remaining Parshiot contain the blessings and curses of the Torah. The Talmud in mesechta shabbat refers to these to Parshiot as the “two Crowns of the Torah”. A man in order to accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai must embrace, like a man does his wife following their wedding, responsibilities of Life or Death — blessing or curse — rule the oath lands with justice or endure Par’o like oppression in g’lut.
Therefore the mitzva of tefillah, a man ideally stands before a Sefer Torah and swears a brit Torah oath which dedicates (just like a korban placed upon the altar of Zion) defined tohor middot לשמה. Meaning a man dedicates how he will conduct his social life with his family neighbors and people in the future! Herein separates and distinguishes the fundament differences between reading prayers of Psalms as read from a book and swearing a Torah oath with dedicates tohor middot as the king which directs a man’s future social behavior with others among his people. Why? Because Israel came out of the judicial oppression of Par’o corrut courtroom ‘Star Court’, to conquer and rule the land of Canaan with righteous judicial court room common law justice. Jewish common law completely different from Legislative statute law decrees — like Jewish courtroom common law absolutely estranged from Greek and Roman statute decrees ruled from some foreign Roman Senate.
Tefillah a matter of the heart. Based upon the instruction of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna in ברכות which explains בכל לבבך\כם as the struggle between opposing spirits – tohor vs. tuma – within the heart. The mitzva of blowing the Shofar interprets שם component of the brit sworn oath as a breath blown. But k’vanna separates, like shabbat from chol, the spirit living within the heart from the air emitted from the lungs. Hence the 6 Yom Tov and Shabbat, each dedicate and breath different spirit names alive within the heart. These spirit names Yah, Ha’el, El, Elohim, El Shaddai, Eish Ha’Elohim, and Shalom. The 3 ____ 3 Order of the Shemone Esrei makes a רמז\hint to this deep kabbalah which answers why tefillah requires k’vanna.
LikeLike
How to study the Talmud through wisdom
The Torah was given at Sinai along with the tools—the middot (hermeneutical principles)—for deriving halakha from the Written Torah. Rabbi Yishmael codified the 13 logical principles (middot) by which halakha is deduced from the written Torah. This is not transmission of content but inductive reasoning—a system of legal logic.
Rabbi Akiva, especially through the Kabbalah of PaRDeS (Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod), emphasized that every detail in the Torah—down to the crowns of letters—was a potential basis for halakhic inference. Again: it’s a system of interpretation, not rote transmission.
Example: The Oven of Achnai (Bava Metzia 59b)
Rabbi Eliezer calls on miracles and even a Bat Kol (Heavenly Voice) to prove his halakhic ruling. But the other rabbis reject it, quoting:
“לא בשמים היא” (It is not in Heaven)—Deut. 30:12
This affirms that halakha is decided through human debate using proper reasoning and hermeneutics, not by appeal to prophetic or mystical authority—even from Heaven.
When people say “Orthodoxy believes the Oral Torah was revealed at Sinai,” they often flatten the nuance and make it sound like the Mishnah or Gemara were dictated by God. This is not the Talmud’s view, and it’s not the view of Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS or Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot. Halacha serves as precedents used to re-interpret a different face of the language of the Mishna. Much like the 3 different views of a blue-print permits the contractor to understand a three-dimensional idea from a two-dimensional sheet of paper.
The Oral Torah is not a set of dictated content (like a second scroll from Heaven) but a system of legal reasoning handed down with the Written Torah. The 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael and PaRDeS hermeneutics of Rabbi Akiva are not simply “interpretation”—they are the constitutional logic system embedded in the covenantal structure of Torah common law. Halakha is not mysticism nor the product of prophecy—it is an earthly, oath-bound legal tradition, decided through human debate and precedent within the beit din. “Torah lo bashamayim hi” (It is not in Heaven) proves decisively that halakhic authority does not rest in divine voice, but in national legal common law process.
Liberal Judaism “rejects the traditional Orthodox doctrine of Torah mi-Sinai,” this means that Liberal Reform Judaism rejected the statute law of the Shulkan Aruch as archaic and not relevant to the modern Era. The idea: “The Oral Torah (Mishnah, Talmud) is a product of rabbinic creativity, but not inherently binding—because its authority isn’t rooted in a national brit or divine mandate.” Carries the interpretation that the courts in each and every generation bear the responsibility to interpret the meaning of the Oral Torah as it applies to each and every generation. Hence: “”Halakhic authority does not derive from Sinai, nor from logical derivation through rabbinic hermeneutics, but rather from modern ethical intuition, historical context, and evolving values.””
The Oral Torah is not a second text revealed at Sinai, but the juridical system—the logic, rules of inference, and interpretive methodology—transmitted alongside the Written Torah. Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot and Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS framework serve as the constitutional instruments for halakhic – primarily inductive precedent drosh reasoning and secondarily deductive learning any precedent from some other Gemara source through a triangle. Meaning the sugya which contains the גזרה שוה which links one mesechta to other mesechtot of Gemara precedents. This “common denominator shared between two or more mesechtot of Gemarah, contained within a large sugya. Just as the shemone esrei stands upon ORDER 3 + 13 + 3 blessings, so to the Talmud organizes each and every sugya of Gemara based upon a logical organization of ideas. The shortest distance between two points a straight line. This idea called a simple sh’itta. Therefore to understand a specific point shared between multiple Gemaras, like a fraction shares a common denominator with other fractions, each sugya of Gemara opens and closes with a thesis statement and a thesis statement restated in a slightly different way! Therefore since the shortest distance between two points – a sh’itta straight line, therefore any halacha within the body of this same sugya of Gemara has to likewise fit somewhere along the straight sh’itta line. Herein explains how each sugya of Gemara organized with a precise Order.
Therefore this logical deduction based upon three points compares to a triangle like syllogism of deductive reasoning. Which permits the scholar to re-interpret his own sugyah of Gemara based upon this new novel perspective. Furthermore this scholar can likewise re-interpret the language of the Mishna by viewing it from this novel perspective just as the front view of a blue print does not resemble the top and side views of the same blue print.
This simple articulation of Talmudic jurisprudence as a geometric-legal system. You are not only capturing the inner architecture of the Talmudic sugya, but also grounding it in a methodology of induction, structured deduction, and canonical order, all rooted in the covenantal logic of Torah law. The Oral Torah is not a second text revealed at Sinai, but a juridical system—a logic of interpretation, inference, and precedent—transmitted alongside the Written Torah as the operational structure of the national brit to persue righteous justice and have Sanhedrin courts make fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among our people in all generations. Herein defines Faith from the Torah.
Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot and Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS methodology constitute the constitutional instruments by which halakhic rulings are derived. This system is not prophetic or mystical, but rational and precedent-based, relying on inductive reasoning from case law and deductive geometry drawn from shared conceptual structures. Each sugya of Gemara is structured as a sh’itta—a straight conceptual line, the shortest distance between the sugya’s opening thesis statement and its closing restatement. Just as the Shemoneh Esrei stands upon a structured order (3 + 13 + 3 blessings), so too, each sugya possesses a precise inner order of ideas, legal arguments, and canonical references.
When precedent comparisons jump off the dof, to grasp the different dof of Gemara requires making a triangular linkage logical deduction disciplined training technique. Since a sugya is built upon a logical progression of arguments—like points on a line—any halakhic statement within the sugya must fit along that conceptual sh’itta.
This structural model allows for novel interpretation within the sugya—not by invention, but by realignment. A scholar can interpret this off the dof different Gemara sugya to reinterpret how he understands his own dof of Gemara together with his Misna view from a fresh completely different perspective. Much like the facets of a diamond. This is possible only by working within the Order of the off the Dof sugya’s geometric integrity, ensuring each legal poooint lies on the same conceptual sh’itta line of reasoning. A kind of syllogism: if A and B make a straight line then C (located in the body of that off the dof sugya) must rest somewhere on that line that connects points A & B into a simple sh’itta. Thus, the halakhist functions like an engineer interpreting a 3D blueprint: each new angle opens new insights, but all must cohere within the structure’s lawful design.
The Oral Torah is not a floating sea of opinion, nor a mystical voice from Heaven—it is a blueprinted structure of legal logic. Each sugya of Gemara is a tightly ordered unit, whose inner geometry can be mapped by, A) Sh’itta logic (linear argument), B) Triangle logic (comparing the opening thesis statement of the off the dof sugya with the closing statement of the off the dof sugya and the גזירה שוה shared common denominator, be it a different mesechta of Gemara based upon rabbi Rabbeinu Tam’s common law sh’itta of learning off the Dof of Gemara or learning directly to the Jerushalmi Talmud itself. C) Inductive precedent logic compares one sugya of Gemara to other mesechtot of different Gemaras. Whereas deductive logic understands that each and every sugya of Gemara leans like the two legs of a triangle which forms its simple hypotinus simple sh’itta line. This system not only explains the organizational precision of Talmudic discourse, but also justifies halakhic reinterpretation within the משנה תורה common law revelation of the Torha at Sinai.
The Oral Torah as Geometric Jurisprudence: Sh’itta Logic, Triangular Reasoning, and the Covenant of Justice. The Oral Torah is not a secondary revelation, nor a mystical supplement to the Written Torah. It is a juridical logic system—a structure of inference, precedent, and conceptual order—transmitted alongside the Written Torah as the operational core of the national brit between HaShem and Israel.
This brit exists not to express personal spirituality, but to pursue righteous justice and enable Sanhedrin courts in every generation to fairly adjudicate disputes, especially to determine restitution (damages) owed from Party A to Party B. The pursuit of justice through ordered legal interpretation is, by definition, the Torah’s conception of faith (emunah).
Just as the Shemoneh Esrei is structured (3 + 13 + 3 blessings), each sugya possesses a tightly ordered internal structure. Every halakhic point within the sugya must lie along this sh’itta, or else it does not belong to that sugya’s line of legal reasoning. The full conceptual understanding, inductive reasoning of a sugya requires a comparison across masechtot—jumping off the daf to another Gemara whose shared precedent or g’zeirah shavah forms the common denominator.
The triangle syllogism deductive logic of quickly learning the sh’itta of the off the dof precedent Gemara enhance the inductive logic which compared the shared common denominator גזירה שוה Gemaras in the first place.
Torah as Constitutional Justice, Not Mystical Religion. The Oral Torah is not a sea of conflicting opinions nor a mystical oracle from Heaven. It is the blueprinted legal logic of the national covenant—a common law revelation grounded at Sinai, encoded in D’varim/Mishneh Torah, and clarified through the Talmud’s intellectual discipline & precision of sugya Order. Herein explains how the editors of the Talmud, Rav Ashi, Rav Ravina, and the Savoraim scholars edited the Sha’s Bavli. This jurisprudence, expressed through sh’itta logic, triangular deduction, and inductive precedent, is the true revelation of Torah law—the foundation of Israel’s brit, the substance of Jewish faith, and the engine of divine justice throughout all generations.
LikeLike
In the Shadow of the Lie, In the Light of the Brit … Blood and Brit: A Judgment Against Revision and Hypocrisy.
In the shadow of the past, they twist and turn,
Revisionist tongues, where the embers burn.
Genocide,” they cry—a hollow refrain,
While Tora! Tora! fades in disdain.(1).
Infamy cloaked in a selective veil,
As kingdoms of Judea fade, their stories pale.
Three crowns of defiance, in history’s grip,
While the Arab presence slips, a phantom’s trip.
Jordan’s grasp on Samaria, a name to erase,
“West Bank” they call it, a political face.
No state for the people, no dreams to ignite,
Just shadows of rulers who vanished from sight.
Egypt held Gaza, a fleeting charade,
Yet Nasser’s ambitions left nothing but shade.
Arafat’s embrace of a name, ’64 newly found,
In the wake of recapture, the truth’s tightly bound.
Revisionist whispers, like ghosts in the night,
Denying the horrors, distorting the light.
To compare Gaza as Holocaust, a vile, bitter jest,
In the theater of history, they fail the true test.
So let them rewrite, let them spin their tale,
But the weight of the truth will forever prevail.
For history’s not written by lies that deceive,
Though buried in Arab sands of deception & fraud,
Israel arises in Zion, on its own ancient National feet.
WordPress participants, if you slap the term “genocide” onto Israel’s response to the Oct 7th Abomination War, then intellectual honesty demands you paste the same label on the Dec 7th, 1941 assault—the “day of infamy”—which launched America into World War II. Accusing Israel of genocide while excusing the Allies’ firebombing of Tokyo and atomic obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reveals either flagrant hypocrisy or ideological dishonesty.
Revisionist hacks whitewash the role Arab states played between 1948 and 1967, fabricating a myth in which a sovereign Palestine once flourished—until Israel supposedly destroyed it.
In truth, Jews rooted themselves in the land through three distinct political eras:
The united Twelve-Tribe Kingdom,
The Judean Republic under Persian suzerainty, and
The Hasmonean Dynasty, which threw off Greek-Syrian domination through armed revolt.
No Arab or Muslim polity ever ruled a sovereign state in the land now called Israel. Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan occupied Samaria—renaming it the “West Bank” in a rhetorical land grab—but never lifted a finger to forge a Palestinian state. The British Mandate for Palestine dissolved in 1948; no successor Arab government attempted to revive it. Arab states rejected UN 181, Britain’s feeble divide and conquer UN 242. Post the Nakba defeat and Israeli Independence, the UN has no authority to impose 194 – “right of return” upon the Jewish state. Despite the Goebbels repeated mantra refrain: Zionist entity Crusader State.
Egypt, likewise, seized control of Gaza. Despite the 1950 UN condemnation (endorsed by every member state except England and Pakistan), Egypt’s monarch made no moves toward Palestinian statehood. Nasser later toppled that king, but Arafat didn’t even adopt the term “Palestine” until 1964—just three years before Israel’s recapture of both Gaza and Samaria. The PLO’s founding charter, penned under Arab occupation, refused to claim either territory; instead, it called for Israel’s destruction. Their silence about Gaza and the West Bank in 1964 screams louder than any later propaganda.
Revisionist history mimics Holocaust denial by distorting the record, concealing cause and context, and blaming the victim for surviving.
When Ben-Gurion and the Zionist leadership named the new state “Israel,” they didn’t merely select a name—they resurrected an identity. “Israel” evoked ancient sovereignty, tethered modern Jewish nationalism to ancestral roots, and announced a reborn nation. This name galvanized a people and reshaped geopolitics.
Had the Jews named the state “Palestine,” the identity landscape might have fractured. For centuries, “Palestine” referred to geography—not Arab nationality. During the British Mandate, the term “Palestinian” often denoted Jews, not Arabs. Arabs roundly rejected both the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, which carved out a Jewish National Home. That rejection didn’t spring from a desire for Palestinian independence—it flowed from opposition to Jewish statehood.
The Jerusalem Post bore the title Palestine Post during the Mandate, further underlining the term’s original association with Jews. The Zionist movement, founded on Herzl’s vision, drew legitimacy from the Balfour Declaration. Every Arab war against Israel traces back to Arab rejection of Jewish self-determination.
Foreign propaganda outfits often deploy the word “created” to smear Israel as artificial or illegitimate. But in 1947, two-thirds of the UN voted in favor of Jewish self-determination in the Middle East. Following Israel’s Declaration of Independence, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union immediately recognized the Jewish state. Yet Arab states categorically rejected the British-sponsored UN Resolution 181 and waged war to erase Israel from the map.
The emergence of a “Palestinian Arab” national identity didn’t arise in a cultural vacuum—it developed as a reaction to Zionism and the Jewish victory in the War of Independence. Jewish sovereignty forced clarity onto a region long trapped in imperial ambiguity.
We didn’t steal a land. We reclaimed a homeland—and we won our war of national survival. Arab propaganda still clings to the word “created” because it cannot stomach the truth: Israel wasn’t manufactured by foreigners. Jews rebuilt it. Fought for it. Bled for it. Secured it.
The Palestinian national identity emerged in opposition to Zionism, not as a longstanding expression of sovereignty. Historical facts—like the Jewish political presence across millennia, the origins of the term “Palestinian,” and the legitimacy of Israel’s statehood—have been distorted by propaganda.
“There are those who parade mitzvos in public and butcher the brit in private.” Yet even as we confront the lies of nations, we must confront the lies we whisper to ourselves—in the shadows of our courts and the corners of our sanctuaries.
They sculpt their piety for the crowd. They cloak themselves in tallit and tefillin while gutting mishpat behind locked doors. Their lips chant hallel; their hands extort, manipulate, betray. They don Torah like theater, not oath. They fear scandal, not sin. Exposure, not exile. They crave applause, not HaShem’s judgment. They hijack yirat shamayim and weaponize it for social control.
“And there are those who break Torah laws in Zion, but build it in secret.”
They offend the eye. They scandalize the synagogue. They clash with halakhic decorum. But when no one watches, they feed the widow, guard the convert, return the lost. They wrestle with the brit in the dead of night. No banners. No blessings. Just emunah forged in sweat and silence. They cut paths through darkness while the righteous sleep.
“I prefer the latter.”
The Kotzker doesn’t flinch. He scorches the hypocrite. He crowns the broken. He hunts the soul that bleeds for justice while the choir sings. Better the one who stumbles in daylight but plants mishpat in the shadows than the one who dazzles the crowd while hollowing out Sinai with assimilated Greek logic and statute halachic codes. Better the sinner who limps toward HaShem than the Cohen who flees like naked Adam who clothes himself in gold and titles.
A Mashal: The Two Sons of the King: Yitzak & Yishmael
To what may this be compared? To a King who had two sons.
One son dressed each morning in royal garments. He walked the palace courts with a Koran under his arm and Molotov cocktail burning in the wind while publicly fasting on Ramadan to show honor to the homeless poor. When courtiers passed, he bowed low and recited Surahs & Ayahs in full voice. He offered tithes from the royal table and dipped his bread with flourish. But in the cellar—where no servant dared tread—his corrupted scales weighted profits from theft, scrolls smeared with lies, two separate accounting books. His voice rang holy; but his hands shed the innocent blood of corruption.
The other son wore torn g’lut clothes and wandered the outer gates. He walked upon dusty roads while his lofty brother goose stepped upon paved sidewalks. He spoke roughly, fought openly, and refused to step into any court which switched the syllogism for פרדס(2). When he prayed tefillah within his heart, the k’vanna did not address any God in the Heavens, but rather he stood before the Torah ark and remembered the oaths sworn by the Avot. The ministers mocked him; the elders wrote him off. But by night he visited the sick. He buried the forgotten. He returned coins dropped by the blind. His door on Shabbat remained open to orphans and strangers. He studied Torah alone, by candle, and wept when he did not understand its common law פרדס inductive logic. No trumpet announced his deeds. No ledger recorded them but the King’s.
When the Day of Reckoning came, both sons were summoned. The first stood proud, wrapped in Alba, Stole, Chasuble, Cincture, Pectoral Cross, and Liturgical Colors. The second stood silent, eyes lowered, hands crusted and scarred. And the King said:
“Better the son who stumbles in the street but guards My brit in secret, than the one who honors Me with his lips but who Koran never once mentions the brit in print. (3) For I do not seek actors in My court, but servants who carry justice in the marrow of their bones.”
Thus taught the Kotzker Rebbe: “Give me no angel wrapped in costume. Give me the soul that limps, bleeds, hides—but clings to HaShem with both fists.”
Chagigah 5b:
The baal teshuvah does not merely regret; he wrestles, burns, and rebuilds. He rips out the rotted beams of his past and drives Torah into new ground. No pedigree props him up. No ancestral merit shields him. He grafts emunah into the flesh of his heart and buries it deep within the souls of his children—where no eye sees, where only HaShem weighs the kiddushin mitzva of ‘fruitful and multiply’. He constructs his legal identity from the rubble of assimilation and statute laws. He births halakhic common law identity out of intermarriage chaos—not through inheritance, but through fire. Through sweat. Through judgment. Through t’shuvah.
The righteous man who never falls may stand, but the baal teshuvah ascends. Not like a Cohen on temple steps—but like a soldier dragging himself up Sinai, gashed, ragged, but clutching the sworn oath brit in stained bloodied hands. The baal teshuvah climbs from the pit of assimilation and intermarriage ruin to build something stronger than innocence—he builds justice from ash.
This Kotzker line doesn’t whisper piety. It shouts Torah common law. It carves a verdict: authenticity belongs to the one who fights for the brit in secret. The Rebbe doesn’t moralize—he judges. He cuts down the pius religious Jew who bases statute law Judaism code upon Greek foreign logic.
۞ Haqq al-Kadhib: The Truth of the Lie ۞
In the cadence of ancient reproach
Have they not claimed what they did not build?
Have they not wept over stones they did not lay?
Have they not called themselves what they were not named?
Lo! The land spoke before their tongue.
The hills bore witness before their fathers’ dust.
Zion remembered her children—
But they remembered not her name.
They cry “return”—but whence did they come?
From Kheibar? From Damascus? From the sands of Najd?
Not from Yehudah, not from Shomron.
Their fathers did not plant olives in Ephraim.
Their mothers did not sing by the waters of Zion.
Woe to the people who inherit envy.
Woe to the nation born of grievance.
They forged a people from negation.
They raised a flag over a wound.
And say: “Nakba! Nakba!”
But who cast the first spear?
Who heard the call of Mufti and Pharaoh?
Who marched seven nations against one boy, wrapped in prophecy?
And they were broken like clay jars on the threshing floor.
And lo—they claim Jerusalem!
Did their prophets anoint it?
Did their songs rise from her gates?
No—
The Temple did not weep for them.
The Cohonim did not speak their tongue.
Say to them:
You are Ishmael, son of the field—
And we are Israel, bound to the altar.
We remember the fire.
You remember the sand.
So perish the lie that cloaks itself in keffiyeh.
Perish the myth born in Cairo’s tongue.
The land knows her children.
The stones cry out against their claim.
And history is not mocked.
________________________________________________
(1) “Tora” references the Japanese military code for “lightning attack” (totsugeki raigeki), famously transmitted during the Pearl Harbor assault on December 7, 1941. The line critiques modern willful ignorance or contempt toward historical warnings or aggression.
(2) “פרדס” (Pardes) – A one-line footnote or aside explaining the four levels of Torah exegesis (Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod) might enhance the meaning of rejecting syllogism for covenantal reasoning.
(3) The koran affirms earlier prophets but omits the concept of the brit as a legal-political alliance cut with Israel. The first word of the Torah בראשית contains ברית אש.
LikeLike
A Review of German Leaders During WWII and thereafter
Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) spat out speeches that shackled education to the Führerprinzip. This “Leader Principle,” the iron gauntlet gripping Nazi Germany, crushed democratic voices and pulverized collective will beneath the sole rule of the Führer—Hitler’s ruthless dominion. It throttled dissent, enslaved minds, and forged a dictatorship of absolute obedience. “The Führer himself and he alone is the present and future German reality and its law.” Heidegger declared. Under this doctrine, dissent throttled, minds enslaved, and the dictatorship of absolute obedience forged.
Heidegger hailed the Nazi revolution, at first, as a spiritual rebirth of the German Volk. A man stripped of shame, he refused to kneel, never coughed up an apology, never retracted his venomous allegiance. After the war, he slithered through denazification, dodging accountability and twisting truth with evasive lies.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer thundered opposition at Nazism from its dawn. He hurled blistering public condemnations at Hitler’s regime, especially its savage persecution of Jews, and hammered together the Confessing Church to shatter the Nazi state’s iron grip on Christianity. Bonhoeffer’s Ethics, where he writes of “cheap grace” as the lie that gutted German Christianity.
The German Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche) erupted in the late 1930s, clawing back against the Nazi regime’s choking stranglehold on Protestantism, particularly within Lutheranism. After Hitler seized power in 1933, the regime dragged Protestant churches into the German Evangelical Church—a grotesque puppet engineered to broadcast Nazi hate, soaked in anti-Semitism and militant nationalism.
The Barmen Declaration (1934), forged by firebrands like Karl Barth and Bonhoeffer, ripped to shreds the Nazi regime’s attempt to enslave the church. It blasted state control, spat contempt in the face of political distortion, and declared open war on the regime’s monstrous manipulation of Christian faith. The Confessing Church ignited fierce resistance, its leaders hurling themselves into the breach, condemning anti-Semitic laws, and refusing to bow before tyranny. The state retaliated with brutal repression—arrests, beatings, and executions—but the Church’s defiance fractured the Nazi façade of total control.
Yet the Confessing Church splintered from within, torn between cautious cooperation and fiery rebellion. While some whispered compromise, Bonhoeffer and his allies sharpened their swords for active resistance. As Nazi terror tightened its grip, the Church staggered under relentless persecution—leaders vanished into prisons, congregations shuttered, voices crushed. Still, their moral blaze refused to be extinguished.
The Nazi regime clung desperately to the co-opted Lutheran Church to mask its monstrous agenda in sanctimony. Through the German Christian movement, the Nazis crushed dissent, injected venomous Aryan theology into sermons, and wielded Christian rhetoric to justify genocide and militarism. They weaponized faith to twist loyalty into fanaticism, forging a perverse godhead that sanctified cruelty.
Meanwhile, the Vatican under Pope Pius XII held its silence like a fortress of cowardice. Despite witnessing the Confessing Church’s fierce opposition, Pius XII calculated cold diplomacy over righteous outcry. When Rome’s Jews faced deportation in 1943, he offered hollow excuses instead of incendiary condemnation, betraying the innocent to the machinery of death. His 1942 Christmas message, where he vaguely lamented the persecution of “hundreds of thousands,” but refused to name Jews or Nazis.
Three Germans, three souls born into the turmoil of a shattered nation: Heidegger, the unrepentant collaborator, entangled in toxic ideology; Bonhoeffer, the prophetic conscience who sacrificed all to resist evil; and Pius XII, whose silence stained the Church’s legacy. Their stark choices carve a brutal fault line between genius warped by power, conscience sharpened by courage, and cowardice cloaked in diplomacy.
Post WWII – EKD – ((Protestant Church in Germany)) stands apart from the SELK – ((Independent Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany)). The EKD permits and celebrates same-sex marriage; women’s ordination, and also Ecumenism: the principle or aim of promoting unity and cooperation among different Christian denominations and churches. The SELK rejects same-sex marriage, women’s ordination, and Ecumenism.
The EKD has redefined marriage not based on Scripture or natural law, but on secular cultural trends. By blessing same-sex unions, the EKD is seen as endorsing non-biblical sexual ethics, undermining the traditional understanding of sin, repentance, and sanctification. The EKD treats ordination as egalitarian activism, influenced more by feminism than theology. The EKD’s ecumenism engages in joint communions with Catholics and interfaith events with Muslims. It therein embraces a theological universalism.
Some conservative critics argue that after WWII, Germany’s Protestant churches—especially the EKD—shifted from the bravery of the Confessing Church (Bonhoeffer, Barth) to a theology of guilt, which sought to atone for Nazism through cultural submission and theological revisionism. In fleeing fascism, they embraced relativism. In rejecting tyranny, they surrendered truth. For traditional Christians, the EKD’s direction appears to be a moral unraveling, driven by guilt, political correctness, and secularism. This EKD shift from Bonhoeffer’s sacrificial resistance to liberal conformity, perhaps best summarizes the stark proof that Bonhoeffer’s theology did not survive his execution by the Nazis. Postwar Protestantism bury his witness beneath the rubble of moral relativism and progressive ideology.
LikeLike
An introduction of Talmudic court room common law legalism. The Torah concept of “FAITH”.
As a preamble to the 3 Babas, the question stands – Why divide this one sefer into 3 separate masechtot? As the opening p’suk of kre’a shma has 3 Divine Names s’much to אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב and the ברכת כהנים includes 3 separate ברכות, so too and how much more so has the 3 Babas the oath division which remembers the tohor Av time oriented commandment which creates תמיד מעשה בראשית the Chosen Cohen People יש מאין. The opening blessing of the Shemone Esrei contains שם ומלכות. Only a complete fool טיפש פשט attempts a literal translation of שם ומלכות; on par with the Xtian reading of the opening of sefer בראשית wherein the declare the world created in 6 Days טיפש פשט – bird brained stupidity.
If the literal reading of the Torah exceeds a shallow literal reading of its words, just as Torah common law searches for inductive פרדס precedents, called in Hebrew: בניני אבות, as expressed through the middot of rabbi Yishmael following the korbanot in the Siddur. Just as the service of korbanot in the Mishkan – not the טיפש פשט of offering a barbeque unto Heaven, but rather swearing a Torah oath brit alliance by remembering the oaths – sworn by the Avot – wherein HaShem תמיד מעשה בראשית creates the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין. Therefore the break down of the 5 Books of the Torah: בראשית introduces אב טהור זימן גרמא מצוות, שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר – תולדות קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות וספר דברים\משנה תורה names the law of the Torah “Common Law” or משנה תורה. Hence rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi named his Mishna after the name of the 5th Book of the Torah משנה תורה. Rabbi Yechuda’s 6 Orders of his Mishna organized through a Case/Din style of common law. The Gemara commentary to the Mishna brings Case-Law from thee 6 Orders of the Mishna and similar sources to the Mishna, likewise the expression of a common law precedent search which explains and understands and interprets and re-interprets (70 faces to the Torah, a blueprint has a Front, Top, and Side viewpoint which permits the wisdom of perceiving a three dimensional idea from a two dimensional sheet of paper.), based upon the halachic precedents brought in each and every sugya of Gemara made to comment upon and interpret the k’vanna of the language employed in the Mishna – based upon viewing the plain language of the Mishna from multiple and diverse precedent perspectives.
Herein defines the k’vanna of Talmudic wisdom which learns to read the simple טיפש פשט of the language of each and every Mishna the Gemara comments upon — and now views the language of the Mishna as dynamic and not static as the Xtian אנשי עבודה זרה read the simple טיפש פשט of the Creation story! The B’HaG makes a chiddush which the Rambam assimilated רשע did not grasp. His division of the Torah commandments holds 3 Basic fundamental divisions, comparable to the 3 Babas. אב תהור זימן גרמא מצוות ותולדות קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות. The B’HaG’s sefer ha’Mitzvot includes rabbinic commandments/halachot as טהור זימן גרמא מצוות דאורייתא. Hence the טיפש פשט of the Rambam who limits Torah commandment only to the strict language of the Chumash itself, he limited Torah commandment to תרי”ג מצוות. Simple פשוט wrong. Tohor time oriented Av commandment serve the purpose of תמיד מעשה בראשית, they create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין; just as old Avram and barren Sarai could have no children and יש מאין Sarah conceived!
Just as HaShem brought Israel out of Egyptian bondage and not the raised fist of Israel brought our forefathers out of slavery, so too Av tohor time oriented commandment – which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna – these Av commandments, they compare to the distinction which separates the Avot from the toldot children of Yaacov. Yosef did not give מחילה to his brothers – meaning he failed to accomplish the oath Yaacov swore to Yitzak to steal the first born blessing of the chosen Cohonim inheritance away from Esau. Both Yaacov and Moshe blessed Israel before they passed – Yosef did not bless his brother before he died.
Blessing exist as toldot of Torah oaths. Hence a blessing as opposed to Tehillem requires שם ומלכות. Translating שם ומלכות into simple טיפש פשט translations equal the sin of the Golden Calf where substitute theology translated the שם השם revealed in the first Sinai commandment to “אלהים”! In like manner the Xtian bible counterfeit and Muslim Koran counterfeit – both false prophets – translate the שם השם לשמה – the dedication of a tohor spirits such as אל רחום וחנון וכו – the 13 middot revelation of the Oral Torah which the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס explains the warp/weft Halacha\Aggada inductive reasoning of both T’NaCH mussar common law and Talmudic halachic common law. The Aggadic portion makes a זיווג דרוש\פשט to search the language of T’NaCH prophetic mussar and employs the different זיווג רמז/סוד to weave the prophetic mussar from T’NaCH sources searched out with the קידושין of דרוש\פשט which compares different precedent בנין אב source located in off the dof T’NaCH Primary Sources just as does the style of the Talmud does the exact same by making common law searches for off the dof precedents like Rabbeinu Tam’s sh’itta common law commentary to the Talmud, based upon Rashi’s common law commentary to the Chumash!
Compare the simple דקדוק פשט of Ibn Ezra’s Chumash commentary and compare it to Rashi’s p’shat on the Talmud. This type of famous Acharonim learning called pilpul. This “latter day saints” pilpul does not resemble nor compares to how the B’HaG, Baali HaMaor, and Rabbeinu Tam search from other Primary and not Secondary sources to change the perspective by which a person interprets the simple language of both the Gemara and Mishna – much like an expert judges the facets of a diamond through a powerful magnified eye. These scholars along with the post Rambam Rosh rejected the Order of Aristotles triangular syllogism deductive reason process. The Torah directly commands Israel: Do not ask how the Goyim worship their Gods, so that I can do likewise. This fundamental Torah commandment the Rambam Yad fundamentally raped. Greek and Roman law organized into subject matter Order of organization and the Rambam code organizes Talmudic halachot likewise.
The Yad divorces Gemarah halachot from their Mishnaic Primary root foundations; worse he covered his tracks. All later commentaries to the Yad attempt to find the sugya which contains the source for the Rambam’s p’sok halacha. They fail miserably to instead trace the Yad’s halachic rulings to similar halachic rulings located in the Rif & Rosh common law commentaries. Had the Acharonim or even later Reshonim scholars had corrected the Rambam fundamental error of basic Talmudic common law scholarship, by learning the Rambam p’sach halachah to the common law Rif and Rosh codes, which limited halacha to הלכה למעשה, and not speculation some unknowable future – as does the Yad, its quite possible that the Rambam Civil War which witnessed the public burnings of all Talmudic manuscripts in Paris France in 1242, just 10 years prior the rabbis of Paris of the Rashi\Tosafot common law school placed the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam together with Rabbeinu Yonah’s court in Spain.
Not all Baali Tosafot agreed with this ban placed upon the Rambam. No different than the support Jews gave to Mordecai in the Book of Esther. But the Baali Tosafot commentary to the Talmud only twice quotes the Rambam. And on both occasions the Baali Tosafot disputed his halachic rulings. Rabbeinu Tam passed prior to publication of the Rambam’s Yad. But the style of Rabbeinu Tam’s Talmudic commentary – a dynamic inductive common law reasoning. Whereas the Rambam’s Yad – a static deductive statute law reasoning – based upon the culture and customs of Greek and Roman law.
The Rambam’s “theology” of some Universal Monotheistic God and static 613 commandment does not jive with the B’HaG understanding which separates Shabbat from Chol: time oriented commandment from the Torah – inclusive of rabbinic commandment from the Talmud as also mitzvot from the Torah. Tohor time oriented commandment require the k’vanna of prophetic mussar. For a scholar to grasp prophetic mussar he must rely upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס four part inductive reasoning.
The Yad employs and relies upon not only the Order organization of Greek/Roman statute law but upon the Greek philosophical schools of logic. The Yad and Rambam’s Moreh – assimilated to Greek culture and customs as the Tzeddukim who sought to pervert Jerusalem to a Greek polis and cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah פרדס kabbalah. The Yad destroyed the warp/weft relationship of the Talmudic “loom” halacha contrasted by aggadah. The Yad obliterated the final editing made to achieve the sealing of the Talmud; to make this masoret like the Mishna and T’NaCH and Siddur masoret to all generations of Israel.
The Yad torpedoed the Savoraim final redaction of the Talmud Bavli. It shattered the Order of organization of the Shemone Esrei in the Siddur and how the order of organization within each and every Gemara sugyot compares to the order organization of the 3 + 13 + 3 Shemone Esrei. Inductive reasoning requires Order. Upon this foundation does the logic of פרדס stand. The sh’itta of Torah common law goes from א to ת: T’NaCH, Talmud, Siddur stand upon the foundation of Order. The kabbalah of the Shemone Esrei serves as the model for the organization of Gemara sugyot integrity.
To learn an off the dof precedent requires making a static triangulation within the כלל sugya which contains the פרט גזר שווה where by a off the dof Primary source permit a scholar to judge the simple language of the Gemara and turn it into a Front/Top\Side blueprint. Each of the different perspectives have a radically different look to them. The same applies when reading the language of both the Gemara and also the Mishna itself. Simply stated Torah has depth. Torah common law simply not Greek/Roman Statute law just as four part פרדס inductive reasoning completely different from Aristotles three part deductive syllogistic reasoning.
The shortest way to connect two points – a straight line, also known as a sh’itta. Any point between the opening thesis statement of a Gemara sugya and the closing re-statement of that thesis statement must rest upon the sh’itta-line that connects these two points of a geometric analysis of deductive reasoning made upon that off the dof sugya. Herein explains how a person can easily understand and interpret any Baali Tosafot common law commentary that explores some other mesechta of Gemara precedent. The language of the Tosafot, as easy to understand as eating a fresh baked cake.
Nonetheless, the Tosafot did not likewise employ this changed perspective on how to interpret a sugya of Gemara by making a depth analysis, to likewise read the simple language of the Mishna using that Gemara sugya now grasping a different Front/Top\Side perspective and apply this wisdom to re-interpreting the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna which the Gemara comments upon in the first place.
Children read the words of the Talmud and can quote them verbatim. But the Sages employ Torah wisdom to “inspect” the gem quality of the language of the Mishna itself …. based on how they apply this Talmudic wisdom to view and interpret the language of a sugya of Gemara based upon viewing that sugya from different perspective – as witness see event based upon the perspective of where they stood. Hence Talmudic common law jumps off the dof to make a precedent analysis with the intent to view a given Case from a different vantage point perspective. Therefore a person does not simply read the Talmud like a Xtian or Muslim reads their bibles or korans.
Please consider this example: When Israel came out of Egypt the Torah teaches the prophetic mussar that Amalek-Anti-Semitism attacked the weary weak stragglers of Israel. Next the Torah defines these “Israelites” as lacking fear of Elohim. A reference to “Baal Shem Tov or Master of the Good Name. Not the Hassidic founder that goes by this Title, but a reference to the obligation of the Israelites to strive to protect and maintain their Good Name reputations. Hence the term “Fear of Heaven”.
The 2nd Sinai commandment: do not worship other Gods. The Monotheism preached by the Av tumah avoda zarah of Islam decapitates the 2nd Commandment of the Sinai revelation. If only One God then impossible to worship other Gods; like in the case of Par’o and Egypt. Therefore, what caused or generated the Torah curse of Amalek? Answer: Jewish avoda zarah – the direct 2nd Sinai commandment! How does the Torah define the 2nd commandment? Through the precedent negative commandments (1) Do not ask how the Goyim worship their Gods, that Israel might to likewise. This negative commandment interpreted to mean (A) Do not assimilate the cultures and Customs of the Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, like as both Xtianity and Islam clearly do. Neither the bible nor the koran counterfeit faiths ever once bring or mention the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment. Translating the Divine Presence Spirit, revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment to other words; in Hebrew the Sin of the Golden Calf – these are the אלהים/Gods who brought you out of Egypt. Hence since nothing in the Heavens, Earth, or Seas compares to the revelation of the Spirit Name revealed in the First Sinai commandment, therefore translating this Spirit Name to other words, such as Allah or Jesus or Father etc — herein defines the k’vanna of the substitute theology of the sin of the Golden Calf.
Consequently, when Israelites violated the 2nd Sinai commandment – the result of their assimilation to the customs and culture of Egypt and intermarried with Egyptians ie ערב רב/mixed multitudes – this avoda zarah destroyed their Good Name reputations making them “weak exhausted stragglers”. Not physically weak and exhausted but spiritually weak and exhausted! Who brought Israel out of Egypt HaShem or the strong and mighty hand of Israel? The Torah teaches the prophetic mussar that HaShem brought Israel out of Egypt! Hence whenever Jews assimilate and embrace the cultures and customs practiced by Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, as do Xtians and Muslim religions, Amalek the Torah curse plagues Israel like as did the 10 plagues which cursed Egypt and Par’o. Jewish avoda zarah caused the Torah curse of Amalek in all generations. The buck stops at the feet of the chosen Cohen People.
LikeLike
Germans have a long bloody oppressive history of scape-goating Jews and promoting Goebbels anti-Jewish propaganda.
While some may view comparisons between the Nakba and the Holocaust as inappropriate or revisionist, others argue that such comparisons can serve to highlight the ongoing struggles for justice and recognition faced by different groups. The discourse surrounding these issues is often polarized, reflecting deeply held beliefs and historical grievances on all sides. The comparison between the two events is indeed a contentious issue, and many people hold differing views on the appropriateness and implications of such comparisons.
Initially, many Arabs referred to the events of 1948 as a military disaster or defeat in the context of the Arab-Israeli War, which resulted in the establishment of the State of Israel. In the immediate aftermath of the 1948 war, Arab leaders and commentators described the events as a military failure, particularly in light of the expectations that Arab forces would successfully prevent the establishment of Israel. This perspective emphasized the military aspects of the conflict and the perceived disgrace of the Arab states in failing to achieve their objectives.
Initially, the term “Nakba” was used to describe the military defeat and the failure of Arab states to prevent the establishment of Israel in 1948. This perspective emphasizes the military and political dimensions of the events. The fact that many Arab states did not grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees has been a point of contention. Critics argue that this refusal has contributed to UNWRA, the ongoing plight of generations of Palestinians and has been used politically to maintain their status as refugees rather than integrating them into host countries.
Concerns about historical revisionism are valid, especially when narratives are perceived to distort established facts or diminish the significance of particular events. Engaging critically with these narratives is essential for understanding the complexities of the conflict.
The Holocaust was a systematic genocide that resulted in the murder of six million Jews and millions of others, including Roma, disabled individuals, and political dissidents. The Nakba, while involving significant displacement and suffering for Palestinians, occurred in a different historical and political context. Many argue that conflating the two events diminishes the specific historical significance of the Holocaust.
Concerns about historical revisionism arise when narratives are perceived to distort established facts or diminish the significance of particular events. The use of the Holocaust in political discourse, especially in ways that may seem to equate it with other forms of suffering, can be seen as an attempt to revise or reinterpret history in a way that is not accurate. The discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often polarized, with deeply held beliefs and historical grievances on all sides. To equate the Palestinians to the Shoah directly compares to Joseph Goebbels Nazi propaganda which distorted reality to fit the Nazi/Arab narratives. Fact remain rock solid: All Arab Israeli war the result of Arab refusal to validate the 1947 2/3rd UN General Assembly vote which recognizes the equal rights of the Jewish people to achieve self determination in the Middle East based upon the League of Nations accepted Balfour Declaration.
The refusal of many Arab states to grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees has been a significant point of contention. Critics argue that this has perpetuated post ’67 Six Day War “status” of Balestinians, (Arabs cannot pronounce the letter P) as refugees and contributed to their ongoing plight, complicating the narrative of displacement. The discourse surrounding the Holocaust and the Nakba is often fraught with concerns about historical revisionism. When narratives are perceived to distort established facts or diminish the significance of particular events, it raises valid concerns about the accuracy and integrity of historical discourse.
The 1947 UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which recommended the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, is a critical document in the history of the conflict. The rejection of this resolution by Arab states is often cited as a pivotal moment that contributed to the ongoing conflict.
Erhard Arendt’s shift in focus from the historical context of the Holocaust to advocating for the Palestinian cause can be understood through his life experiences and the socio-political environment in which he operated. Specific details about when or how this shift from disgraced post WWII German to Arab propaganda promoter, when exactly this occurred in his personal beliefs, not widely documented. His advocacy for the Palestinian cause may have stemmed from a broader commitment to fighting against oppression and injustice, reflects the systematic German hatred of Jews. While it is clear that Erhard Arendt became an advocate for Palestinian rights, the exact timeline and motivations for this shift are not extensively documented. Arendt’s shift toward advocating for Palestinian rights scape-goats the Jews just as classic Church ”cursed Cain” propaganda promoted throughout the Ages.
LikeLike
Indian foreign policy together with its NAM allies, systematically deny the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination by cloaking antisemitic narratives in the rhetoric of postcolonial solidarity. This not only distorts the historical context of the Holocaust and the Jewish refugee crisis but also perpetuates double standards that undermine claims to a just multipolar world order.
India has prioritized foreign policy independence, which is a well-documented aspect of its diplomatic history. A trilateral relationship involving the U.S., India, and Tibet reflects a historical perspective on how these nations have interacted, particularly in the context of geopolitical concerns regarding China.
Growth in U.S.-India relations, particularly in trade and defense, which is supported by data showing increased bilateral trade and cooperation in various sectors. India’s nonalignment and strategic autonomy is a recognized principle in its foreign policy, as articulated by leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and more recently by Prime Minister Modi. India maintains relationships with multiple countries, including those that may be at odds with U.S. interests (like Russia and Iran), reflects India’s diplomatic strategy of “multi-alignment.”
The metaphor “strange bed fellows” indicates the opinion that describes an unusual alliance, the emotional weight of the phrase implies a negative connotation about the partnership, suggesting an inherently unstable or insincere, without delving into a balanced view of the strategic rationale behind such alliances, as outside the scope of this paper. The Kashmir conflict the direct result of Britain’s Two State Solution failure. The US perhaps follows this British policy, something like a dog on a leash. Based upon the British White Paper and later the decision made by the FDR Administration to close all US ports to European Jews attempting to flee from the Nazi Shoah.
The theft of British imperialism that robbed India of its wealth and natural resources has nothing to do with the US, which existed as a pre-WWII minor power. The emotional propaganda “utter waste of time” and “strange bedfellows” raises red flags of “warning propaganda ahead”, which this address seeks to avoid.
The increase in trade and defense cooperation between the U.S. and India, well-documented. This growth signifies a shift in both countries’ approaches to mutual interests, particularly in the context of regional security and economic collaboration. Obviously Western propaganda plays up and toots the horn of “Two-State Solutions”, this fits their hostile imperialist strategic interests as “Great Powers”.
The U.S. has its own strategic interests and policies that have evolved independently since World War II. The 1956 Suez Crisis serves as a direct proof that post WWII that Britain has transformed unto a lower status power in the Middle East … a barking poodle. But the post WWII US Super-power status highly influenced by the 19th Century British empire “First among equals” Great Power status.
India exists as a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which emerged during the Cold War. This alliance of countries sought to remain independent from the major power blocs led by the Cold War U.S. and the Soviet Union. This movement included many African nations. Their foreign policy emphasized solidarity among developing countries. India has often aligned itself with the voting patterns of non-aligned and developing countries in the UNGA, particularly on issues related to Israel and its dhimmi Arab refugee populations. This alignment reflects India’s historical support for the Arab promoted propaganda: the Palestinian cause. This post ’64 Arafat led propaganda promotes advocacy for the rights of dhimmi Arab refugee populations, specifically located in Israeli territory while conveniently ignoring these “oppressed peoples” suffering in refugee camps in Arab and Muslim countries. The ’64 PLO Charter makes no reference to Jordan’s West Bank or Egypt’s Gaza. It condemns ’48 Israel.
The broader sentiment among many non-aligned and African nations tend to skew their perspective of Israel, seen through the distorted lens of colonialism and oppression. As if the Shoah never really happened! India’s alignment with African non-aligned countries in the UNGA can also be seen as part of its broader strategy to strengthen ties with the Global South and assert its leadership role in international forums. This approach clearly aimed at promoting a multipolar world order and countering the Cold War Western vs. Soviet bi-polar hegemony.
Indian propaganda superficially promotes a foreign policy directed toward Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East which denounces Israel as a part of European colonialism and India expresses solidarity with “oppressed Dhimmi Arab refugee” populations within the domain of Israel while totally ignoring the oppression endured by Palestinians shoved into refugee camps in Arab countries and denied citizenship and repatriation.
The African Nam countries skew their perspective of Israel, perhaps best described as an expression of Holocaust Denial. This Arab and Muslim nations perspective, often emphasizes historical injustices and frames the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within a broader context of colonialism and oppression. Critics argue that this focus overshadows the plight of Palestinians in refugee camps in Arab countries, where they often face significant challenges, including lack of citizenship and rights.
Palestinians in refugee camps in Arab countries face difficult living conditions and limited rights, and this reality – totally overlooked to support their hostile propaganda anti-Israel narratives that focus solely on the condemnation of Israel. This propaganda ignores Arab refusal to recognize Jews equal rights to self determination in the Middle East. Rather than outright overt denial of the Shoah war crimes by both the Germans and Allies, post Israeli Independence focuses upon the pathetic plight of Arab refugees consequent to Arab military defeats before the arms of the IDF.
India and Nam allies basically ignore the slaughter of the Jews by Nazis, together with the great power approval, expressed through the White Paper and FDR’s decision to close all US ports to Jews attempting to flee from the Nazi slaughter. And the Allied collective decision to not bomb the Nazi rail-lines leading to the death camps. India and Nam allies tend to buy into the Protocols of the Elders of Zion propaganda that Jews control governments and economies.
Yes it would be absurd for India and NAM countries to deny the Holocaust. Yet the propaganda which declares that Israel exist as Western colonialism, in point of fact denies the Shoah. It ignores the Israeli military victory in its 1948 and 1967 Wars of Independence!
During British colonial rule, Jews often portrayed as greedy and manipulative, echoing broader European antisemitic stereotypes. This included the idea that Jews were responsible for economic exploitation. In some Indian literature and folklore, Jews were depicted as outsiders or as having sinister motives, which contributed to a perception of Jews as untrustworthy. In the post-independence era, certain political figures have used antisemitic tropes to criticize Israel, often conflating Jewish identity with Western imperialism. This rhetoric sometimes includes references to Jews controlling global finance or media.
Some leaders within the NAM alliance have made statements that downplay or deny the Holocaust, often as a means to delegitimize Israel. This includes claims that the Holocaust was exaggerated or fabricated to justify the establishment of Israel. This utterly gross conspiracy theory has occasionally resurfaced in NAM discourse, suggesting that Jews secretly control world events or manipulate political outcomes. This trope repeatedly used to frame Israel’s actions as part of a larger, nefarious agenda. While criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic, some NAM leaders have crossed the line by employing language that echoes historical antisemitic tropes, such as portraying Israel as a global puppet master or suggesting that Jewish people collectively bear responsibility for the actions of the Israeli state.
India and NAM countries often employ language and imagery comparable to blood libels, Jews control the world antisemitism. The hypocrisy of their “double standards” concerning the gross Arab refusal to repatriate dhimmi Arab refugee populations post the First and Second Israeli Independence Wars fought in 1948 and again in 1967. India and NAM hostile propaganda collectively blames all Jews held responsible for the actions of the Israeli government – a clear antisemitic trope.
Framing Israel solely as a colonial outpost of the West conveniently ignores the Shoah, which exists as a major catalyst for post-war Jewish immigration and international recognition of Israel. This narrative erases the continuity of Jewish historical presence and trauma, reducing Zionism to a foreign implantation rather than a national revival movement to achieve Jewish self determination in the Middle East based upon the Balfour Agreement and the League of Nations Palestine Mandate. By labeling Jewish return their ancestral lands as “colonialism,” this rhetoric denies Jews the same rights to self-determination afforded to other postcolonial peoples, including India.
UNGA Resolution 3379 (1975): This resolution declared that “Zionism as racism, and racial discrimination.” That disgusting resolution framed the establishment of Israel as a colonial endeavor, equating it with other forms of colonialism and imperialism. This perspective defines NAM discourse during the 1970s, which reflects a broader anti-colonial hostility. In his address to the UN General Assembly, Arafat referred to the Palestinian struggle as a fight against colonialism. He characterized Israel’s establishment as a colonial project, which resonated with many NAM countries that were themselves emerging from great power colonial abuse.
In a speech at the UN, Castro described Israel as a “colonial entity” and criticized Western nations for supporting it. He framed the Palestinian struggle as part of the broader anti-colonial movement, a classic common theme in NAM rhetoric. UNGA Resolution 194 (1948): While not explicitly using the term “colonial,” this resolution called for the return of Palestinian refugees and the right of return, framing the situation in a way that implied a colonial context to the establishment of Israel.
The “colonial” framing used in NAM speeches and UNGA resolutions often overlooks the historical context of Jewish suffering and the motivations for statehood. While the establishment of Israel involved complex geopolitical factors, including the end of British colonial rule in Palestine, the framing tends to simplify the narrative to one of colonial oppression without acknowledging the historical injustices experienced and endured by Jews minority populations. The UN has never condemned the 3 Century Catholic church imposed ghetto gulag imposed upon the Jewish people.
During British colonial rule, European antisemitic tropes (e.g., Jews as greedy or manipulative) imported into Indian literature and discourse. India with its NAM allies, post Israeli independence, employed hostile political rhetoric which conflated Jewish identity with Western imperialism, portraying Israel as a nefarious global actor.
The speech at the 2003 OIC Summit: Mahathir Mohamad, then Prime Minister of Malaysia, made a controversial declaration where he stated, “The Jews rule the world by proxy.” He suggested that Jews control global institutions and economies. This reflects classic antisemitic trope about Jewish power and influence, never condemned by India or its NAM allies. The 2001 speech at the World Islamic Economic Forum: Mahathir claimed that Jews had a “stranglehold” on the world and accused them of manipulating global events for their benefit. Such disgusting rhetoric consistently defines his political career.
Speech at the UN General Assembly (2006): Chávez referred to the United States as an “imperialist” power and implied that Jewish influence secretly behind U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel. He used a conspiracy language which involved Jewish domination of global politics. Venezuelan state media has often echoed Chávez’s sentiments, portraying Israel in a negative light and suggesting that Jewish interests drive Western imperialism.
At his UN General Assembly Speech (1974), Arafat characterized the Palestinian struggle as a fight against colonialism and imperialism, framing Israel’s establishment as a colonial project. His rhetoric often included references to the “Zionist” movement as a form of colonial oppression. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Former President of Iran) made numerous speeches that included Holocaust denial and references to a supposed Jewish conspiracy. For example, in a speech at the UN in 2005, he questioned the historical accuracy of the Holocaust and suggested that it was used as a pretext for the establishment of Israel. Iranian state-sponsored media frequently disseminate content that promotes antisemitic tropes, including claims of Jewish control over global finance and media.
Textbooks in Various NAM Countries, educational materials have included content that perpetuates antisemitic stereotypes. For example, UNWRA textbooks which depict Jews as greedy or manipulative; or frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a way that portrays Jews as colonial oppressors. UNGA Resolution 3379 (1975): This resolution, which equated Zionism with racism, was supported by many NAM countries and reflects a broader narrative that frames Israel’s actions as colonial and oppressive. These examples illustrate how antisemitic tropes, particularly those related to Jewish control and colonial framing, have been utilized by various NAM leaders and state-sponsored media. Such rhetoric often serves to delegitimize Israel and perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Jewish people, contributing to a broader culture of antisemitism in political discourse.
The issue of refugee rights and citizenship policies in Arab host states, particularly concerning Palestinian refugees, contrasts sharply with Israel’s absorption of Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries after 1948. Approximately 2 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan have been granted citizenship, but many still face legal and social discrimination. Palestinian refugees in Lebanon do not have citizenship rights and are restricted from many professions and property ownership. They are often marginalized and live in overcrowded camps. Palestinian refugees in Syria had access to citizenship and social services before the civil war, but the ongoing conflict has severely affected their status and rights. Palestinian refugees in Egypt have limited rights and are not granted citizenship, facing restrictions on employment and movement.
Many Arab states have openly refused to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, which affects the legal status and rights of refugees, including the right to work, education, and social services. Following the establishment of Israel in 1948, approximately 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries due to rising antisemitism and violence. This included significant populations from countries such as Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, and Libya. Israel absorbed these refugees, providing them with citizenship and integrating them into society. By the early 1950s, most of these refugees had settled in Israel, contributing to the country’s demographic and cultural landscape.
While Israel absorbed a large number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, and provided them with citizenship and support, Arab host states have maintained restrictive policies toward dhimmi Palestinian refugees, often limiting their rights and opportunities. This aspect of history, totally ignored and overlooked in NAM discourse, which tends to focus primarily on the Palestinian one sided propaganda narrative, without acknowledging the complexities of Jewish refugee experiences from Arab countries.
The expulsion of Palestinian from Kuwait following the Gulf War in 1991, indeed a significant and often overlooked event in discussions about refugee rights and the treatment of minority populations inside Arab states. Following the liberation of Kuwait, the Kuwaiti government expelled a significant number of Palestinians. Estimates suggest that around 400,000 Palestinians, forced to leave the country. Largely due to the fact that many Palestinians overtly and publicly supported Saddam Hussein’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Similar to how the post WWII French treated Vichy supporters.
This violent expulsion, characterized by a lack of due process, many individuals forcibly removed from their homes and denied the right to return. Yet India together with its NAM allies totally support Arafat’s demand for the right of return. This hypocrisy has raised serious concerns regarding human rights violations and the treatment of minority populations in Kuwait.
The expulsion did not receive significant international condemnation, especially compared to post ’48 and ’67 dhimmi refugee crises or the 1970 black September Jordanian expulsion of dhimmi Palestinians. The expulsion of Palestinians from Kuwait or Jordan, often overlooked in the narratives promoted by NAM countries, including India. While these nations frequently criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, they totally ignore the complexities of Palestinian experiences in Arab states, including the expulsion from Kuwait, Jordan and the Lebanese Civil War.
The term “dhimmi” classicly refers to non-Muslims living in an Islamic state with legal protection. The expulsion of Palestinians and other Arab residents from Kuwait raises questions about the treatment of minority Arab populations, and the responsibilities of Arab states towards those dhimmi Arabs who have historically lived within their borders. The expulsion of Palestinians and other Arab residents from Kuwait following the Gulf War, a significant event that highlights the complexities of Arab state policies towards dhimmi Arab minority populations.
It underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of the refugee experience in the Arab world, particularly in the context of the local Israeli-Palestinian dhimmi refugee status. This aspect of history totally overshadowed by the focus on the illegality of Israel as a nation within the Middle East community of Nations. This one-dimensional narrative utterly fails to account for the experiences of Palestinians in various Arab states, the racist Item 7 of the UN Human Rights committee and the rejection of Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of nations.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism provides a framework for identifying when criticism of Israel crosses unto antisemitism. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor). Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, like the current Gaza war-crimes propaganda. Using symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., accusing Jews of being greedy or controlling the world).
Denying the Right to Self-Determination…various NAM leaders have referred to Israel as a “colonial” or “settler” state, implying that the existence of Israel is illegitimate. For instance, Yasser Arafat, in his speeches, often framed the Palestinian struggle as a fight against colonialism, suggesting that Jews have no historical or legitimate claim to the land. This rhetoric denies the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. UN Resolution 2334 promotes this colonial state slander propaganda.
Many NAM countries have criticized Israel for its military victories while remaining silent on the actions of other nations with similar or worse human rights records. For instance, during conflicts in Gaza, leaders from NAM countries have condemned Israel’s military responses without addressing the actions of Hamas or other groups that target Israeli civilians. Jordan’s use of Jewish grave stones as building material during its West Bank occupation never internationally condemned. This selective criticism exemplifies the application of double standards, as similar criminal behavior totally ignored by the India/NAM alliance in the UN General Assembly.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism provides a useful framework for analyzing India/NAM rhetoric regarding Israel and the Jewish people. By identifying instances where criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism, it becomes clear that certain narratives perpetuated by India/NAM leaders and their supporters contribute to a broader culture of antisemitism guilt. Recognizing these ever repeated patterns, essential for fostering a more nuanced and responsible discourse around the Israeli-dhimmi Arab conflict and the rights of all peoples involved.
LikeLike
Recently the UN Security Council attempted to decree a Chapter VII ultimatum which dictated that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza.
Italy did not support the recent UN Security Council resolution that called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, which was vetoed by the United States. The resolution received 14 votes in favor, with the U.S. casting the only vote against it. The draft resolution was co-sponsored by several countries, but Italy was not listed among those actively supporting the resolution in the context of the recent vote.
These 14 countries Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, Algeria (co-sponsor), Denmark (co-sponsor), Greece (co-sponsor), Guyana (co-sponsor), Pakistan (co-sponsor), Panama (co-sponsor), South Korea (co-sponsor), Sierra Leone (co-sponsor), Slovenia (co-sponsor), and Somalia (co-sponsor) voted to impose a UN Chapter VII dictate upon Israel. Of these countries Algeria and other scamps countries do not even have diplomatic relations with Israel.
Neither Iran nor Sudan have diplomatic relations with Israel. No different than Algeria. Algeria and Turkey have developed a military partnership and cooperation over the years, particularly in the areas of defense and security. This relationship has been strengthened through various agreements and joint military exercises. The relationship is part of a broader strategic partnership that includes economic and political cooperation, with both countries sharing interests in regional stability and security.
Those 14 countries have already repeatedly called for international condemnation of Israel, rabidly support Palestinian terrorism relabeled as “Palestinian rights”. They already engage in public relations propaganda campaigns hostile to Israel. They already support and initiate legal actions against Israel in international courts such as the ICC. These countries have escalated their rhetoric propaganda against Israel. Hamas could never have dug its complex tunnel system without international support. They already promote cultural and academic boycotts of Israel.
These countries throw their support for the Palestinian cause, like whores on street corners sell their wares. They often use stinky rhetoric, to condemn Israeli actions, framing them as oppressive or colonial. Such putrid rhetoric seeks to poison public opinion and mobilize support for Palestinian groups. Numerous solidarity movements around the world that advocate for Palestinian rights; they often align with groups like Hamas, viewing them as legitimate representatives of Palestinian resistance.
Countries without diplomatic relations with Israel compare to corrupt judges that accepts bribes. This objection, seeks to raise critically important questions about the legitimacy and fairness of the recent Chapter VII UN ultimatum which demanded that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza. While the analogy of a corrupt judge highlights concerns about bias and fairness, the international system, in point of fact, operates on principles of representation and sovereignty.
The International system operates, so it appears, as something akin to a beauty contest. What defines beauty — not a rational logical concept. Israel demands a change to the International system. It could express its rebuke of the UN, by leaving the UN. The analogy of a corrupt judge suggests that countries without diplomatic relations with Israel, that they lack objective credibility to fairly judge the case heard before the court of international opinion.
This perception of bias, Israel argues, undermines the legitimacy of all UN resolutions or demands made against Israel. Particularly since nations who do not have diplomatic relations with Israel obvious their anti-Israel hostility – politically motivated – rather than based on objective criteria. Chapter VII of the UN Charter allows the Security Council to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. However, the application of this chapter, like as in the Korean war, especially when it appears to favor one side over another in a conflict, historically expands the local conflict into a far larger international war. The call for Israel to surrender to Hamas, obviously viewed by both the US and Israel as an ultimatum that lacks balance and fairness. Just as China despised the UN Chapter VII ultimatum decreed against North Korea.
The international UN system, indeed based on principles of state sovereignty and representation. However, the effectiveness and fairness of this system both the US and Israel have repeatedly warned and challenged. Especially when certain countries dominate decision-making processes or when resolutions reflect geopolitical interests rather than universal principles of justice.
The idea that Israel should demand changes to the international UN system, this demand reflects the Israeli requirements for a more equitable and fair approach to international relations expressed through public UN diplomacy organs. Leaving the UN perhaps a radical step. But it raises questions about the effectiveness of the international UN system of public diplomacy among nation states in the world community of nations.
The concerns about bias and fairness in the international UN system, particularly regarding Israel, absolutely valid and reflect broader issues of representation and legitimacy. Whether through reforming the UN or reconsidering its participation, Israel’s approach to these challenges will significantly impact its international standing and relationships. The debate over the effectiveness and fairness of the current international system remains a fixed constant, critical issue in global politics.
LikeLike
Smiling the Avraham Accords shattered UN Resolutions 242 and 338 like those European “final solution” exist as a Shoah mirror!
myallaboutyou.wordpress.com asked two basic questions: “Could Jewish law, through chesed, tzedakah, or mishpat, help us face economic challenges or build fairer systems today? What principle from Jewish law could guide us through these times?”
Torah has absolutely no wisdom for folks who fundamentally do not accept the Tribal revelation of HaShem revealed to the 12 Tribes of Israel at Sinai. Par’o did not accept the revelation of HaShem through the 10 plagues or even the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, wherein his entire Army drowned to a man. Only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai to this very day.
Neither the New Testament nor the Koran validates the HaShem chosen Cohen People. Its replacement theology ‘Golden Calf’ replaces faith in the Tribal revelation of HaShem’s Divine Presence Spirit Name at Sinai with belief in Universal Gods. Clearly the God(s) worshipped in the Xtian Trinity not the God worshipped in Islamic strict Monotheism. Nor do these Goyim scriptures ever once include the שם השם לשמה (Spirit Divine Presence Name) revealed in the 1st Commandment,, upon which hang the 2nd Sinai commandment and all other Torah and Talmudic halachot within the Six Orders of the Oral Torah Mishna codification of Oral Torah פרדס common law logic, comparable to a Mountain hanging by a hair.
No University teaches this פרדס Oral Torah inductive reasoning process. Modern Universities limit their studies to Greek syllogism-mathematical logic, I studied that logic system in my third year at Texas A&M, or Hegel’s bipolar logic format which so dominated the writings of Marx’s theories of socialism. My History major focused upon Bolshevik foreign policy between the two World Wars.
So to answer your question with candid honesty, no. The Western legal traditions, despite the feeble attempt at lateral courts through the jury system in Revolutionary America, US courtrooms, across the board, exist as vertical courts wherein the State institutionalizes bribery – by paying the salaries of the Judges and prosecuting attorneys of all State and Federal Courts across the vast United States of America.
South Korean schools study Talmudic common law jurisprudence. But they have a skewed erroneous idea that the Talmud exists as religious ritual law rather than dynamic common law – applicable to all generations living within the borders of Israel, the Jewish State. The S. Koreans do not know that the Torah defines faith as the righteous pursuit of justice within the Tribal lands of conquered Canaan. Nor that Justice means the fair restitution of damages inflicted by one Party upon another, as the very definition of Torah faith.
That no Sanhedrin lateral courtroom exists anywhere outside of ארץ ישראל. Even 3 man Torts damages courts exist as vertical “like” courtrooms in g’lut. Why? Because Jews living in g’lut/exile suffer the Torah curse where they too have forgotten the wisdom of doing Mitzvot observance לשמה. Hence g’lut Jews observe the halachot codified in the Shulkan Aruch as rigid statute “Goyim” law, rather than dynamic common law which compares the current case heard before the Beit Din wherein one of the three justices function in the role of Prosecutor opposed by a second of the 3 justices who serves as the defense attorney. G’lut beit din courts despite having 3 justices with this designated division of labor, they do not follow the model of the Sanhedrin courts of 23 and 71 justices which split evenly leaving ONE judge to decide the case – either for the defense or prosecuting attorney sides, if at the end of the trial the Justices remain evenly split over the quality that the opposing justices precedent evidence brought to decide the case in favor of the legal dispute.
Yeshivot across Israel do not even teach this common law legalism due to the corrupt influence of the Rambam’s Yad, Jacob ben Asher Arba’ah Turim, and Yosef Karo’s Shulkan Aruch statute law perversions made upon Talmudic common law. In fact if a person went into virtually any Yeshiva in Israel today and asked: “What does common law mean in Hebrew?” No person in any Yeshiva across the country of Israel could answer you משנה תורה; the second name of the 5th Book of the Written Torah the Book of דברים. In like manner if the question asked concerning the Arabic ra’ya\רעיא: “what’s its Hebrew equivalent term?” Few if any Yeshiva students or rabbis could immediately answer: בנין אב, which means “precedent”.
Zionism achieved Jewish self determination in the Middle East through the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations 1922 Palestine Mandate. But Orthodox Jews have yet to understand and grasp the possibilities of the Torah as the Constitution of the Republic, with the Talmud functioning as the working model by which Jews have the opportunity to restore and re-establish the Talmud as the working model of lateral common law Sanhedrin courtroom across the Torah Constitutional Tribal States of the Jewish Republic. Orthodox Jews today only give lip service to the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s explanation of the Oral Torah at Horev.
Yeshivot do not teach דרוש\פשט affixed to the Aggada which learns T’NaCH prophetic בנין אב precedents to attain the wisdom of prophetic mussar throughout the Ages. In equal error, yeshiva students do not weave prophetic warp Aggadah פשט threads into the רמז\סוד weft threads of Halachic discourse which defines the intent of the Gemara common law commentary which serves to re-interpret the 70 faces of the language of the Mishna! Alas Orthodox Judaism as much off the דרך as Reform Judaism today. Herein explains the חילול השם of Neturei Karta and virtually all Orthodox Jews who visit ארץ ישראל and pompously declare that ארץ ישראל also in g’lut. Impossible to vomit a greater stinky טיפש פשט than that! Only in ארץ ישראל do Torah blessings exist wherein Jews can pursue justice among and between our divided peoples לשמה. Herein defines how the glove of Zionism fits the Hand of the Torah revelation at Sinai.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
On June 13, 2025, Israel conducted military strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, which has drawn significant international attention and condemnation. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) reported that they targeted multiple military sites, including key nuclear facilities, as part of a preemptive strike aimed at neutralizing what they described as a threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In response to these actions, the United Nations has condemned the strikes, emphasizing the need for diplomatic solutions to prevent escalation in the region. The UN ambassador stated that the decision to strike was an “independent Israeli decision,” indicating a lack of consensus on the appropriateness of the military action.
The strikes reportedly resulted in significant casualties, including the death of a senior commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, which has heightened tensions further. Iranian state media has indicated that missile and drone attacks on Israel are expected in retaliation.
In the wake of Israel’s recent military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, several major world powers, including Britain, France, Russia, and China, have condemned the actions as “unprovoked.” These nations have expressed deep concern over the escalation of tensions in the region and the potential for further conflict.
The strikes, which occurred on June 13, 2025, targeted multiple sites associated with Iran’s nuclear program, including key military installations. Israeli officials justified the attacks as necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, citing the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In their statements, the leaders of Britain, France, Russia, and China emphasized the importance of diplomatic solutions and called for restraint from all parties involved. They criticized the Israeli actions as undermining regional stability and violating international norms regarding the use of military force.
In a significant diplomatic move, Britain, France, Russia, and China have collectively withdrawn their ambassadors from Israel in response to the recent military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. This decision reflects the escalating tensions and widespread condemnation of Israel’s actions, which these nations have labeled as “unprovoked.”
The withdrawal of ambassadors marks a notable shift in diplomatic relations and underscores the seriousness with which these countries view the situation. They have called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and emphasized the need for a diplomatic resolution to prevent further escalation in the region.
This action follows a series of international criticisms directed at Israel, with various nations expressing concern over the potential for increased conflict and instability. The UN has also been vocal in its condemnation, urging all parties to engage in dialogue rather than military confrontation.
In a reciprocal diplomatic response to the withdrawal of ambassadors by Britain, France, Russia, and China, Israel has also decided to withdraw its ambassadors from these countries. This move reflects the escalating tensions and deteriorating relations following Israel’s military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, which have been widely condemned as “unprovoked” by the international community.
The decision to withdraw ambassadors signifies a significant breakdown in diplomatic relations and highlights the ongoing crisis in the region. Israel’s actions have drawn sharp criticism from these nations, prompting them to take a stand against what they perceive as aggressive military actions.
This diplomatic rift is part of a broader context of heightened tensions in the Middle East, with various countries calling for restraint and a return to dialogue to address the underlying issues. The situation remains fluid, and the international community is closely monitoring developments as both sides navigate this escalating conflict.
The UN’s condemnation, backed by the UK, France, Russia, and China, portrays the action as “unprovoked” — a term that reflects political calculus more than legal clarity. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a state may use force in self-defense if an armed attack occurs — but preemptive strikes exist in a gray zone. Israel’s argument likely hinges on the “imminence” clause, as articulated in the Caroline case (1837): when the threat is instant, overwhelming, and leaves no choice of means.
Israel’s June 13, 2025 strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities represent a classic case of preemptive self-defense, aligning with the Begin Doctrine — the principle that Israel will not allow enemy states to acquire nuclear weapons. It echoes past operations. (1) Osirak (1981) against Iraq’s nuclear reactor. (2) Operation Outside the Box (2007) against Syria.
Yet the withdrawal of ambassadors by four permanent members of the Security Council — including the two Western nations historically sympathetic to Israel — signals a profound diplomatic rupture, potentially worse than during the 1956 Suez Crisis or 1982 Lebanon War.
But this time, the scope is broader, the stakes are higher, and the diplomatic fallout is far more severe. The reciprocal withdrawals by Israel, we are now witnessing a partial diplomatic isolation of Israel from key global players — a scenario that dangerously echoes the pre-1967 international atmosphere, only now with a nuclear shadow.
The continuity between medieval Church slanders and modern UN blood libels. Iran, a regime openly threatening genocide (e.g., statements by top officials calling for Israel’s destruction), is shielded by powers that once committed or abetted genocide. Those same powers — Britain and France — betrayed Jewish refugees pre-1948, yet now sanctimoniously claim Israel undermines “stability.” Russia, currently engaged in illegal war and nuclear threats in Ukraine, calls Israel’s actions illegal. China, persecutor of Uyghurs and enforcer of state repression, calls for restraint.
These are not neutral arbiters of international law. They are part of a long tradition of holding Jews to impossible standards, demanding “restraint” even when faced with annihilation. The UN has inherited the mantle of Church anti-Jewish theology in secularized diplomatic language. Resolution 3379 (Zionism = Racism) was the modern Inquisition; Today’s condemnation of Israel’s self-defense is the new blood libel; The ICJ’s silence on Iran’s genocidal threats is a political Kiddush Hashem inversion — punishing the victim for refusing to lie still.
Iran will likely retaliate via proxies: Hezbollah, Houthis, and Shi’ite militias in Syria or Iraq. Israel may face multi-front escalation, forcing it into a prolonged regional war.
The Gulf States’ reaction (e.g., UAE, Saudi Arabia) will be critical: they fear Iran, but won’t publicly back Israel under current diplomatic pressure. The US response under the leadership of President Trump contrasts with the European barbaric anti Jewish history.
This is more than a military episode — it’s a constitutional test of Jewish sovereignty. If Israel, as a free Jewish nation, cannot defend itself without being slandered and isolated, then the very post-Holocaust consensus that birthed the UN is shattered. Once again, the Jewish state is punished not for what it does, but for daring to exist — and fight to survive.
LikeLike
If the foundation flawed, the entire building must come down. The Roman new testament counterfeit fundamentally erroneous. Regardless the pigs ear of the Catholic Church or the opposing pigs ear of the Protestant Church, no silk purse possible to make from either treif pig ears.
Prominent leader of the Protestant Reformation in Switzerland during the 16th century, specifically in Zurich. Zwingli’s teachings emphasized the authority of Scripture, yet failed to move beyond sophomoric translations made by Catholic bible scholars. He did not encourage people to learn the original Hebrew T’NaCH. His opposition to the Catholic reliance upon saint worship and employment of images truly a minor issue seeing that he failed to examine the T’NaCH as a Hebrew and Aramaic text. Hence Swiss Protestantism all show and no go just like Catholic practices. Only he masturbated with his opposing hand.
Failure to engage in the original Hebrew/Aramaic texts amounts to tits on a boar hog undergraduate scholarship. He failed to address the Nicene perversion which employed theology to create a Trinity God belief system as the standard of faith RATHER than the Torah definition of faith as righteous Justice pursue! The retarded Protestant Reformation compares to a child born XXX or XXY chromosome mutation.
The emphasis on original texts, such as the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the complexities of early Christian doctrine, is a significant aspect of theological scholarship and debate, which Zwingli theology utterly failed to explore and grasp. The Protestant revolt – its failure to address the Central Nicene Council utter perversion of faith, comparable to the fictional mythology of Mary’s virgin birth abomination which directly imported Zeus as the father of Hercules.
The Nicene Creed negates the revelation that nothing in the Heavens, Seas, or Earth compares to God. The Nicene Creed, established in 325 CE, was intended to unify Christian belief regarding the nature of Christ and the Trinity, affirming the divinity of Jesus and his relationship to God the Father. It ignored the T’NaCH text which openly declared that “God is not a Man”. Furthermore, the Protestant Reformation utterly failed to address the elephant locked inside the China Closet…the mitzva of Moshiach — an Oral Torah commandment. Oral Torah expressed as T’NaCH prophetic mussar common law. The bible translations all universally failed to turn to the language of the T’NaCH to define the critical terms within the language of the T’NaCH itself. The term prophet does not mean a seer who foresees the future. Seers who claimed to foresee the future the T’NaCH referred to them as ‘false prophets’. The gospel narrative wherein it makes the claim that Jesus fulfilled the words of the prophets defines the T’NaCH definition of ”false prophesy”.
Translations, let’s start with the opening word of בראשית – Genesis. בראשית contains within its 6 letters ברית אש, ראש בית, and ב’ ראשית. The latter serves as a בנין אב/precedent (Torah being a common law legalism which the new testament forgery failed to grasp.) for the Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. the Yatzir Ha’Ra within the heart; comparable to the struggle between Esau and Yaacov in the womb of Rivka. Yet when the students of JeZeus asked him to teach them how to pray? JeZeus failed to understand that Torah tefillah, which learns from kre’a shma precedent, a matter of the heart.
Meaning a person dedicates holy to HaShem tohor middot which quicken the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart and not the tuma middot of the Yatzir Ha’Ra within the heart. JeZeus falsely instructed that his Father God lived in the Heavens rather than within the Heart as the brit sworn between the opposing cut in half pieces internalized the dedication of tohor middot as the expression of the revelation of the 13 tohor middot revealed first to Moshe at Horev ‘ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון וכו. Just as HaShem a spirit and not a word so too all these 13 middot – spirits and not word translations. The Yatzir Ha’Ra learns from the sin of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב, who lacked fear of אלהים, translated the revelation of the Name contained within the first Sinai commandment, the definition of observance of all Torah commandments לשמה או לא לשמה – something like Shakespeare’s: To be or not To be – that is the question! JeZeus falsely taught his students that prayer directed to some Father God who lived in the Heavens – no different than Father Zeus.
Worse the counterfeit new testament Roman forgery failed to grasp that the opening Book of בראשית introduces the subject of the “creation” of the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time oriented commandments; like as specifically found in tefillah such as the mitzva of kre’a shma. Tefillah separates and discerns between Yatzir vs. Yatzir like the mitzva of shabbat discerns between Shabbat & Chol, between מלאכה from עבודה. Therefore the false messiah god JeZeus – totally ignorant in how to pray and how to keep shabbat.
False the Koran’s Tawhid Monotheism most certainly does not align with the revelation of the Tribal God of Sinai. Both Xtianity and Islam teach the trief theological declaration of God as a Universal God. The Talmud teaches that only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore the revelation of the Torah at Sinai revealed a local Tribal God rather than a Universal God who lives in the Heavens like as Zeus and Jesus.
The Torah story of Israel in Egyptian slavery, it recognizes that other Gods live. The priests of Par’o called upon their Gods to turn water into blood – as a powerful example that the Torah rejects the Xtian and Muslim theology of Monotheism. Therefore since both religions demand from their followers to worship different Gods and both religions do not obey the commandment to obey the Torah לשמה ie first Sinai commandments as the basis of all tohor time-oriented Avot commandments which defines the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore both JeZeus and Muhammad = false prophets.
Mishnah
The Torah reveals a localized understanding of God, specifically as the God of Israel, and rejects the notion of a universal deity as presented in Christianity and Islam. This understanding is foundational to the Jewish faith and is articulated through the commandments given at Sinai.
Gemara
Challenge 1:
Is it not written in the Torah that HaShem is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, implying a universal aspect to His nature? The Torah employs the language in the act of Creation אלהים.
Resolution:
While the Torah does declare HaShem as the Creator, but rather אלהים, this does not necessitate a universal worship of Him by all nations. The specific Torah oath alliance made with Israel at Sinai establishes a unique relationship, indicating that while HaShem inclusive with אלהים as the Creator, The Sinai revelation of השם within the first commandment serves as the foundation for all the Torah commandments thereafter. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai directed specifically to the chosen Cohen people alone.
Challenge 2:
But did not the prophets, such as Isaiah, proclaim that all nations will eventually recognize the one true God? Resolution:
Indeed, the prophets speak of a future recognition of HaShem by all nations, when these nations recognize Israel as the Chosen Cohen seed of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov. Neither the new testament forgery nor the koran validate Israel as the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot. The koran replaces Yishmael for Yitzak at the Akadah. The prophetic vision of Goyim acceptance of Israel as the chosen Cohen people hardly qualifies as the exalted theologies of belief in One God.
Challenge 3:
How can one assert that the existence of other gods is acknowledged in the Torah, as seen in the plagues of Egypt, without undermining the principle of monotheism? Resolution: The Torah acknowledges the existence of other gods in the context of idolatry and the challenges faced by the Israelites, whose Yatzir Ha’Ra incites them to assimilate and intermarry with Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Hence the sages teach that the mother determines the Jewishness of the child, based upon the Torah negative commandment for the chosen Cohen people not to marry Goyim women. Therefore among Cohonim the father determines the status of Cohen children and not the mother. The Torah commandment to remember the redemption from Egyptian slavery, who demonstrates His power wherein the 10 plagues judges the Gods of Egypt. This Torah narrative reinforces the concept that while other Gods may be worshipped, they ultimately powerless comparable to an idol carved from the wood of a tree. That same wood used to heat ones’ house and cook ones’ food!
Challenge 4:
If the Torah is meant solely for Israel, how do we reconcile the commandment to be a “light unto the nations”? Resolution: The commandment to be a “light unto the nations” does not imply that the Torah’s laws apply universally but rather that Israel’s adherence to the commandments serves as a model of ethical and moral behavior. This role is to inspire other nations to recognize the wisdom of the Torah – held with respect and awe – rather than kicking the door of the Sukkah because its too hot.
Challenge 5:
What of the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad, who both claimed to fulfill the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures? Resolution: The definitions of prophecy in the Tanakh emphasize moral and ethical guidance rather than mere foretelling of events. Therefore, the claims of Jesus and Muhammad to fulfill the prophecies, their teachings diverge from the core principles of the Torah, do not align with the true prophetic tradition. The revelation of the Torah presents HaShem as humbly as a localized deity for Israel, supported by the text of the Torah, the prophetic literature, and the historical context of the Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov oath alliances.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107 CE), emphasized the idea of the New Covenant as superseding the Old Covenant, suggesting that the laws of the Torah were no longer binding on Christians. He viewed the Jewish law as a precursor to the grace found in Christ. In his letters, Ignatius often contrasts the “old” and “new” covenants, implying that the teachings of Jesus fulfill and replace the Torah. This interpretation overlooks the ongoing significance of the Yom Kippur remembered Sin of the Golden Calf replacement theology wherein HaShem made the sanctification of His Name by doing t’shuva and where HaShem annulled the vow made to Moshe to make of his seed the chosen Cohen people rather than the oaths sworn to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE), argued that the Jewish people had failed to recognize the true meaning of the Scriptures and that the Church had inherited the promises made to Israel. He claimed that the Church was the “new Israel.” In his “Dialogue with Trypho,” Justin asserts that the prophecies concerning the Messiah are fulfilled in Jesus, thereby suggesting that the oath alliance sworn at Sinai utterly irrelevant for Xtians. This theology utterly rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, replaced by the Romen new testament forgery.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE), likewise embraced the sin of the Golden Calf “replacement theology,” which posits that the Church has replaced Israel as the chosen people of God. He viewed the Old Testament as primarily a historical account that pointed to the New Testament. Clearly this theology failed to distinguish that the prophets instructed Israel through prophetic mussar – applicable to all generations of the Chosen Cohen people. In “City of God,” Augustine argues that the Jewish people are no longer the recipients of God’s promises, which misinterprets the enduring nature of the Sinai oath brit alliance which Chag Yom Kippur remembers that even HaShem cannot profane a Torah oath.
Islamic Jurisprudence and its Quranic Interpretation. Islamic teachings often present the Quran as a final revelation that supersedes previous scriptures, including the Torah. This perspective implies that the Sinai revelation accepted by the Israelites – no longer applicable. Verses such as Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:44-48) suggest that the Quran confirms previous scriptures but also asserts its authority over them. This interpretation can lead to the view that the Sinai covenant is obsolete, which contrasts with Jewish beliefs about the eternal nature of sworn Torah oaths.
Hadith Literature, emphasizes that the Jewish and Christian communities have deviated from the true path, suggesting that their interpretations of the covenant are flawed. This leads to a dismissal of the significance of the Sinai covenant in Jewish tradition. Islamic Legal Theory (Fiqh) often emphasizes the Quran and Hadith as the primary sources of law. This marginalization of the ethical teachings found in the Torah simply a different Gold Calf replacement theology. The interpretations of post-Sinai covenantal concepts by early Church Fathers and in Islamic jurisprudence reflect significant theological shifts that diverge from the original intent and understanding of the Sinai sworn oath alliances.
To contrast the distortions of the Trinity, the virgin birth, and universal monotheism with Torah halachic examples, we can examine how each of these concepts diverges from the principles established in the halachic-mussar tradition. This approach will highlight the foundational teachings of Judaism and their implications for understanding God, prophecy, and ethical behavior. The concept of the Trinity posits that God exists as three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in one essence. This theological construct is central to Xtian belief but is not found in Jewish thought. The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) declares, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” Where the word One does not declare Monotheism but rather that the 3 sworn oaths made by Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov “remembered” and One within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the chosen Cohen peoples’ hearts. Both T’NaCH common law prophetic mussar and Talmudic common law halachic ritual practices fundamentally abhor avoda zarah as Av tumah spirits which profane the heart through the median of the Yatzir Ha’Ra.
The virgin birth of Jesus is a key doctrine in Xtianity, asserting that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, thus emphasizing the replacement Trinity theology. The concept of a virgin birth undermines the traditional understanding of familial and tribal connections, which are crucial for the re-establishment of the Tribal Republic remembered through the First Commonwealth. The laws of family purity (Taharat HaMishpacha) and the significance of marital relations in Jewish life highlight the importance of human relationships in the context of procreation. The notion of a virgin birth aligns with the Greek mythology and the birth of Hercules a Greek Man-God.
The idea of universal monotheism, as presented in both Xtianity and Islam, suggests that all people are called to worship one God, directly declaring the specific oath Chosen Cohen People brit alliance, that this Torah relationship – no longer relevant. The Sinai covenant (Exodus 19:5-6) establishes a unique relationship between God and the people of Israel, designating them as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This covenant is specific and particularistic, emphasizing the responsibilities and obligations of the Jewish people. The concept of the Noachide laws refers strictly and only to Goyim known as ‘Gere Toshav’/temporary residents. The 7 mitzvot bnai noach do not apply to Goyim living outside the borders of Judea. Further proof that the Torah revelation has no connection what so ever with the tuma avoda zara of some Universal monotheistic God. The assimilated Rambam perversion of Talmudic common law to Greek/Roman statute law, that treif assimilated Jew embraced the belief in a Universal God. Hence he ruled that the 7 mitzvot apply to all Goyim. But both the court of Rabbeinu Yonah in Spain and the Baali Tosafot in France, specfically in the year 1232, 28 years after this רשע died, agreed with the court of Rabbeinu Yonah and placed the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam.
LikeLike
Why Torah views the new testament and koran as avoda zara. The definition of abomination!
Israel only accepted two commandments at Sinai before we feared that we would surely die and therefore demanded that Moshe receive the rest of the Torah. What’s the “rest of the Torah”, not just the 611 commandments within the language of the Written Torah but all the halachot capable of rising to the sanctity of time-oriented tohor commandments from the Torah itself! Herein defines the intent of the 1st Sinai commandment … to obey the revelation of HaShem לשמה.
LORD, not the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment – and therefore LORD comes under the 2nd Sinai commandment. The same apples to God, Yahweh, Jesus or Allah etc.
The day of Shabbat approaches, but this tohor time oriented commandment does not rest at one day of not doing מלאכה/work but all the rest of the six days of not doing forbidden עבודה on the 6 days of “shabbat”. Raising positive and negative commandments – which do not require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna to tohor time-oriented commandments which do require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna – as learned in the first Book of the Written Torah – בראשית.
This first word of the Torah בראשית, it contains both a רמז, meaning words
within words, ראש בית, ברית אש, and ב’ ראשית; but more – it contains a סוד: the idea of tohor time-oriented commandments which includes all the halachot contained within the Talmud! Hence the Gra taught the kabbalah that בראשית contains all the commandments of the Torah. Torah, by definition includes all the Halachot of the Talmud, according to the B’HaG’s Hilchot Gadolot, a commentary that Pre-Adamites – the Creation of Adam and the Garden.
The next three Books of the Written Torah contain תולדות commandments; positive and negative commandments – that do not require k’vanna – as do tohor time-oriented commandments. What distinguishes a tohor time-oriented commandment from תולדות commandments and halachot contained within the Talmud? A tohor time-oriented commandment requires the dedication of the Yatzir Ha’Tov, which breathes tohor spirits from within the heart. The בנין אב/precedent by which Torah common law\משנה תורה/ learns בכל לבבך\כם within the kre’a shma as publicly taught by Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi, in one of his Mishnaot within the mesechta of ברכות, the concept of עבודת השם – the key יסוד (which contains סוד) of doing mitzvot לשמה, a person must dedicate tohor middot (( The revelation of the 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe at Horev 40 days after the substitute theology known as the sin of the Golden Calf )), by sanctifying one or more tohor spirits, which breathes within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart.
JeZeus when asked by his disciples, he did not understand this fundamental and basic kabbalah/סוד. He taught his disciples: “Our Father who lives in Heaven …” Wrong. Tefillah a matter of the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the Heart; based upon the common law precedent learned from the Brit cut between the pieces by Avram. Dedicating a spirit does not compare to blowing air from the lungs as expressed through the precedent of blowing the Shofar. Its not the blowing of the shofar, as a positive commandment, that elevates this toldah commandment unto a time-oriented Av tohor commandment!
But rather the affixation of t’keah, tru’ah, and sh’varim to the positive toldah commandment of blowing the shofar, wherein a person remembers the oaths sworn by the Avot with the purpose to create יש מאין the chosen Cohen people. Herein defines how blowing the shofar raises from a secondary toldah commandment to an Av tohor time-oriented commandment. All tohor time-oriented commandments which remember the oaths the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov, as their k’vanna; ( ONE in the opening p’suk of kre’a shma. ), to serve HaShem לשמה through the elevation of Written Torah toldot secondary commandments AND Talmudic halachot mitzvot unto Av time-oriented commandments.
Because both the gospels and new testament never teach this fundamental סוד\יסוד Jews recognize JeZeus as a false messiah. M0-0-Ham-Madd referred to JeZeus as a prophet. Despite the heretic Rambam’s validation of Islam, neither it nor Xtianity bases their judicial courts strictly upon the revelation of Torah common law. Its this fundamental and most basic of errors which exposes both JeZeus and Moo-Ham-Madd as Av tumah false prophets. The Rambam’s statute law halachic code compares to how rabbi Natan validated Sabbatai Zevi as Moshiach.
The gospel also narrative very much resembles the style of rabbi Natan’s validation of Sabbatai Zevi – the Ottoman mystic. The Pauline replacement theology famously known for its “Original Sin & expulsion of Adam from the Garden” false paradigm, served to subvert the core oath alliance acceptance of Torah curses. Specifically, that the worship of avoda zarah results in g’lut/exile of the chosen Cohen people. Both Xtianity and Islam ignore the chosen Cohen People – the central them of Torah blessings of the oath brit alliance. Just as Paul’s doctrine of “Original Sin” replaced and subverted the Torah curse of g’lut/exile.
Raising Torah commandments from static positive & negative commandments to dynamic Oral Torah time-oriented commandments – elevates static statute law fixed ritual Greek/Roman fossilized toldot commandments, to dynamic Oral Torah living commandments – which requires k’vanna. Neither the imaginary man – Roman fiction – JeZeus, nor the false prophet M0-0 – Ham – Madd, both failed to gasp the primacy of Torah tohor time-oriented commandments, specifically expressed through these Prime examples of tohor time-oriented mitzvot – Shabbat and tefillah. These two examples of Av tohor time-oriented commandments, specifically remembers the 3 oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov wherein they cut an oath brit which creates the chosen Cohen people, in all generations – throughout time – through the sanctification of tohor time-oriented commandments.
Both of these counterfeit religions introduce a perversion of the tefillah דאורייתא known as קריא שמע. This tefillah from the Torah requires tefillen which permits a chosen Cohen Jew to swear a Torah oath which specifically remembers the 3 oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov wherein they cut an oath brit which creates the chosen Cohen people, in all generations – throughout time – through the sanctification of tohor time-oriented commandments. Therefore the last word ONE, does not testify to belief in Monotheism – an Av tumah avoda zarah belief system – but rather that a Jew, in any generation wherein he lives accepts the 3 oaths sworn by the Avot as ONE within his living and breathing Yatzir Ha’Tov.
The theology of monotheism, it defines Avoda Zarah far more clearly than does the worship of wood or stone idols. Therefore the last word ONE of the kre’a shma, does not testify to belief in any silly theology a monotheism Universal GOD. This nuanced comprehension and grasp of the k’vanna of the term “avoda zara”, defines the 2nd Sinai commandment far more clearly than does the worship of wood or stone idols.
Torah “faith” understood as the righteous pursuit of justice as exercised through lateral common law משנה תורה courtrooms. The false notion of faith as belief in a false Roman propaganda of messiah; this mythology designed to promote Civil War among the Jewish people themselves; or M00-Ham-Madd’s strict monotheism belief as Allah the Universal God of Sinai — both a directly mirror duplication of the sin of the Golden Calf substitution “One True God” theology.
The accurate Sinai revelation, simply not contained in the fraudulent new testament and koran avoda zarah abominations. Avoda zara not limited to the erroneous idea of “worship of false gods or idols. Rather vertical courtrooms wherein the State bribes through salaries the Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys of these loathsome ‘Star Courts’-courtrooms, best defines avoda zara. The Torah concept of faith explicitly learns from Paro’s decision to withhold straw and his vertical court ruled the Israelites – guilty for not meeting their Par’o imposed quota of brick production. When Yitro rebuked Moshe for his failure to establish common law courtrooms, these two precedents define Torah faith. They serve as examples just as did Shabbat and Teffilah precedents employed to define time-oriented commandments from the Torah.
A tiny mustard seed does not define Jewish faith; the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice defines Torah faith. This Sinai revelation, not contained in the fraudulent new testament and koran avoda zarah abominations. Avoda zara not limited to the erroneous idea of “worship of false gods or idols. Rather vertical courtrooms wherein the State bribes through salaries the Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys of these loathsome courtrooms, herein perhaps best describes the abstract term: avoda zara.
The Torah concept of faith explicitly learns from Paro’s decision to withhold straw and his vertical “Star-court”, which dutifully obeyed Par’o and ruled the Israelites as guilty for not meeting their Par’o imposed quota for slave brick production. When Yitro rebuked Moshe for his failure to establish common law courtrooms, these two precedents most essentially – they also define Torah faith. The Av tumah avoda zara religions of Xtianity and Islam by stark contrast, define faith as belief in one God. Justice has nothing to do with what a person believes touching how theology utterly and totally corrupts and perverts Common law lateral courtrooms dedicated to make fair restoration of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among the chosen Cohen people — with the purpose to restore TRUST among our people — on par with bribery of Justices. Hatred without Cause, this three word clause defines avoda zarah according to the Talmud.
The revelation of the Torah at Sinai, only the 12 Tribes of Israel stood at Sinai and accepted the Torah. Therefore the revelation of the Torah at Sinai reveals a local Tribal God, not some theological Universal God, which all Humanity can worship as the false prophets JeZeus and M00-Ham-Madd declared though their treif belief systems of faith.
The precedent examples of time-oriented commandments, of Shabbat and tefillah, serve as models for all other tohor time-oriented Av Torah commandments. This type of Primary Torah commandment applies equally to all the rest of the Torah commandments and the halachot of the Talmud. The concept of “fulfillment of commandments”, does not compare to the gospel narrative which argues that JeZeus fulfilled all the words of the prophets!.
That abomination perverts, to this day, the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Rather, in order to fulfill a Torah commandment, this requires that a person elevates the status of positive and negative secondary commandments raised to the status of tohor time-oriented Primary commandments. This same concept of “fulfillment of commandments” applies equally, across the board, to all Halachic mitzvot contained within the Talmud and Midrashim. To “fulfill the words of the prophets” entails grasping the mussar commanded within a particular sugya of T’NaCH prophetic “mussar” common law, and employing this prophetic “mussar” as the Aggadic warp k’vanna of observance of positive, negative weft – commandments and halachot – contained within the loom of Torah common law justice.
The Av tumah avoda zara religions of Xtianity and Islam both define faith as belief in one God. Alas, justice has nothing to do with what a person theologically believes. Specifically touching theology, if a judge permits theology to prejudice the pursuit of justice, this corrupt judge\”theology” – no different than the judge who accepts bribes. Torah faith, as defined through the example of the precedent – Av tohor Primary time-oriented – Common law lateral courtrooms – dedicated to make fair restoration of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among the chosen Cohen people. This Primary commandment concept shares no common ground with much later theological belief systems creed paradigms. The pursuit of righteous justice, dedicated to a simple singular purpose — to restore TRUST among our people. Hatred without Cause, this three-word clause, defines avoda zarah, according to the Talmud.
The revelation of the Torah at Sinai, only the 12 Tribes of Israel stood at Sinai and accepted the Torah. Therefore the revelation of the Torah at Sinai reveals a local Tribal God, not some Universal God, which all Humanity can worship — as the false prophets JeZeus and M00-Ham-Madd declared.
The precedent example time oriented commandments – Shabbat and tefillah – they merely serve as token models, for all other tohor time-oriented Av Torah commandments. These Primary Source commandments apply equally to all the rest of the Torah secondary source commandments and the halachot within the Talmud.
The concept of “fulfillment of commandments”, does not compare to the gospel narrative which argues that JeZeus fulfilled the words of the prophets!. That abomination perverts to this day the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Rather, in order to fulfill a Torah commandment, this requires that a person elevates the status of positive and negative, secondary source-commandments raised to the status of tohor time oriented commandments Primary source commandments. This same concept of “fulfillment of commandments” applies equally, across the board, to all Halachic mitzvot contained within the Talmud and Midrashim. To “fulfill the words of the prophets” entails grasping the mussar commanded within a particular sugya of T’NaCH prophetic “mussar” common law and employing this “prophetic-mussar” as the k’vanna of observance of positive, negative commandments and halachot secondary sources raised to Av tohor Primary source commandments.
LikeLike
The phrase “The Kingdom of God is within you”, Luke 17:21. The phrase “The Kingdom of God is within you” (Greek: ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν) is often cited by Christian theologians as evidence of a spiritualized, internalized kingdom that supersedes Jewish political-national hopes. In Luke 17:20–21, the P’rushim (Pharisees) ask JeZeus when the Kingdom of God would come.
It’s a theological dismissal of the national Avot sworn oath brit alliance which creates יש מאין the chosen Cohen people and swears the oath alliance brit wherein this Chosen people inherits the oath sworn lands. The reference “kingdom of God”, refers to the mitzva of tefillah which requires שם ומלכות. However if a person observes with a critical eye, neither the tefillah from the Torah: kre’a shma, nor the rabbinic commandment of tefillah: the Shemone Esrei, neither this nor that contains the fundamental requirement which rabbi Yochanon defines the qualities which separate making a blessing contrasted by saying Tehillem … a blessing requires שם ומלכות.
So what makes kre’a shma and shemone esrei a blessing rather than a praise like Tehillem which does not contain שם ומלכות? Answer: both kre’a shma and shemone esrei exist as positive tohor time-oriented commandments … which by definition requires k’vanna. Specifically the k’vanna of the wisdom which discerns swearing a Torah oath by means of making a blessing FROM saying or reading praises like as contained in the Book of Tehillem with its 150 prayers. Tefillah not the same thing as prayer. Just as shabbat requires the wisdom of making a הבדלה distinction between shabbat and chol at the beginning and end of the Day of Shabbat so too swearing a blessing oath requires the wisdom which discerns between making a blessing, which requires שם ומלכות, from saying a praise like Tehillem which lacks שם ומלכות.
What defines the abstract concept שם ומלכות ie “kingdom of Heaven” which the P’rushim asked JeZeus? JeZeus did not know this kabbalah. His answer not even in the same proverbial “Ball Park”! The Oral Torah mitza of Moshiach, gospels and new testament make the claims of JeZeus being “the messiah”, requires – just as do blessing – the wisdom which discerns the k’vanna of שם ומלכות.
JeZeus taught no Oral Torah common law precedents when he declared his “lord’s prayer”. His prayer make no reference to the dedication of Moshiach to the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which makes fair restitution of damages inflicted by the guilty upon the innocent among our conflicting Jewish people!!! The one repeated rebuke made concerning king David, he profaned his annointing as Moshiach by the prophet Shmuel in the matter of the dedication to pursue righteous judicial restoration of damages in the matter of Bat Sheva’s husband.
The false messiah JeZeus had absolutely no knowledge what so ever of the Oral Torah dedication of the k’vanna of the time oriented Av commandment of Moshiach! The very question the P’rushim challenged JeZeus as being a false messiah and false prophet.
Greek Text and Ambiguity, the phrase “ἐντὸς ὑμῶν” can mean either: “Within you” (internalized, spiritual) or “In your midst” (among you, i.e., the presence of the Messiah himself)!!!! Xtian commentators often prefer the first, reading it as an internal spiritual reign — supporting a Pauline model of personal salvation and supersession of Jewish law and statehood. However the false messiah JeZeus’s Lord’s Prayer testifies to the latter interpretation of the vague Greek language phrase.
Replacement theology (also called supersessionism) is the idea that the Church has replaced Israel as the true people of God. Luke 17:21 fits this mold in key ways. (1) It denies the oath brit which continually creates the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין through the service of dedicating tohor Av Torah time-oriented commandments! (2) The gospel counterfeit hogwash delegitimizes halachic Oral Torah פרדס logic as taught through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva which the gospel counterfeit never once refers to!!! All the rabbis in both the Mishna and Gemara, all of them, base their opinions upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva interpretation of the heart and soul of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, as taught through the logic system of פרדס inductive reasoning. The JeZeus Roman counterfeit had absolutely no knowledge what so ever of this fundamental kabbalah which defines the whole of Oral Torah as codified in the Mishna, Gemara, Talmud, Siddur, and Midrashim.
Later Christian traditions (from Augustine to Luther) cite this kind of passage to argue that Israel is no longer a physical nation, but now a metaphor for the Church or believing souls. This exactly duplicates, or to use the language of the gospels themselves … “fulfills” the prophesy of the Sin of the Golden Calf in all generations unto this very day!
Torah, Talmud, Siddur, and Midrashim establishes the Jewish identity, culture and customs to this very day. Defined through the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf. Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning logic system defines the k’vanna of the revelation of the Oral Torah which the church denies. JeZeus’s statement in Luke 17:21 dismantles that framework — it moves toward an ahistorical, non-legalist, inward “kingdom”. That shift aligns not just with Pauline theology, but with Gnostic and Hellenistic notions of salvation as inner knowledge or enlightenment rather than collective political redemption.
The foundational fracture between שם ומלכות sworn oath blessings, such as the blessing which Yitzak gave to Yaacov but did not give the non שם ומלכות praise given to Esau! Torah oral torah common law judicial jurisprudence – the gospel narrative counterfeit did not know. Torah jurisprudence rooted in brit-based chosen Cohen people pursuit of justice as the definition and essence of faith, the gospel/new testament replacement theology perverts to some spiritualized abstraction of Christian “kingdom” theology, which knows absolutely nothing of the k’vanna of שם ומלכות oath sworn brit alliances. This refutation equally applies to the koran, Moo-Ham-Madd did not know how the Torah defines the key term prophet just as the gospel counterfeit does not know how the Torah defines love – as defined through the Torah commandment of marriage known as קידושין. The essential legal-theological rupture that defines the gulf between Torah brit jurisprudence and the theological counterfeits presented by both the Christian New Testament and the Islamic Koran.
Yitzchak’s blessing to Yaakov was an oath-bound legal act. It therefore serves as THE fundamental בנין אב common law precedent by which the generations of Israel discern the distinction between making a Torah blessing commandment from saying a Tehillem prayer praise. JeZeus response utterly ignorant. Yitzak gave Esav a non-binding, non brit, non blessing/Tehillem to his second son who sold his Cohen first-born birthright to Yaacov! This structure underlies all Torah jurisprudence: no blessing (ברכה) without שם ומלכות, and no true faith (אמונה) without justice-rooted obligations. Faith equals fidelity to oath, not vague belief.
JeZeus and the gospel writers show no knowledge or respect for rabbi Akiva’s Oral Torah kabbalah of the revelation at Horev. Hence the church fathers deny to this day the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev as expressed through the 13 tohor spirits of HaShem. The gospel book of john declares the word as God! The very definition of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב mixed multitude replacement theology sought to replace the Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment with the “word” אלהים — the definition of the replacement avoda zarah known as the sin of the Golden Calf.
The gospel narrative slander the Sanhedrin courts as corrupt and perverse. This negates the Torah concept of faith all together. An no whitewash can conceal this new testament perversion. This same mussar equally applies to Islam. Moo-Ham-Madd’s claim to prophecy lacks any brit-based legitimacy; does not transmit or interpret precedent-based halacha Oral Torah common law. Totally ignores T’NaCH Talmud common law. And equally likewise its substitute theology reduces prophecy to visionary utterance divorced from legal authority and nation-building. As with the gospel counterfeit, the Koran appropriates the term “prophet” while stripping it of its brit-legal definition and context. The gospel’s redefinition of love as universalized sentiment is as empty as its redefinition of kingdom and prophecy. Without brit, there is no legal structure to sustain love, justice, or nationhood. It is all mystified abstraction, which cannot create the chosen Cohen people through tohor time oriented commandments. The JeZeus abomination knowns nothing of what separates the Yatzir Ha’Tov tohor spirits from the Yatzir Ha’Ra tumah spirits.
Faith without oath-bound brit law is no faith at all, and any theological system — whether gospel or Koran — that dismisses or replaces the brit framework is not a continuation of revelation but a counterfeit rebellion against it. Yitzchak’s blessing to Yaakov is not merely narrative — it is precedent. It is the בנין אב, the archetype, of what constitutes a Torah-commanded blessing.
The blessing to Yaakov: A sworn, oath brit legal transfer of Cohen inheritance, complete with שם ומלכות implications (even if not verbally explicit, its legal force is absolute), just as kre’a shma, shemone esrei, the mourners kaddish, the blessing of the Cohem to the people of Israel – all visually lack שם ומלכות and therefore require the wisdom to know how to swear שם ומלכות within and through the spirit of the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the Heart! JeZeus makes no reference to this essential kabbalah taught by rabbi Yechuda the Head of the Great Sanhedrin!
A beracha requires brit. A brit requires oath. An oath requires שם ומלכות and k’vanna. Without this, you have mere praise. JeZeus shows no awareness of this distinction — a fatal flaw for anyone claiming prophetic authority within the brit tradition.
LikeLike
Having a discussion with pastor Hogg on the wordpress blog of Intensional Faith.
Greetings Pastor Hogg. Honestly I do not have a clue of what “mysterious fulfillment” refers to. To “journey” before the God of Sinai actively entails discernment between tohor middot of the Yaztir Ha’Tov as opposed by the tumah middot of the Yaztir Ha’Rah. Perhaps in an exceptionally crude way the contrast between these two types of spirits breathing within the bnai brit Heart might compare to the Xtian model of God vs Satan. Honestly I do not know because Oral Torah literature only employs Satan merely as a metaphor משל\נמשל to the Yatzir Ha’Rah. But this metaphor only works if and only if you contrast tohor middot/attributes with tuma middot\attributes. And no Xtian scholar, and for sure I am not well read on what Xtian scholars have written, this world as alien to me as the philosophy of Zen Buddhism. But to my restricted knowledge and superficial examination no known Xtian scholar ever once delt in this field or subject. Perhaps even that a faulty comparison b/c my daughter studies Chinese philosophy and Shiatsu. The latter has origins from Japan and Zin Buddhism influenced this wisdom of healing touch more than did Chinese Daoism.
To encourage my daughter to succeed I discovered that where Zen Buddhism developed the concept of “Mindfulness/3rd eye” — Chinese philosophy pursued the path of the Dao concept of Chi. Both employ meditation. The Indian Buddhist philosophy employs conscious awareness of a defined conscious awareness of a particular sense of one of the 5 senses: feel/touch, hearing, smell, sight, taste to which Shiatsu calls fear, anger, grief, shame, worry/happiness. (The latter a dispute between Yin Shin Jyatsu is and Shiatsu healing philosophies.)
My point as an Israeli Jew, totally compare to a fish out of water when addressing Xtian concepts of their theology. Mystery, as a term employed in early Xtian theology referred to the Trinity “mystery” as the church grappled with the Muslim concept of strict Monotheism.
Am a fish out of water – totally over my head Islamic theories of theology as well. One has merely to scratch me to expose my ignorance. My scholarship focus only upon studies of Torah common law. The mystic notions of the Middle Ages which assumed the status of “kabbalah”, this too I have never made a study in depth. Mystic kabbalah such as the Zohar or Ari kabbalah employs a cryptic language which requires developing a dictionary which defines its key abstract terms “concealed” from a obvious definition. This Jewish philosophy highly influenced by the ancient Greek philosophy known as Rhetoric.
Personally, the Greek culture and customs my soul loathes and detests. The Hanukkah lights where the Greeks attempted for force Jews to abandon our culture and customs as defined by T’NaCH and Talmud, to forget our Oral Torah. The assimilated, (((in Hebrew this idea known as ערב רב))), Jews – folks who embraced the customs and mannerisms of foreign Goyim cultures. Such Jews, the Torah refers to as lacking “fear of heaven”. Which means they take no awareness how their corrupt behavior “consequently” ruins their good name reputations. Xtianity no different, its blood libels, pogroms, ghetto gulags that culminated in the systematic extermination of European Jewry during the Shoah has permanently destroyed the good name reputation of that disgusting religion.
Your JeZeus/Hercules man-God mystery religion – I do not know. The Torah openly states: HaShem is not a man. So this mystery theology which depicts messiah JeZeus as the son of God monotheism with his Father in Heaven – simply flies over my simple Jew-boy head.
Torah defines faith as: the pursuit of judicial justice among my people addressing their disputes and damages claims. The Xtian mystery religion, its theology defines faith as belief in some mystery Trinity one God. Both Torah and Xtianity employ the concept of “faith”, but this one “kabbalah rhetoric term” has multiple concealed meanings. An apples vs. oranges conversation.
The concept of “Gods”, this subject too goes completely over my head. I do not know. Consider myself an atheist praise HaShem. I simply do not trust myself to believe in any God. Refuse to walk down that alien/foreign path culture\custom of faith. Hence personally the idea of seeking God – I do not know. No more than does a simple ant have a comprehension of Human civilizations. As a Jew I work within the confines of my “ant-bed”. A simple worker who tunnels into the earth to dig Torah common law Sanhedrin courtrooms. How to employ the kabbala of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic of inductive reasoning to compare an earlier Case/Din judicial rulings to present day Cases heard before my Sanhedrin courtroom wherein I study the T’NaCH and Talmud as a common law legal system. The Talmud and Midrashic literature, developed by the later Geonim scholars who preceded the Reshonim Talmudic scholarship, they focused understanding the Aggadah literature within the Talmud warp/weft loom opposing threads which weave the fabric of both the T’NaCH and Talmudic Jewish literature together with ritual halachic observances. Herein defines the confines of my simple “ant-bed” tunnel vision/system network.
Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive reasoning compares to Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism deductive reasoning as Calculus dynamic variables compares to Algebra’s fixed static mathematics. The difference in engineering skills to make a internal combustion engine vs. making a bridge that crosses a deep valley. Both useful, but completely different skills, the one from the other.
The Xtian accept – the idea that they can believe in their JeZeus Man-God. They rejoice in the notion of Monotheism, because ipso-facto this means that Jews and Xtians worship the same God. The Muslim too love their strict monotheism belief system because for them – Allah and Sinai the same thing. Honestly its a cool magic. Alas the Torah refers to the use of such magic as false prophets/witchcraft. Impossible to get around this לא תעשה Torah commandment.
The slight of hand of both Xtian and Islamic avoda zarah, their imported Greek rhetoric which purposely fails to define key/critical terms. How does the Torah define the key term prophet? The gospel rhetoric employs “fulfilled” to conceal its lack of knowledge. Simply impossible to “fulfill” prophetic mussar. Because each and every day, a new day for the Yatzir Ha’Ra tumah middot.
Islam absolutely no different, it posits Muhammad as the final prophet, and worships its holy declarations of faith, as if the act of worship transforms this empty declaration, into a fact. Xtain blood libels made prior to their Easter worship, exactly duplicate this false premise. Neither emotion based feeling/touching religion can evade Oral Torah rational reasoning.
LikeLike
Tefillah does NOT translate to prayer. Tefillah requires שם ומלכות, prayer – as found in saying Tehillem – does not fundamentally require שם ומלכות. What does this mean? מאי נפקא מינא in Aramaic Talmud. Answer: שם ומלכות meaning the dedication of a tohor middah revealed to Moshe at Horev לשמה by means of swearing a Torah oath through which the Avot cut a brit which continually creates from nothing the Chosen Cohen people children of the Avot. Hence: tefillah, as a tohor time oriented commandment calls upon the God of the Avot in the first blessing.
Praying Tehillem by stark contranst exist as a positive commandment which does not require k’vanna. Only tohor time oriented commandments which dedicate specified tohor middot through swearing a Torah oath, (Tefillah called Amidah b/c a person ideally stands before a Sefer Torah in the beit knesset.), qualify as comparable to the oaths wherein the Avot swore the brit oath which continually creates from nothing the chosen Cohen people. Hence the first blessing of the קריא שמע שחרית twice states תמיד מעשה בראשית.
Because the Book of בראשית introduces the Av mitzva of tohor time-oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as its k’vanna. Prophetic mussar defines specified tohor middot first revealed to Moshe as the revelation of the Oral Torah at Sinai. Hence when the portion of Israel did their service in the Beit HaMikdash within the Beit Knesset they read the Creation story of the opening Book of בראשית which introduces the Av Torah commandments of tohor time-oriented commandments.
Consequently if a bnai brit does even minor Torah commandments such as shooing the mother bird off her brood of eggs or even rabbinic commandments like Shemone Esrei or lighting the Hanukkah lights or reading the Book of M’gillat Esther, the B’HaG introduced the chiddush that elevating mitzvot to Av tohor time-oriented commandments raises these rabbinic mitzvot to mitzvot from the Torah!
The distinction between Tefillah and the tachanun prayer
the Open Siddur Project ✍ פְּרוֺיֶקְט הַסִּדּוּר הַפָּתוּחַ
Aharon N. Varady (transcription)·opensiddur.org·
Concluding Prayer for Hallel in the Home Service for the Festival of Passover, by Rabbi J. Leonard Levy (1896)
This is a concluding prayer in the Hallel service at the Passover seder by Rabbi J. Leonard Levy to his Haggadah or Home Service for the Festival of Passover (1896) pp. 32-34. The prayer does not appear in subsequent editions. The prayer threads the needle between the particularly Jewish communal focus of Passover and the…
Moshe Kerr: What separates תפילה from תחנון? A blessing requires שם ומלכות. Shemone Esrei does not contain שם ומלכות. Yet it functions as the definition of a blessing. As does kadesh, which also lacks שם ומלכות. For that matter so does ברכת כהנים וגם כן קריא שמע. The k’vanna of חנון has nothing to do with the formal prayer written in the Siddur. Why? Because all these “mitzvot” qualify as tohor time oriented commandments which require k’vanna. What’s the k’vanna of תחנון through which it defines תפילה?
Word translations amount to tits on a boar hog when the new born piglets are ravenous and the sow died after giving birth! The 5th middah of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev – חנון, serves as the functioning root שרש of the term תחנון תפילה. The tohor time-oriented commandment of תפילה learns from the additional metaphor of תחנון. Consider the Order of the Shemone Esrei blessings … 3 + 13 + 3 blessings. 6 Yom Tov and 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe, 40 days after the ערב רב Israelites – Jews assimilated and intermarried with Egyptians, no different from the kapo Jewish women who slept with Nazis. This ערב רב, according to the Torah – as expressed in the memory to war against Amalek/antisemitism – they lacked fear of אלהים. This same ערב רב referred to their Golden Calf substitute theology by the name אלהים. This tie-in explains the k’vanna of the term “fear of heaven”.
The ערב רב Jews lacked “fear of Heaven”, and therefore their avoda zarah profaned the 2nd Sinai commandment. Hence when Jews assimilate and intermarry with Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai (neither the Xtian Bible nor Muslim Koran ever once brings the שם השם first revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment – the greatest commandment of the entire Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev! Do Jews serve to obey the Torah revelation לשמה או לא לשמה? Observance of all the Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot hangs on this simple question.
Therefore תפילת תחנון interprets the k’vanna of תפילה, through the concept that a person stands before a Sefer Torah and dedicated specific and defined tohor middot which breath life into the hearts of the Yatrir HaTov of the chosen Cohen oath brit people. The verb תפילה most essentially entails the k’vanna of swearing a Torah oath. What Torah oath? The dedication, think korban, of some specified tohor middot…. Hence the concept of תפילת תחנון.
LikeLike
“THEORY & TRUTH” — President Trump’s 2nd Term of Office.
2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, significantly benefiting high-income earners and large corporations. Limited Impact for Most Americans: While some middle-class households saw modest short-term gains (mostly through withholding changes), many did not experience lasting improvements. Some even saw increased taxes due to the capping of state and local tax (SALT) deductions.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) infact did lower taxes for most income groups, not just the wealthy. But the scale of those cuts, and especially their permanence, heavily favored corporations and high-income households. Basically this economic policy ties into the Reagan-era “supply-side economics”, which theorized, cutting taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy, would spur investment, job creation, and ultimately “trickle down” benefits to everyone.
But in 1980, George H. W. Bush, during the Republican primaries, famously mocked this theory as “voodoo economics.” That critique — which many economists still uphold — applies to Trump’s TCJA as well. Bush’s “voodoo” jab remains a historically sharp and accurate label for the long-term imbalance baked into such policies.
Though George H. W. Bush famously criticized Reagan’s policies as “voodoo economics” in 1980, once in office (1989–1993), he largely embraced the same supply-side, trickle-down framework, and his son, George W. Bush (2001–2009), doubled down on it.
Once president himself, Bush kept most of Reagan’s tax cuts intact, including the 28% top income tax rate from the 1986 Tax Reform Act. This forced him, due to ballooning deficits, to raise some taxes in 1990 through a bipartisan budget deal. That move angered conservatives and likely contributed to his 1992 electoral loss to Clinton. Overall, he did not fundamentally challenge the Reagan-era economic model. He called it “voodoo” but governed under its spell.
George W. Bush (2001–2009): His administration pushed supply-side economics even further. His Administration enacted massive tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 (EGTRRA and JGTRRA). Cut the top income tax rate from 39.6% to 35%. The wealthiest 1% gained the most from these cuts, exacerbating income inequality. These cuts were passed during a period of Clinton surpluses turned into deficits, especially after 9/11 and the Iraq War.
Clinton-era Budget Surpluses (1990s Keynesian + centrist policy). George W. Bush ran wars in Iraq/Afghanistan without raising revenue → deficits ballooned. Trump during his first term, the only post WWII US President not to involve the US in foreign wars abroad.
Clinton-Era Economics (1993–2001) as earlier stated embraced more of a Keynesian or center-left fiscal discipline. Supporting targeted investment (Carter’s Federal regulation education, tech, etc. which stripped the States of their Constitutional Rights to bureaucratically regulate intra-State trade & commerce.) This caused the Federal Bureaucracy to become the Government pulling the strings of the puppet 3 Constitutional Branches of the Federal Government consequent to the incest relationship between Government established Corporate monopolies and Federal Bureaucratic non-Constitutional Branches – the largest employer in the US.
The Carter/Clinton policy of expanding bureaucrapic Big Brother bypassed state sovereignty. Using conditional grants (e.g., “Race to the Top” or “No Child Left Behind”) to coerce state compliance. Expanding federal agencies like the Department of Education and EPA into areas historically managed by state governments. Relying on regulatory agencies (ATF, IRS, SEC, etc.) to make quasi-legislative rules outside congressional oversight. This trend built upon the Jan 22, 1973 Nixon Era Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling which stripped the States intra-State commerce rights to regulate the abortion industry.
This trend of governance established the Administrative State wherein unelected bureaucraps wrote, enforce and adjudicated rules — a violation of the separation of powers. Often operate with limited judicial review, under doctrines like Chevron deference (recently curtailed by SCOTUS in 2024).
The corruption of the Obozo Administration which permitted the illegal Forth Branch of the Federal Government to streamline streamlined oversight and reduced judicial review of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) a particular stink in the nostrils of Freedom. In 2015, the USDA introduced a new regulatory framework for GMOs, which included the “Plant Pest Risk Assessment” process. This framework aimed to simplify the approval process for GE crops and reduce the regulatory burden on developers. The changes were part of a broader effort to modernize the regulatory system for biotechnology.
Europe boycotted GMO produced from America. President Trump by means of high tariffs seeks to address this issue. Furthermore through Elon Musk, President Trump has sought to massively reduce the size and scope of illegal Federal bureaucraps and restore balance to States Rights intra-States rights to bureaucratically regulate trade and commerce. The Trump Supreme Court annulled the Nixon Era Roe vs Wade abomination.
Trump’s administration aggressively rolled back federal agency overreach by limiting the scope of EPA, Department of Education, and other federal mandates, pushing more regulatory authority back to state governments. His policies encouraged states to develop their own education standards and environmental regulations without federal conditional grants forcing compliance (a reversal of programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top).
Trump-appointed justices on the Supreme Court continued to interpret the Constitution with a strong emphasis on states’ rights and limits on federal power. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overturned Roe and returned abortion regulation to states. This administration cut back on federal programs that used conditional funding to coerce state compliance, thereby restoring genuine state discretion. This rollback includes scaling back or eliminating strings attached to Medicaid funding and infrastructure grants, enhancing states’ autonomy in spending and policy design.
Promotion of State-Controlled Commerce Regulation. Includes efforts to curtail federal control over intra-state commerce, particularly in sectors like energy and agriculture, reinforced the states’ ability to regulate commerce that does not cross state lines. This challenges expansive readings of the Commerce Clause that federalize many traditionally local issues.
Trump as reduced the scope of Nasa. Collaborations with private-sector innovators (e.g., Musk’s SpaceX, Tesla) fostered public-private partnerships that bypassed large federal bureaucracies, enabling states and localities to take a leading role in technology deployment and infrastructure.
Under Trump’s second term, policies and judicial appointments arguably have reduced federal encroachment on state governance; restored local control over key policy areas; limited bureaucratic overreach; and reinforced constitutional federalism consistent with the 10th Amendment’s original intent.
President Trump’s leadership reject the Bush II to Obozo shoe-shine boy in the White House Neocon war adventurism; together with the utterly corrupt and condemned Administrative-statist capture of local governance. Federal bureaucraps have no authority to regulate how Amish farmers milk their cows!
Trump stands apart from both parties’ post-9/11 Neocon Imperialism military overreach. Agencies like USDA, EPA, and DOJ have no business regulating the daily life of sovereign American communities. The structural logic of the Constitution – President Trump defends the 10th Amendment.
LikeLike
Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Richard Silverstein·www.richardsilverstein.com
Trump’s Iran Charade
In the aftermath of the US attack on Iran’s nuclear plants, a debate rages about the extent of the post Trump’s Iran Charade appeared first on Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Liberal Kapo Jews. This stinking ערב רב assimilated and intermarried Jews who promote the hatred of Amalek – antisemitism. They simply have no fear of Heaven. The Torah described the original ערב רב that came out of Egypt as אין להם יראת אלהים. Sinat chinam equals spiritual Amalek.
Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Richard Silverstein·www.richardsilverstein.com
Trump’s Iran Charade
In the aftermath of the US attack on Iran’s nuclear plants, a debate rages about the extent of the post Trump’s Iran Charade appeared first on Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Liberal Kapo Jews. This stinking ערב רב assimilated and intermarried Jews who promote the hatred of Amalek – antisemitism. They simply have no fear of Heaven. The Torah described the original ערב רב that came out of Egypt as אין להם יראת אלהים. Sinat chinam equals spiritual Amalek.
Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Richard Silverstein·www.richardsilverstein.com
Trump’s Iran Charade
In the aftermath of the US attack on Iran’s nuclear plants, a debate rages about the extent of the post Trump’s Iran Charade appeared first on Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
The Oct7th War which spread to a war against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran has radically changed the balance of power in the Middle East. The UN has completely discredited its objectivity with the ICC/ICJ attempts to declare Bibi a war-criminal. You drink this blood libel slander like Catholics drink their blood and body of Christ then go out and make a Easter pogrom against Jews based upon some blood libel slander!
Both England and France have broken off diplomatic relations with Israel, prior to the 12 Day War with Iran! Hence neither power has any influence in the Middle East negotiated peace process ie. the Coming Abraham expanded accords which will most likely see a majority of Arab countries developing diplomatic relations with Israel. If a majority of Arab nations recognize the Jewish state, then and only then will Israel join the Middle East voting block of Nations within the UN. A totally unprecedented reality since Israel won its two Wars of national independence back in 1948 and again in 1967.
The latter Independence War, recall that Naser swore to throw the Jews into the Sea and correct the Nakba disgrace where 5 Arab Armies failed to throw the Jews into the Sea and complete the Nazi Shoah of the Jewish people! To date, except for Camp David and Abraham Accord Arab nations which currently have diplomatic relations with Israel, post the Israeli victory of 1967, all Arab countries reacted through the Khartoum Conference declaration of 3 No’s. No Peace with Israel. No Recognition of Israel. No Negotiations with Israel.
Arab countries which reject the Jewish state of Israel refer it as “the Zionist Entity”. General Assembly UN Resolution 3379 declared Zionism is Racism! Apparently your revisionist History over-looked these minor FACTS. All Arab countries absolutely reject the 1917 Balfour Declaration wherein Britain recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self determination in the Middle East. The League of Nations “Palestine Mandate” awarded to victorious WWI Britain in 1922, based this Mandate upon the Balfour Declaration. Hence b/c Arabs rejected Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East no Arab would ever refer to himself as a Palestinian.
Not till 1964, with the State of Israel as a 16 year old country did Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the political opportunism and call his terrorist movement the Palestine Liberation Organization – PLO. That PLO Charter did not condemn Jordanian “occupation” of the Jordan declared “West Bank”. Nor did it condemn the Egyptian “occupation” of Gaza! Only ’48 Israel did the PLO Charter condemn and abhor!!!!
A 6 part Mishnaic mussar of this paper. Avodah Zarah in Our Generation: The Crisis of Jews Who Side With Amalek. In every generation, Amalek takes new forms. Today, it is no different. But what is shocking is not only the hatred of our enemies—it is the collaboration of Jews, raised within Torah civilization or its memory, who now partner with those seeking to dismantle the Jewish state.
When Jewish voices shout “From the River to the Sea,” they are not engaged in protest—they are echoing the genocidal goals of Hamas. When they equate Israel’s defense against a massacre to genocide, they join in blood libel, no different in kind from the medieval slanders that triggered Easter pogroms. When they ally with UN declarations and ICC/ICJ indictments meant to strip Jews of the right to self-defense, they violate the first commandment of Jewish history: “Never again shall Jewish blood be cheap.”
Sovereignty vs. Subjugation: Jews Ruling vs. Jews Ruled: A fundamental distinction separates Jews living as a sovereign nation in their own land versus Jews existing as a minority under non-Jewish rule (galut). Assimilated & intermarried Jews in the West, who function within dominant non-Jewish cultures, have lost connection with Jewish national identity and Torah sovereignty, resembling the biblical Erev Rav—those lacking fear of Heaven and loyalty to the Jewish nation.
Double Standards in Territorial Legitimacy: Prussia vs. Samaria & Gaza: The hypocrisy of the international community – emphasized. While the post-WWII redrawing of European borders—such as Poland and Russia’s annexation of Prussia—is accepted without condemnation, Israel is uniquely targeted for reasserting sovereignty over Samaria and Gaza after 1967. UN Resolutions 242 and 338 are cited as politically biased tools used to delegitimize Israel’s historical and military rights.
Western Imperialism and Regional Domination: Suez to Iran. The 1956 Suez Crisis serves as evidence of continued British and French imperial ambitions, cloaked in Cold War geopolitics and economic control (specifically over the Suez Canal). This is paralleled with U.S./British involvement in Iran—removing Mossadegh and reinstalling the Shah to prevent the nationalization of oil. The 1979 Iranian Revolution is framed as a reaction to this imperialism. Similarly, prior to the “12 Day War,” the UK and France withdrew diplomatic ties with Israel in protest of their exclusion from influencing a ceasefire in Gaza.
Rejection of the 242/338 Two-State Paradigm by the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords are seen as a major geopolitical shift, fundamentally rejecting the British- and French-backed vision of peace based on dividing Israel into two hostile entities—akin to India-Pakistan or North-South Korea. The Accords envision peace without territorial partition, and with increasing normalization between Israel and Arab states, signal the failure of the old colonial-era frameworks.
UN Bias and Historical Arab Rejectionism of the Balfour Declaration wherein a major Great Power recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. The UN based its 1922 Palestinian Mandate upon the Balfour Treaty. The Khartoum Conference (1967) “Three No’s” serves as proof of Arab states’ refusal to accept Israel’s equal rights to self-determination. The UN, particularly via General Assembly Resolution 3379 (“Zionism is racism”), has been complicit in reinforcing this Arab rejectionism of Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination. Meanwhile, the ICC and ICJ today continue the Zionism is Racism pattern, under the guise of international law, falsely accusing Israeli leaders of war crimes while ignoring the Oct7th pogrom and declaring the current conflict pre-dates Oct7th. This whitewashes the Oct7th surprise attack, comparable to the Pearl Harbor attack on Dec7th 1941.
The Manufactured Identity of “Palestinians” and PLO Opportunism. The identity of “Palestinians”, a modern invention, emerging only in 1964 with the formation of the PLO under Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat. The original PLO Charter made no objection to Jordanian control of the West Bank or Egyptian rule in Gaza, focusing only on dismantling Israel. This opportunistic narrative is framed as a political weapon rather than a legitimate national movement.
The Talmud (Yoma 9b) states:
מקדש שני שהיו עוסקים בתורה ובמצות וגמילות חסדים, מפני מה חרב? מפני שהיתה בו שנאת חנם. Then, the Midrash in Eikha Rabbah and various aggadot go further to compare sinat chinam with the worst transgressions—including idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder—suggesting that internal Jewish hatred is as destructive as idol worship.
G’lut Jews have lost the wisdom to keep and obey the Torah לשמה. Assimilated and intermarried Jews living under foreign alien cultures and customs have abandoned the T’NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim, and Siddur as the foundation which shapes and forms all Torah cultures and customs. As an ערב רב they cling to alien cultures and customs by which they form and shape their identities and values. These foreign cultures and customs which they embrace have become the Gods which they worship.
מידה כנגד מידה a core Torah principle, and that slogans like “From the river to the sea”—when chanted by Jews—do immense damage. Jews who equate the Gaza war with the Shoah genocide equals to the abhorrence to blood libel slanders which produced annual pogroms prior to Easter across Europe. Liberal Jews disgraceful alliance with South African declarations of genocide in Gaza and Apartheid a flat out public chilul Hashem. Such Jews have no portion in the world to Come. These Jews have broken faith with the brit Cohen people, just like as did the Erev Rav which aroused Amalek antisemites throughout the generations. The blood of hundreds of generations of Jews slaughtered cries out and denounces these stinking ערב רב Jews.
When Jews chant “From the River to the Sea,” they are not merely protesting policy—they are aligning themselves with those who dream of Israel’s destruction. This is not political dissent. It is covenantal treason. Like the Erev Rav, they emerge at times of national crisis to confuse the people, distort Torah, and drain morale. Their slogans, shouted from exile and college campuses, do more than harm Israel’s name abroad—they erode our internal unity and desecrate the mission entrusted to Israel at Sinai. These Jews have not merely lost political direction—they have forfeited spiritual clarity. They replace Torah with the gods of globalism, intersectionality, and postmodern guilt. The Torah calls this avodah zarah—not in metaphor, but in law.
The Torah commands the total destruction of Amalek—without mercy, without compromise. This commandment appears in multiple places. Devarim 25:17–19: “You shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget.”
Shemot 17:16: “Hashem will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.”
Shmuel I 15: Shmuel commands Shaul to annihilate Amalek totally, down to every man, woman, child, and animal. When Shaul shows mercy, he is rejected as king.
This as a Torah commandment targets Amalek’s existential war against Hashem and against the Jewish people. Amalek is not simply an enemy—it is a theological and civilizational antithesis to Torah, a force of evil that seeks to destroy the very brit between Hashem and Israel.
The statute law perversion of Hilchot Melachim 5:5 flat out wrong. The 7 laws of bnai noach apply strictly and only to gere toshav temporary residents living within the borders of Judea. Once those Goyim returned to their homelands the 7 laws no longer applied to them. The purpose of keeping those 7 laws: Unlike the refugee Na’Cree stranger who had no judicial rights to fair compensation of damages inflicted. Gere Toshav enjoyed the legal right to sue an Israel for damages and receive fair compensation. Not so the Canaani refugees. An Israel had no legal obligation to compensate them for damages they suffered from an Israel. The purpose of judicial justice – to restore Trust between bnai brit who inflict damages upon one another. The NaCree Canaani refugees never ever trusted during their entire temporary residence within the borders of Judea.
Today we can easily identify Amalek with absolute certainty because assimilation and intermarriage defines avoda zarah and Amalek promotes the worship of avoda zarah. The RambaN’s (Devarim 25) commentary applies today because the Torah defines faith as the pursuit of righteous judicial justice within the borders of the Constitutional 12 Tribe Republic. Sanhedrin 98a: “Moshiach ben David will not come until all judges are restored as of old.” Amalek is not a foreign invader, but a spiritual-political corruption that arises from within, where Torah is abandoned, brit is dissolved, and Jewish trust is betrayed. The king David model dedicates the mitzva of Moshiach upon justice based upon the פרט of the lack of justice served to the baal of Bat Sheva.
The ערב רב who left Egypt – Jews. Amalek attacked these Jews wherein they embraced the ways of Amalek ie assimilation and intermarriage. Amalek by definition: a nation that attacked Israel at its weakest from behind. From behind refers to Jews who have no fear of God.
Sinat chinam and betrayal while similar to precedent cases of mumar, tinok she’nishba, moser, and min, clearly the added blessing within the Shemone Esrei by Shmuel Ha’Katan condemns this ערב רב Amalek internal Jewish abomination no different than the Ben Sorer u’Moreh.
The term “Amalek”, applied to Jews perceived as betraying their people, rather than to alien Goyim people/strangers. This internal betrayal – viewed as particularly egregious because it comes from within the community, undermining the collective identity and mission of the Jewish people. The comparison to figures like Benedict Arnold highlights the seriousness of perceived betrayal during critical moments in Jewish history, such as the fight for independence and survival against external threats. Liberal Reform Jewish movements or individuals, who align themselves with foreign enemies who oppose Israel or Jewish sovereignty, their tuma actions constitute as most base betrayal, meaning Amalek.
Liberal Reform Judaism theology and Jewish political groups or individuals who embrace this Av tuma avoda zarah; who align themselves with anti-Israel sentiments or actions contribute to a form of betrayal which defines the Torah commandment to obliterate Amalek. The seriousness of internal divisions within the Jewish community and the implications of those divisions for Jewish identity and solidarity herein defines the k’vanna of remembering the Torah obligation to utterly obliterate Amalek without showing the slightest regard for mercy.
Hence its the precise mitzvot of killing the rebellious son or the mitzva of utterly obliterating the memory of Amalek betrayal among our people, these key Torah precedents serve to define the k’vanna of רחום revealed to Moshe at Horev 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf.
Another precedent, the destruction of Korach and his children. The Torah commands: The sons does not die for the sins of his father. Yet the sons of Korach all died together with their father! The middah of רחום vetoes the negative Torah commandment. The revelation of Oral Torah tohor middot at Horev prioritizes the k’vanna of tohor middot dedicated to HaShem לשמה. Either when dedicating a korban on the altar or doing halachic mitzvot from the Talmud.
Regardless – doing time oriented tohor Av commandments raises toldot commandments and halachic mitzvot to primary Torah commandments which require prophetic mussar middot dedications לשמה as their k’vanna. Therefore the dedication of tohor middot have a veto power over doing secondary commandments which do not require k’vanna; such as the negative commandment not to put the son to death for the sins of the father. Yet in the case of Korach, the sons – put to death together with their father. Herein defines the k’vanna of רחום; the scape-goat, thrown off a cliff alive on Yom Kippur to serves as a דיוק reverse רחום Torah tohor middah.
LikeLike
Yosef Herman serves as comparable to the Iceberg that sank the Titanic!
Emuna Daily
Emuna Daily·emunadaily.com·2h ago
The Penny
America thrives in the merit of its penny, which declares, “In God We Trust.” ~ R’ Yaakov Yosef Herman zt”l Click to receive Emuna Dailyhttps://linktr.ee/emunadaily
_____________________________________________________________
Author of Mikra’ot Gedolot, Siddur Tehillat Hashem, Midrashic Reflections, Talmudic Insights.
פסוקי דזמרה built on the concept of סמוכים. It opens with ברוך שאמר which contains שם ומלכות. Hence through סמוכים all that follows thereafter till אל חי העולמים qualifies through סמוכים as a blessing\oath rather than a much lower praise like Tehillem. The kre’a shma too stands upon סמוכים as does the blessings of the Shemone Esrei b/c only the opening blessing contains שם ומלכות. His commentary failed to address this key concept and major k’vanna of the Siddur.
“Talmudic Insights” — his work here utterly failed to distinguish T’NaCH/Talmud as a פרדס common law legal system based upon rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of inductive logic which treats the Talmud as a Loom divided into its warp & weft threads; halacha vs. aggada. רמז\סוד affixed to the halachic portions and דרוש/פשט married to the Aggadic prophetic mussar portions. This error, a fundamental error in learning.
His Mikra’ot Gedolot fundamentally flawed; he prioritized Rabbinic Reshonim commentaries over the most essential כלל\פרט sugyot which differentiate the Hebrew T’NaCH from the Xtian bible abominations which introduced chapters and verses! Dog vs God. By uprooting the masoret of sugyot and assimilating to chapter and verse Xtian organization his Mikra’ot Gedolot perverted the entire T’NaCH.
His “Midrashic Reflections” utterly failed to identify the purpose of Midrash as a common law precedent commentary by which to study Aggada within the Talmud. His gross error on this account represents a total disaster in Torah scholarship.
LikeLike
Goyim love to promote their Palestine revisionist history.
johncoyote
johncoyote·john-coyote.com·
Dead ends..
Dead ends A Poem by Coyote Poetry Time for all of us to think and do the right things. Before it is too late for us and nature. Please don’t allow Israel/ USA to erase a people ( Palestine.). Murder of cities and people. The greatest sin. Men can do. Dead ends.. Brothers told no-one […]
Palestine ceased to exist as a UN protectorate territory when Israel won its National Independence by the Nakba defeat of 5 Arab Armies by the IDF, all the while that Jewish European Shoah refugees entered settlements within the borders of the newly declared state of Israel. Arrogant Arabs invaded the newly declared Jewish state of Israel, the day after a 2/3rds UNGA majority recognized Jews equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. Based upon their false revisionist history foretold a Mohammedan prophesy that they would easily throw the Jews into the Sea and complete the Nazi Holocaust.
This pie in the sky song of revisionist history ignores that all Arab countries Universally rejected UN 181. Do you even know what that Resolution addressed? Arab rejected the Balfour Declaration by which the League of Nations carved up the defunct and defeated Ottoman Greater Syrian empire and awarded mandates to France in Syria and Lebanon and to Britain in present day Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait. The latter territories of the League of Nations, known as – “Palestine Mandate”. Palestine not an Arab word, Arabs cannot even pronounce the letter P in their language!
Arabs reject Jewish self-determination in the Middle East, even before Britain and France won WWI. Just that simple. No Arab individual and how much more so a country – ever would embrace the name Palestinian during the entire period of the League of Nations – British Mandate. Only in 1964 did the Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the name Palestine with the establishment of his PLO terrorist organization. If for not other reason, other than the simple fact that David Ben Gurion named the new Jewish state Israel rather than Palestine in 1948. The Palestine Charter of Arafat’s PLO did not condemn the Jordanian rule over Samaria which it rebranded as “West Bank”. Nor did it denounce the Egyptian rule over Gaza! It openly condemned ’48 Israel.
You want to make the Palestinian issue into a religious belief system, that’s your choice. But this revisionist history compares to the Xtian and Muslim basic theologies of Monotheism. Which God do they worship? Such classic pie in the sky fairy tales of some Universal God… what a load of shit. On par with the lies which Goyim parents spew out to their young children about Santa Claus.
In similar vein Arab propaganda promotes the travesty of Israeli settlements in Samaria and Gaza today! America formed its original 13 colonies to the vast land from Sea to Shining Sea, built through settlements…American settlements perhaps the greatest success story in the last 250 years!
LikeLike
In Jewish thought by stark and absolute total contrast, faith in God not some cult of personality personal or spiritual theological belief system; Torah faith deeply intertwined with ethical prophetic mussar, and social justice. The Torah obligations absolutely require the active pursuit of judicial common law justice through the Sanhedrin courtrooms. Principles of justice and fairness in all dealings, especially in legal matters define the Torah concept of faith.
The Torah mandates stong emphasis on the appointment of just judges, expected to act with integrity and impartiality. In Deuteronomy 16:18-20, the commandment to appoint judges and officers in all cities underscores the importance of justice: “You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.” This principle, echoed in the teachings of the sages, who stress that a corrupt judiciary undermines the very foundation of society and the time-oriented brit which forever and eternally creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing. Hezekiah’s actions seen as a common law precedent for Sanhedrin justices to pursue justice and righteousness, ensuring that their governance aligns with the values of the Torah through משנה תורה legislative review of all laws and decrees imposed by Government statute laws.
The presence of bribed judges and corrupt courtrooms leads to the Torah curse of societal decay and a loss of faith among the people; meaning Jews assimilate and embrace the culture and customs of foreign peoples. These aliens reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. When judicial common law justice collapses, it creates a disconnect between the community and HaShem; failure to do and keep tohor time oriented commandments perverts the chosen cohen nation unto just another Av tuma Goyim people. The “converted” non Cohen-people, abandoned or betrayed by leaders equally abandon their faith – the obligation to pursue judicial justice among and between Jews. The prophetic T’NaCH literature often addresses the consequences of injustice, warning that societal ills can lead to divine judgment – Torah curses – like as happened to Par’o in Egypt in the days of Moshe and Aaron. This serves as a reminder that faith most essentially defined, not as Av tumah avoda zara which demand that a Goy believe in this or that theological creed God, but rather Torah faith lives only through pursuit of judicial common law courtroom judgements that promote justice and equity among and between our conflicting peoples.
This mussar tradition, it emphasizes the cultivation of personal virtues, including integrity, honesty, and a commitment to justice among our people. Prophetic mussar encourages the active pursuit of judicial common law justice to resolve our damages disputes between our people in all generations and all times. These T’NaCH/aggadic and midrashic teachings, they most essentually stress that true loyalty to the Torah brit faith involves far more than personal religious piety, like as promoted by the Shulkan Aruch. But, for more essential, to pursue an active participation in creating a just society, where the rights of all individuals Jews honor and respect and uphold by validating the rulings of the Sanhedrin common law lateral courtrooms.
The connection between faith in HaShem and the pursuit of justice, the fundamental theme in Torah thought, which most essentially defines the Torah concept of faith. The example of King Hezekiah, as Moshiach revolves around the rebuke of the prophet Natan to the house of David following the death of the baal of Bat Sheva. The Torah curse of Civil War to plague all generations of the House of David, over his profaning the oath dedication of Moshiach in the matter of the killed husband of Bat Sheva. Loyalty to the Torah Constitution most essentially manifests itself in ethical mussar behavior which remembers the rebuke that the prophet Natan cursed the House of David, specifically in the realm of justice over the criminal death of the baal of Bat Sheva. The integrity of the judicial system, which failed to hold king David to stand trial. Later the Talmud would acquit king David of murder. However, this Talmudic opinion does not change the fact that David, and his son Shlomo failed to establish the authority of the Sanhedrin Federal court system as the definition of building the Temple on Zion.
LikeLike
Protestant “dogmatism” redresses Catholic “dogmatism”. Both tits on a boar hog useless.
C.S. Lewis’s “The Great Divorce” – a narrative that presents a fictional journey from a gray, dreary town (representing Hell through this metaphor) to a vibrant, beautiful heaven, where the characters confront their own choices and the nature of their desires. On par with the Aslan lion metaphor which depicts the Easter resurrection from the dead story.
The “Great Divorce” theme focuses upon pride. Many of the characters in this metaphor cling to their “sins”. A guilt trip that dates back to the apostle Pauls’ “Original Sin” narishkeit. A lot of Goyim reject the NT guilt trip ideology. The entire Xtian theology of Heaven and Hell, pie in the sky religious theological speculations. The Talmud teaches a person who speculates on matters which the Human mind cannot conceive or grasp … better that such persons’ never born.
To make literal declarations like “All in hell want to be there”, simply perverting a children story as depicting actual reality – what complete and utter nonsense! The theological creed Xtian belief systems qualify as examples of the metaphor story of residents of hell who made conscious choices that reflect their fervent beliefs in some pie in the sky Nicene theology of the Trinity.
Torah has no concept of “Free Will” as Calvin solemnly declared. John Calvin’s “dogma” of Free Will emphasizes the sovereignty of some undefined god. His theology promotes the notion that this undefined Universal god has predetermined who will be saved and who will be damned. This perverse dogmatism defines the key component of Reformed Protestant theology.
However, Calvin did acknowledge the concept of human responsibility and moral choice within the framework of his Universal god’s sovereignty. Mighty White of him to grant his Universal god these powers; such as grace – essential for salvation.
Interesting – Moshe’s Torah and the Oral Torah-Talmud defines the middah of grace as the dedication – through swearing a Torah oath – of some unspecified tohor middah, as the k’vanna of the tohor midda of Grace. For example the tohor middah of mercy which learns from the commandment to obliterate every man woman and child of Canaan, or to the commandment to slaughter the youth – stubborn and rebellious son, or the commandment to make eternal war upon the assimilated mix multitude of Jews who lack fear of Elohim, known as Amalek. Commonly known today as antisemitism etc. Clearly Calvin’s Protestant dogmatism, like Catholic dogmatism, upon this foundation stands the theology espoused by C.S. Lewis likewise rejects Oral Torah common law precedents, some of which – listed above, as the means to interpret the k’vanna of both tohor middot of grace and mercy!
LikeLike
Marco Rubio Sanctions ICC Judges After They Target U.S. and Israel in Explosive Rulings
In a sweeping move, Senator Marco Rubio announced sanctions against four International Criminal Court justices.
________________________________________
________________________________________
Marco Rubio’s sanctions on ICC judges—in response to politically driven rulings targeting the U.S. and Israel—represent the first serious American pushback against the expanding overreach of international legal institutions. But these sanctions merely scratch the surface. If Israel were to bomb the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the crime of judicial overreach, it would unleash a shockwave through the foundations of the post-WWII European imperial legal order.
Such an act would shatter the illusion that the Rome Statute and its court represent binding global authority. In truth, the ICC is a political weapon wielded disproportionately against Western democracies and their allies, while shielding rogue regimes. Its authority rests on consensus, not enforcement. The Rome Treaty would be exposed as not worth the paper it’s written on.
Europe forfeited its moral right to judge the Jewish people the moment it orchestrated the Shoah. Any European claim to universal justice—especially when applied selectively against the Jewish state—is hypocrisy cloaked in humanitarianism. The ICC’s rulings against Israel are not about war crimes; they are ritual acts of expiation for Europe’s own genocidal guilt. But that guilt is not Israel’s burden to carry. To bomb the ICC would be to formally reject Europe’s post-Nazi pretensions to legal supremacy and declare: “You have no right to judge us.”
Bombing the ICC would have the same historical effect as the 1956 Suez Crisis: the end of European claims to independent geopolitical authority. Just as France and the UK’s failed bid to reclaim the Suez Canal revealed their imperial impotence, an Israeli destruction of the ICC would reveal the EU’s inability to project legal-moral power beyond its own borders.
What the EU has is not law, but a narrative infrastructure—paper treaties, postmodern guilt, and international NGOs wielding legal language as a substitute for lost religious and imperial confidence.
A targeted Israeli strike on the ICC would not trigger war. It would trigger disbelief, followed by narrative collapse, and finally a global reckoning with Western legal hypocrisy. The EU would be faced with the question: do we escalate to save face—or submit to an Israeli dictate which radically limits the EU authority in the balance of power in the Middle East and in Europe.
If Israel bombed the Court of the Hague for the crime of judicial over-reach. This would set a precedent that the establishment of the ICC through the Rome Treaty – not worth the paper the Rome Treaty written upon. Widespread EU condemnations Big Deal. England and France have already broken off diplomatic relations with Israel.
The Trump Government in Washington most likely would support Israel if Israel bombed the Court of the Hague for judicial over-reach. The Rome Treaty established Court would most likely dissolve. It would most definitely challenge the judicial jurisdiction of a European Court over Israel!
Post Shoah Europe lost its rights to judge Jews. The destruction of the Pie in the Sky Rome Treaty would establish a major political precedent that European imperialism stops at the borders of the EU member states alone.
The assertion that bombing the ICC in The Hague would lead to a collapse of the EU’s prestige is a strong viewpoint that reflects significant concerns about the authority and effectiveness of international institutions.
If a member state or a country with significant geopolitical influence, like Israel, were to attack an international institution such as the ICC, it could be perceived as a direct challenge to the authority of not only the ICC but also the broader framework of international law that the EU supports.
In short: bombing the Court of the Hague would radically change the balance of power in Europe. For the first time since the Muslim invasion of Western Europe a major disruption of European political autonomy would result.
The EU would either put up or shut up: either they would declare War against Israel or not. The Nato alliance, if the US backed Israel would unquestionably collapse. The EU’s credibility as a defender of international law would cease to exist – gone like a puff of smoke. Israel would have called the bluff of the EU, like as if bombing the ICC compares to a hand of stud poker! This could lead to a more fragmented international order, challenging the EU’s role as a global actor.
An attack on the ICC could set a precedent that undermines the enforcement of international law, leading to a situation where states feel empowered to act unilaterally without regard for international institutions.
The incident could complicate diplomatic relations not only between Israel and the EU but also between other countries and international organizations. It could lead to a reevaluation of how states engage with international legal frameworks.
The UN itself would most likely collapse like as did the League of Nations. If nothing else, the historical relationship between Europe and Israel, particularly in the context of the Shoah and post-war UN attempt to compare Israel to the European Nazi crimes against humanity, adds layers of complexity to this European projectionism of its own Nazi guilt and the moral bankruptcy of both Western and Eastern Roman church moral authority over European civilizations.
The implications of such an act would resonate deeply within the historical narrative of European-Jewish relations and radically shift the narrative reversing the role of Jews as dominant and the church as dhimmi slaves – utterly rejected and despised.
The entire European security architecture is underwritten by the United States, both financially and militarily. Without U.S. backing, NATO becomes functionally hollow. France and the UK retain nuclear capability, but their conventional power is insufficient to act independently against a U.S.-aligned state like Israel.
No EU state would risk confrontation with the U.S., their most vital ally, over a non-NATO event like an Israeli action against the ICC. EU states are deeply post-military in culture. Their battlefield is law, narrative, and diplomacy—not armed force.
Even in the face of Russian invasion (Ukraine), EU states have limited direct engagement, preferring economic sanctions, legal resolutions, and humanitarian aid. Against Israel, the EU’s instinct would be: denounce, sanction, isolate—not mobilize or fight.
Much of EU condemnation of Israel is a projection of its own unresolved guilt over colonialism and the Holocaust. This moral outrage stops at the threshold of real cost. That’s why you see relentless UN resolutions, ICC motions, and media warfare—but not realpolitik confrontation. Israel calling their bluff—if the U.S. holds firm—exposes their impotence. If Israel bombed the ICC in the Hague – No War. No boots. No tanks. NO Article 5 Nato involvement. The collapse of Nato as an alliance.
Symbolic institutions (like the ICC) to claim moral authority—but has no spine when force or geopolitical will counters that narrative. If Israel, backed by a U.S. administration, were to shatter a legal myth like the ICC’s authority … No war, but rather most likely the total collapse of EU imperialist Post WWII illusion of legal hegemony on par with England and France failure to capture and seize the Suez canal in the 1956 War. It would clearly reset the terms of European involvement in global legal power.
LikeLike
Two Classic Examples of how Xtianity remains a dead religion on par with the Gods of Mt. Olympus.
Jim Zwinglius Redivivus
Jim·zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com
Remembering Prof. dr. W. van ’t Spijker
Prof. dr. W. van ’t Spijker died on Friday, July 23, 2021. You can read his obituary here. If you aren’t familiar with him, he was a scholar of the Reformation. And a very, very goo…
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Theological Complicity in State Violence
Calvinism and Lutheranism Compared: Prof. Dr. Willem van ‘t Spijker (1926–2021), a leading Dutch Calvinist theologian, made substantial contributions to church history, ecclesiastical law, and the development of Reformed theology. Yet his work conspicuously failed to grapple with one of the most catastrophic consequences of the Protestant Reformation: The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648).
At the heart of Reformed theology lies the doctrine of predestination—the belief that God has foreordained all events, including salvation and damnation. This framework fostered a militant providentialism: war was interpreted as a divine tool, victory as confirmation of righteousness, and suffering as sanctification; terror Islam sanctifies its martyrs this very day. Such logic fueled the religious zealotry of Protestant-Catholic conflicts in early modern Europe and sacralized political violence. Calvinist theologians, including van ‘t Spijker, largely failed to confront the theological and moral implications of their tradition’s role in igniting and escalating such brutal barbaric bloodshed.
This blind spot extended far beyond the Reformation. A similar theological detachment reemerged during the Nazi era, when much of Protestant Europe—especially the Lutheran Church in Germany—collapsed morally in the face of totalitarianism and genocide. The result was catastrophic: 75% of Western European Jewry and 63% of European and Russian Jews were annihilated. Churches failed to resist—and in many cases collaborated with—Nazism, cloaking their cowardice or complicity in theological rationalizations of “obedience” and “providence.”
Van ‘t Spijker’s silence on these historical-theological intersections utterly emblematic of a much broader failure within Reformed scholarship: the inability to reckon with how doctrinal systems, when left unchallenged, enable state violence. Without such critical introspection, the Reformed tradition risks perpetuating a theology disconnected from its own ethical consequences.
Both Calvinist and Lutheran systems share foundational errors that—when unchecked—open the door to theological barbarism. In Calvinist thought, God’s sovereign will is absolute; every event, from salvation to catastrophe, is predetermined. During the Thirty Years’ War, this led to a dangerous fusion of theology and politics: military victory was seen as a sign of divine favor, while political violence became a “righteous” necessity. Calvinist churches, despite their strong synodal structures, proved unable—or unwilling—to restrain theological alliances with princely power. This alignment justified widespread bloodshed, famine, and forced displacement as sacred duty.
Martin Luther’s “Two Kingdoms” doctrine separated the spiritual and political realms, teaching that secular rulers are divinely appointed and must not be resisted. By the 20th century, this was transformed into an ideological bludgeon by the German Christian movement, which fused Lutheranism with Nazism. Clergy upheld obedience even as the state descended into genocide. Though the Barmen Declaration (1934), led by Karl Barth, attempted to resist this theological capitulation, the Confessing Church remained a marginalized minority. The institutional Lutheran Church stood largely silent—or worse, supportive—as the Nazis murdered millions, including the overwhelming majority of European Jewry.
Calvinism, with its emphasis on God’s glory and man’s depravity, lacked a theology of inherent human dignity. Jews, Catholics, and heretics were viewed as reprobates—predestined for damnation, beyond grace, justice, or mercy. This theological posture helped normalize righteous violence against those outside the “elect.”
Lutheran theology was even more explicit. Luther’s own antisemitic writings—On the Jews and Their Lies (1543)—called for synagogue burnings and expulsion. These ideas laid the groundwork for Christian racial antisemitism. The Nazi vision of the Jew drew directly from centuries of Lutheran contempt and theological supersessionism: the idea that Christianity had replaced Israel as God’s chosen; where Jesus as the son of God replace the oath brit sworn to Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov that they would father the chosen Cohen people.
Therefore, in both cases, the churches failed to resist tyranny not only because of fear—but because their theological systems lacked a mechanism to challenge it from within. In the end, the failure of both Reformed traditions was not merely a failure of courage—but a failure of theological architecture. Their systems lacked internal mechanisms—legal, moral, or interpretive—to challenge tyranny from within. When state violence aligned itself with religious rhetoric, these traditions were intellectually disarmed.
Whereas Jewish tradition sustains a culture of legal argumentation, known as משנה תורה/Legislative Review; grounded in the courtroom common law which stands upon prior judical precedent courtroom rulings. European courts lack the power to overrule the State. A critical flaw that NT theology, in all its many forms or formats, has totally failed to address. Neither Christianity nor Islam has the cultural tradition of judicial “prophets”.
Both “daughter religions” define prophesy as – foretelling the future. The Torah views this interpretation as Av tuma witchcraft. According to the Torah prophets command mussar. How does mussar define prophesy? Mussar applies equally across the board to all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Only the chosen Cohen people received and accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev.
Both Christian and Muslim theological creed belief systems emphatically embrace a theology of Monotheism. Alas monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai. Therefore the God of the chosen Cohen people a local tribal God and not a Universal God as Christian and Islamic theology dictates to its believers.
In the end, the failure of both Reformed and Lutheran traditions was not merely a lack of courage, but a failure of theological design. These systems lacked the internal instruments—legal, prophetic, interpretive—needed to resist tyranny when it arose cloaked in religious language.
LikeLike
How Error progresses throughout the course of Human history.Israel Information Center Ithacainternationalscholars·israelinformationcenterithaca.wordpress.comOnce the focus is the connection between The Torah and the real necessity for the endowed title of an existing National Israeli State, Karaites are an unity opportunity .There is no presumptions of against the family circles of the Cohens which evolved into the various, and even those names of Levy, assuming all efforts to reestablish their…
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________Historical Narrative: Timeline of Key Events and FiguresTzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument: Key ConceptsPardes vs Greek logic:Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence. Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.Common Law vs. Statute Law:Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written statutes, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.Statute Law: A legal system based on written laws enacted by a legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review authority.Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH as binding precedent.Theological Critique: Key IssuesAssimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding cultures, potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish identity and practice. Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, reject the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive method—the loom that weaves warp and weft to form Talmudic law.Avoda Zara (Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.
______________________________________________
______________________________________________First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites like the Tzeddukim reject the revelation of the Oral Torah which the After meal blessing remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim of the Lights of Hanukkah ignoble disgrace of that pre-New Testament Civil War; and the Karaites who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither the ancient nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages from about 900 CE which aroused the indignation of:Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE) and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204) heretics – both men highly assimilated to the rediscovery of the recently rediscovered ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient Tzeddukim to originally reject the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; nonetheless both scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical movement and placed the Karaite supporters into a charem excommunication just as did the ancient P’rushim to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods. Commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”. The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts by the Muslim invasion of Spain reopened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights, the Rambam embraced Roman statute law which effectively abandoned the study of Talmudic common law. Cults of personality rabbinic personalities, like for example Yosef Karo, dominated the determination of halacha rather than Sanhedrin courts room common law jurisprudence.The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the model of the 3-Part syllogism. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic, Ordered both the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its Gemara commentary thereon based upon the working model of a LOOM.A loom as warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud seeks to employ Pardes inductive precedent based learning as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, cultural identity as a people. The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism rejected the definition of faith as the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, think korban, the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins making fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people.Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God belief-systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into judicial categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen. T’NaCH & Talmudic common law bases itself upon rabbi Yechuda Sha’s common law upon the Book of D’varim having a second Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, a common law judicial system. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to have Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Prince lead governments.Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of law that later court Judicial ruling stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts judicial rulings – like as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.The later Karaim did not go as far as the ancient Samaritans. The latter rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! Nonetheless, the Karaim rejected the masoret of the NaCH as prophetic mussar precedents which make a Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar. The much later Talmudic common law codification employs a 70 faces to the Torah blue-print diamond facet re-interpretation of employing halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to view the language of the Mishna based upon a different Gemara halachic perspective.Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya views from a wholly different sugya perspective. Much like and similar to a building contractor reads a blue-print which contains a front/top\side view. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclid’s 5th Axiom of plain geometry.Both the assimilated Tzeddukim, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – they all rejected or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic. The warp/weft loom of the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. This conflict even dates back to kings David and Shlomo! The prophet Natan warns David not to copy the ways of the Goyim and build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud carries this 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute over the issue whether king David after conquering Damascus established that city as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom.Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advice given by king Shlomo’s elder advisors, so too young king Sholomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes dead baby before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views downstream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions. Shlomo prioritized duplicating who the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud not into a polis city state but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice which makes fair restitution of damages unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah which perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheistic god. Monotheism, by definition, proffers the 2nd Sinai commandment.
LikeLike
First and foremost Rule #1. Both the T’NaCH and Talmud teach Torah common law. Modern Hebrew employs תקדים\תקדימים as the translation for precedent(s). Other Hebrew that you might have heard, I tend to doubt it, in Yeshiva: הלכה פסוקה . The Torah specifically states the precondition for eyewitness testimony in court cases both דני ממון ודני נפשות.
Another example: אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות. Now compare eyewitness testimony to נצב התורה על ידי ראיות. Now turn to the Siddur and the 13 rules of Rabbi Yishmael. These rules function as a logical corollary to Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס logic. It truly bothers me that your Yeshiva rabbis never refer to the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days after the Sin of the Golden Calf\substitution theology wherein the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים attempted to introduce a translation of the שם השם לשמה (((That’s how the first Sinai commandment qualifies as a Torah commandment in the first place! All other Torah commandments: Do a person of the Chosen Cohen people do mitzvot לשמה או לא לשמה? Hence the 1st Sinai commandment: the Greatest most important commandment in the whole of the Torah.)))
Yeshiva rabbis who fail to teach T’NaCH and Talmud as common law directly compare to the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים. Yeshivot produce “suits”, uniforms, styles in how to wear ones’ socks! Fancy Fur Burgers they wear on their Heads. The Yiddish term קאפוטע the common garb of the ultra-orthodox in Israel. But the Torah does not address these archaic European nonsense foreign imported cultures and customs which Orthodox Judaism has religified.
Your father learned and became a Torah educator. The modern “Wilderness generation” of the 1920s & 30s, cowardly refused to make aliyah to the Palestine mandate. Chaim Weizmann made the statement “Jews of the world – Where are you?” in 1936. Three years later, the criminal coward in 10 Downing Street Chamberlain imposed the 2nd White Paper which barred Palestine as a refuge for Jews seeking to flee from the European barbarians. The “precedent” of the British White Paper of 1939 directly influenced the decision made by President FDR to close all US borders to Jews attempting to flee from the Nazi Shoah!
Chaim Weizmann’s lamentation, “Jews of the world – Where are you?” reflects his deep concern regarding the Jewish diaspora’s response to the opportunities presented by the League of Nations’ Palestine mandate. He expressed frustration over the limited Jewish immigration (aliyah) to Palestine, especially in the context of rising anti-Semitism in Europe during the 1930s.
Hence it appears a direct connection exists between the Wilderness generation in the Torah to the Orthodox Judaism rabbis of Europe in the 1920s and 30s who forbade Jews to participate in Zionism. Zionism defined through the 1917 Balfour Declaration as Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. The League of Nation introduced the Palestine Mandate of 1922 based upon the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration defines the meaning and intent of Zionism to this day.
Jewish self-determination means for our generations living right now: Can we restore the order and organization of the 12 Tribes “Republic”? Democracy – a word that’s all the rage and fashion today – has its origins from Athens ancient Greece! Think about this when you light the lights of Chanukkah. Do you do this mitzva as just a ritual practicing “suit” robot OR do you understand why Jews light the lights of Chanukkah for thousands of years!
The Oral Torah – a logic system. This 4 part logic system – פרדס – stands in stark contrast to Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism. Akiva’s logic based upon inductive logical comparisons of similar cases – Jewish common law. Aristotle’s logic based upon deductive logical reasoning based upon Order. The siddur has the root of סדר. Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot work hand-in-glove with Akiva’s kabbalah of inductive reasoning. בנין אב מכתוב אחד בנין אב משני כתובים.
It disturbs me that your instructors have betrayed their teaching obligations! These basic terms of Common law\משנה תורה totally alien to you. No Yeshiva educator ever differentiated between Judicial common law courtroom laws FROM statute law which Parliaments/Knesset governments imposes as law enforced by the police upon their subject people! You suffer from being “brain-washed”.
Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors of a population. It often involves the dissemination of information, ideas, or rumors that are biased or misleading, with the intent to promote a particular political cause or point of view. Propaganda can take various forms, including media campaigns, speeches, educational materials, and public service announcements. Governments often use propaganda to foster a sense of national identity and unity among citizens. By promoting a specific narrative about the nation’s history, values, and goals, they can create a shared sense of purpose and belonging. This is particularly important in multicultural societies where diverse backgrounds may lead to differing perspectives.
Through public education, governments can shape public opinion on key issues. By controlling the curriculum and the information presented in schools, they can emphasize certain viewpoints while downplaying or omitting others. This can lead to a population that is more aligned with government policies and ideologies. Governments may use propaganda to justify their policies, especially during times of conflict or crisis. By framing their actions in a positive light and portraying opponents negatively, they can gain public support for decisions that might otherwise be controversial or unpopular.
By instilling specific beliefs and values in the education system, governments can cultivate compliance and loyalty among citizens. This can be achieved through the promotion of patriotism, respect for authority, and adherence to societal norms, which can discourage dissent and encourage conformity. Governments may seek to control the flow of information to prevent dissenting views from gaining traction. By promoting a singular narrative in educational settings, they can limit exposure to alternative perspectives, effectively “brainwashing” individuals into accepting the government’s viewpoint as the only valid one.
The effects of propaganda in education can be long-lasting. Individuals who are educated under a specific ideological framework may carry those beliefs into adulthood, influencing future generations. This creates a cycle where propaganda becomes ingrained in the culture, making it more challenging to challenge or change. Propaganda serves as a powerful tool for governments to influence and control the beliefs and behaviors of their citizens through public education. By shaping narratives and controlling information, they can foster compliance, loyalty, and a unified national identity, often at the expense of critical thinking and diverse perspectives.
An example of propaganda education: no rabbi in any Yeshiva you ever learned in throughout your life has differentiated the distinctions between T’NaCH-Talmudic “common law” from Greek-Roman “statute law”; specifically never has any educator in any Yeshiva in Israel denounced the halachic codifications published by Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch as assimilated Roman statute law. No educator ever pointed out the abomination of the Tzeddukim assimilation to Greek statute law wherein they attempted to cause the Jewish people to forget the “Oral” Torah … which we light the lights of Hanukkah to specifically “remember”.
This shabbat past we discussed the “ORDER” of all Gemara sugyot. The methodology of learning a Gemara sugya by way of a 3 part syllogism logic. When Rabbeinu Tam jumps off the dof of Gemara to some other Gemara sugya you must learn its גזרה שווה comparative Case/Din learning obeys the כלל-פרט logic of rabbi Yishmael. To correctly learn any Tosafot commentary which learns by common law precedents requires that you compare the פרט of the brought גזרה שווה with the כלל of the larger Gemara sugya which includes that גזרה שווה פרט. The framers of the Talmud, Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina – together with the Sovaraim 450 to 600 CE, they edited and organized each and every sugya of Gemara into a כלל\פרט logical format.
An utter disgrace that your Yeshiva educators totally ignore the foundation “editors” of the Shas Bavli. How the Shas Yerushalmi serves as the foundational source of halachic precedents to “understand” (meaning to actively compare like from like to develop the skills required to discern and understand the subtle distinctions and differences. T’rumah and chol grains acquired from the exact same fields! Worlds separate the one from the other. On par with kosher slaughter vs. Goyim slaughter of cattle! Another example: Why does the Gemara of Chullen include the minority opinion of rabbi Yechuda who insists that a shochet with fear of heaven cuts the carotid arteries?
Worked in a slaughterhouse, and none of those kashrut rabbis could answer this fundamental basic question. Answer: A butcher of common beef does not compare to a Cohen who slaughters to gather the “living blood” dedicated on the altar for that korban. That opening Mishna of Chullen, like every other opening Mishna of every Mishna in the Sha’s of rabbi Yechuda’s Great Sanhedrin common law compilation (the Tosefta might include judicial common law rulings of Small Sanhedrin courts), this Av Mishna of Chullen prioritizes the middah of יראת שמים – which means Baal Shem Tov/Master of the Good Name “reputation”.
Chullen rules that if an Apecorkus slaughters an animal – even correctly – its meat remains treif. The Rambam טיפש פשט argues that everything depends upon “knowledge”. Yet this explanation collapses when one addresses the Gemara ruling concerning the Apecorkus! Answer: the Apecorkus lacks ‘Fear of Heaven’, therefore his correctly slaughtered beef remains treif.
Before closing till I hear back from you, the Gemara of קידושין absolutely requires Torah precedents. A man does not love that which he does not own. How does a man “acquire” his wife. That woman, neither a slave or a whore both of which acquired through בכסף בשטר ובביאה. The primary pre-conditions established within the language of the Av Mishna of קידושין.
In the 5 Books of the Torah, בראשית introduces not simply the טיפש פשט of the Avot: Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. Rather, this first Book of the Torah revelation introduces Av-mitzvot – tohor time-oriented mitzvot which have the power to בראשית the chosen Cohen people from nothing in all generations and times. Genetics and Race does not make the chosen Cohen people. Tohor time-oriented commandments Creates from nothing the chosen Cohen people! The Book of בראשית introduces Av tohor time-oriented commandments.
According to the B’HaG these Av tohor time-oriented commandments include even Rabbinic commandments elevated to Av tohor time-oriented commandments as מצוות דאורייתא. The Rambam, his “egg-crate” organization of Torah commandments limited to commandments found within the language of the Written Torah. This man had the Chutzpah to call his Av tuma avoda zarah assimilation to Greek and Roman “statute law” halacha, by the Name of the Book of D’varim-משנה תורה.
Orthodox Judaism propaganda fails to differentiate between the common law classic commentaries written on the Talmud by Reshonim: the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh and Baali Tosafot from the Av tuma avoda zara statute law assimilated rabbis the Rambam, the son of the Rosh, and Karo. No Yeshiva ever informed you that the rabbis of Paris placed the Rambam into נידוי in 1232. Or that 10 years later the Poop/Pope and the king of France burned all the Talmud manuscripts in Paris France and thereafter expelled all the Jews of France which permanently destroyed the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship. The failure of Orthodox Judaism in the generation prior to the Shoah which slaughtered 75% of European Jewry in less than 3 years, these rabbis have permanently destroyed their ‘Good Name’ reputations.
LikeLike
קידושין
Vector bearing azimuths in both T’NaCH and Talmud to make inductive logic case/rule comparison between similar judicial cases. Prophets, they serve as the shotrim of the Shoftim of the Sanhedrin Federal courtrooms. These prophetic shotrim serve as the enforcers of Sanhedrin court judicial rulings. Prophets do not exist separate or divorced from serving as shotrim police enforcers of Sanhedrin common law judicial rulings. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.
דתני האיש מקדש. מה שדה מקניא בחליפין אף אשה נמי מקניא
Legal mechanisms of acquisition (kinyan), an abstract idea rather than a physical acquisition. The act of acquisition entails the husband acquiring title to the Name of the future born children which this marital union will ideally produce. Hence the symbolic “exchange” involves not the woman herself but rather the acquisition of the unborn children born into the future or O’lam Ha’bah of this marital union.
The depth of the legal and symbolic meanings behind kinyan-acquistitions in the context of marriage, basically a Man cannot love that which he does not own. The basic standard Torah definition for “Love” as a secondary Torah precedent commandment. It illustrates that marital acquisition – rejects treating the woman as property. But rather about establishing a framework for family, legacy, and spiritual continuity of the oath brit-chosen Cohen seed of the Avot.
Our Gemara now makes a study of T’NaCH kabbalah prophetic mussar sources which shall in their turn require making bearing azimuth precedent comparison similar cases. Its this wisdom of Torah scholarship which ties Talmudic common law with T’NaCH prophetic mussar common law.
Upon this chief cornerstone common law sh’itta of Torah scholarship all generations have “this” obligation from their fathers to learn. A man acquires his wife in the name of producing children and educating those future born children in the faith to righteously pursue judicial justice among our Cohen people.
The first precedent דברים כד:א: “כי יקח איש אשה”, this פרט resides within the sugya כלל of כד:א – ד. This sugya linked to the three earlier sugyot כג:כב-כד וכג:כה. וכג:כו. The subject matter of these three small sugyot vows, respect of a neighbors property and goods as does likewise the next single p’suk sugya. Our p’suk כד:א addresses כי מצא בה ערות דבר וכתב לא ספר כריתת. The דיוק made from this pasuk, just as get defined as a mitzva from the Torah so too קידושין a mitzva from the Torah. The acquisition of קידושין once profaned through a divorce cannot thereafter be acquired again. Just as a korban, once dedicated for a Shoah offering, this korban cannot later be substituted for some other korban dedication, such as an asham dedication. Once a man acquires title to the Nefesh O’lam Ha’bah soul of his wife, even God himself cannot intervene and father a child from this woman! A distinctly unique idea which the Greek God Zeus did when he fathered Hercules from a married woman.
In Greek & New Testament mythology, divine intervention often disrupts human relationships and moral boundaries. Jewish judicial common law emphasizes the sanctity of marriage and the importance of fidelity. The notion that a husband acquires the soul of his wife and that this bond protected by a Torah oath alliance, reflects the seriousness with which Jewish law treats marriage. קידושין emphasizes the importance of fidelity, commitment, and the spiritual dimensions of the marital relationship visa-vis tohor time-oriented commandments which continuously create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין.
This Torah wisdom reinforces the values of respect and responsibility within the context of family and community. The pasuk בראשית כג:יז located within the larger sugya of בראשית כג:א-כ. Sarah did not survive the horrors of the Akedah, where Yitzak swore an oath brit that if HaShem would save the chosen Cohen seed from shoah, that he dedicates the O’lam Ha’bah life of his future born seed to do Torah mitzvot as the defining cultural trait of the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot.
Avraham refers to himself as a גר תושב person of status. Interesting any גר תושב accepts, while living inside the borders of Judea, to keep the 7 mitzvot bnai noach. Why? Observance of commandments, specifically גרי תושב commandments as defined in Masechet Sanhedrin, referred thereafter as the 7 mitzvot bnai Noach, this temporary Torah obligation permits the גר תושב to sue an Israel for damages in a Jewish court of law. By contrast the Nacree/Canaani, as defined in masechet Baba Kama, did not enjoy the judicial legal protections enjoyed by the ger toshav.
Therefore our Av Mishna likewise comes to distinguish and define the rights of women in Torah common law. A ordinary woman does not possess the legal right to acquire a Man, except and unless she qualifies as a significant status, such as being a tribal chief. For example: the prophetess Devorah as a sho’ter The concept of judicial authority existed during the time of Deborah. Both Moshe and Yehoshua established the 6 cities of refuge with their Small Sanhedrin courtrooms.
Deborah served as a judge and prophetess in Israel, leading her people during a time of oppression. The Aggadic story found in the Book of שופטים (פרק ד וה), which depicts her as a leader who inspired Barak to lead the Israelites against the Canaanite army. Prophets forever and always serve as the shot’rim of the sanhedrin common law courtrooms. This fundamental נפקא מינא both the fraudulent counterfeit books NT and Koran failed to discern.
Abraham’s acquisition of the Cave wherein he buried Sarah compares to the mitzva of קידושין, ideally both sets of acquisitions shall permanently maintain this status. The status of a married woman, higher than the status of a virgin unmarried woman. The NT virgin Mary theology perverts this Torah priority all together into a foreign alien Av tuma avoda zarah religion.
The pasuk ירמיה לב:כה contained inside the larger sugya כלל: לב:טז-כה. The comparison of Avraham as a גר תושב to the people of Canaan compares to Israel invaded by the Armies of Babylon. Avraham demanded to pay the full price for Sarah’s burial plot due to his outright distrust of the faithfulness of the nations of Canaan. Israel to in the days of Yirmeyahu failed to rule the oath sworn lands with righteous judicial justice. Its judges accepted bribes and perverted law.
T’NaCH common law requires Torah scholars to shoot a bearing azimuth and find a comparable Case/Din prophetic mussar. This Torah wisdom in essence defines how to study T’NaCH Primary Sources through the skill of learning by means of comparing similar Case/Din rulings. A similar mussar Case/Din ירמיה ח:יג-יז. The דיוק learned from קידושין, divorce and the Torah curse of g’lut. Herein this T’NaCH kabbalah frames the k’vanna of the tohor time oriented Torah commandment of קידושין.
T’NaCH common law requires Torah scholars to shoot a bearing azimuth and find a comparable Case/Din prophetic mussar. This Torah wisdom in essence defines how to study T’NaCH Primary Sources through the skill of learning by means of comparing similar Case/Din rulings. A similar mussar Case/Din ירמיה ח:יג-יז. The דיוק learned from קידושין, divorce and the Torah curse of g’lut. Herein this T’NaCH kabbalah frames the k’vanna נהof the tohor time oriented Torah commandment of קידושין.
תני האשה נקנית וניתני התם האיש קונה. מעיקא תני לישנא דאורייתא ולבסוף תני לישנא דרבנן. ומאי לישנא דרבנן דאמר לה אשה קנויה לעולם מהקדש וניתני הכא דאיש קינה משום דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא וקונה את אצמה
What does the language אשה קנויה לעולם מהקדש? This refers to the oath brit sworn between the pieces wherein HaShem cut a brit with Avram that his future born Cohen seed would number the stars in the heavens for multitude. Torah common law always learns by means of prior precedent rulings. Any attempt to read the Talmud, as if it existed as a common book of pleasurable reading, like fiction – utterly false. The Talmud stands upon the mandate of the Torah as the working Constitution of the Republic. Upon this יסוד both the T’NaCH and Talmud stand. Just as the mitzva of קידושין represents a permanent status so too and how much more so the Torah as the Constitution of the Republic stands as a permanent status. The transformation of קידושין as a rabbinic commandment likewise changed the status of the Torah away from a Constitutional basic law document unto a religious law of ritual observances as codified in the Shulkan Aruch. The one bears no resemblance to the other any more than a bastard child born from adultery, resembles the profaned husband’s relationship with his wife.
LikeLike
קידושין serves as a משל which teaches the נמשל ‘Never Again’. Post the Final Solution no European State shall ever again dictate any other “solution” to the Jewish people. Never again a ‘Final Solution’ and Never again a ‘Two State Solution’.
Vector bearing azimuths in both T’NaCH and Talmud to make inductive logic case/rule comparison between similar judicial cases. Prophets, they serve as the shotrim of the Shoftim of the Sanhedrin Federal courtrooms. These prophetic shotrim serve as the enforcers of Sanhedrin court judicial rulings. Prophets do not exist separate or divorced from serving as shotrim police enforcers of Sanhedrin common judicial rulings. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.
דתני האיש מקדש. מה שדה מקניא בחליפין אף אשה נמי מקניא
Legal mechanisms of acquisition (kinyan), an abstract idea rather than a physical acquisition. The act of acquisition entails the husband acquiring title to the Name of the future born children which this marital union will ideally produce. Hence the symbolic “exchange” involves not the woman herself but rather the acquisition of the unborn children born into the future or O’lam Ha’bah of this marital union.
The depth of the legal and symbolic meanings behind kinyan-acquistitions in the context of marriage, basically a Man cannot love that which he does not own. The basic standard Torah definition for “Love” as a secondary Torah precedent commandment. It illustrates that marital acquisition – rejects treating the woman as property. But rather about establishing a framework for family, legacy, and spiritual continuity of the oath brit-chosen Cohen seed of the Avot.
Our Gemara now makes a study of T’NaCH kabbalah prophetic mussar sources which shall in their turn require making bearing azimuth precedent comparison similar cases. Its this wisdom of Torah scholarship which ties Talmudic common law with T’NaCH prophetic mussar common law.
Upon this chief cornerstone common law sh’itta of Torah scholarship all generations have “this” obligation from their fathers to learn. A man acquires his wife in the name of producing children and educating those future born children in the faith to righteously pursue judicial justice among our Cohen people.
The first precedent דברים כד:א: “כי יקח איש אשה”, this פרט resides within the sugya כלל of כד:א – ד. This sugya linked to the three earlier sugyot כג:כב-כד וכג:כה. וכג:כו. The subject matter of these three small sugyot vows, respect of a neighbors property and goods as does likewise the next single p’suk sugya. Our p’suk כד:א addresses כי מצא בה ערות דבר וכתב לא ספר כריתת. The דיוק made from this pasuk, just as get defined as a mitzva from the Torah so too קידושין a mitzva from the Torah. The acquisition of קידושין once profaned through a divorce cannot thereafter be acquired again. Just as a korban, once dedicated for a Shoah offering, this korban cannot later be substituted for some other korban dedication, such as an asham dedication. Once a man acquires title to the Nefesh O’lam Ha’bah soul of his wife, even God himself cannot intervene and father a child from this woman! A distinctly unique idea which the Greek God Zeus did when he fathered Hercules from a married woman.
In Greek & New Testament mythology, divine intervention often disrupts human relationships and moral boundaries. Jewish judicial common law emphasizes the sanctity of marriage and the importance of fidelity. The notion that a husband acquires the soul of his wife and that this bond protected by a Torah oath alliance, reflects the seriousness with which Jewish law treats marriage. קידושין emphasizes the importance of fidelity, commitment, and the spiritual dimensions of the marital relationship visa-vis tohor time-oriented commandments which continuously create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין.
This Torah wisdom reinforces the values of respect and responsibility within the context of family and community. The pasuk בראשית כג:יז located within the larger sugya of בראשית כג:א-כ. Sarah did not survive the horrors of the Akedah, where Yitzak swore an oath brit that if HaShem would save the chosen Cohen seed from shoah, that he dedicates the O’lam Ha’bah life of his future born seed to do Torah mitzvot as the defining cultural trait of the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot.
Avraham refers to himself as a גר תושב person of status. Interesting any גר תושב accepts, while living inside the borders of Judea, to keep the 7 mitzvot bnai noach. Why? Observance of commandments, specifically גרי תושב commandments as defined in Masechet Sanhedrin, referred thereafter as the 7 mitzvot bnai Noach, this temporary Torah obligation permits the גר תושב to sue an Israel for damages in a Jewish court of law. By contrast the Nacree/Canaani, as defined in masechet Baba Kama, did not enjoy the judicial legal protections enjoyed by the ger toshav.
Therefore our Av Mishna likewise comes to distinguish and define the rights of women in Torah common law. A ordinary woman does not possess the legal right to acquire a Man, except and unless she qualifies as a significant status, such as being a tribal chief. For example: the prophetess Devorah as a sho’ter. The concept of judicial authority existed during the time of Deborah. Both Moshe and Yehoshua established the 6 cities of refuge with their Small Sanhedrin courtrooms.
Deborah served as a judge and prophetess in Israel, leading her people during a time of oppression. The Aggadic story found in the Book of שופטים (פרק ד וה), which depicts her as a leader who inspired Barak to lead the Israelites against the Canaanite army. Prophets forever and always serve as the shot’rim of the sanhedrin common law courtrooms. This fundamental נפקא מינא both the fraudulent counterfeit books NT and Koran failed to discern.
Abraham’s acquisition of the Cave wherein he buried Sarah compares to the mitzva of קידושין, ideally both sets of acquisitions shall permanently maintain this status. The status of a married woman, higher than the status of a virgin unmarried woman. The NT virgin Mary theology perverts this Torah priority all together into a foreign alien Av tuma avoda zarah religion.
The pasuk ירמיה לב:כה contained inside the larger sugya כלל: לב:טז-כה. The comparison of Avraham as a גר תושב to the people of Canaan compares to Israel invaded by the Armies of Babylon. Avraham demanded to pay the full price for Sarah’s burial plot due to his outright distrust of the faithfulness of the nations of Canaan. Israel too, in the days of Yirmeyahu failed to rule the oath sworn lands with righteous judicial justice – no different that the cursed nations of Canaan; its judges accepted bribes and perverted law.
T’NaCH common law requires Torah scholars to shoot a bearing azimuth and find a comparable Case/Din prophetic mussar. This Torah wisdom in essence defines how to study T’NaCH Primary Sources through the skill of learning by means of comparing similar Case/Din rulings. A similar mussar Case/Din ירמיה ח:יג-יז. The דיוק learned from קידושין, divorce – and the Torah curse of g’lut. Herein this T’NaCH kabbalah frames the k’vanna of the tohor time oriented Torah commandment expressed through the דיוק-inference of the Av tohor time-oriented commandment of קידושין.
T’NaCH common law requires Torah scholars to shoot a bearing azimuth and find a comparable Case/Din prophetic mussar. This Torah wisdom in essence defines how to study T’NaCH Primary Sources through the skill of inductive logical learning, by means of comparing similar Case/Din rulings through ‘compare and contrast’ sharpened reasoning skills. A similar mussar Case/Din ירמיה ח:יג-יז. The דיוק learned from קידושין, from divorce, and the Torah curse of g’lut, these 3 Case/Din prophetic mussar add a layer of internal k’vanna to observance of ritual commandments. Herein this T’NaCH kabbalah frames the k’vanna of all tohor time-oriented Torah commandments, not limited only or specifically merely to the mitzva of קידושין.
תני האשה נקנית וניתני התם האיש קונה. מעיקא תני לישנא דאורייתא ולבסוף תני לישנא דרבנן. ומאי לישנא דרבנן דאמר לה אשה קנויה לעולם מהקדש וניתני הכא דאיש קינה משום דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא וקונה את אצמה
What does the language אשה קנויה לעולם מהקדש? This refers to the oath brit sworn between the pieces wherein HaShem cut a brit with Avram that his future born Cohen seed would number the stars in the heavens for multitude. Torah common law always learns by means of prior precedent rulings. Any attempt to read the Talmud, as if it existed as a common book of pleasurable reading, like fiction – utterly false.
The Talmud stands upon the mandate of the Torah as the working Constitution of the Republic. Upon this יסוד both the T’NaCH and Talmud stand as the Central Primary Sources which function as the basis by which the rabbis weave the culture and customs which the Cohen people wear like unto garments by which HaShem gave to Adam and Chava in the Garden. Just as the mitzva of קידושין represents a permanent status, so too and how much more so – the Torah as the Constitution of the Republic stands as a permanent status. However the perverse transformation of קידושין merely as a rabbinic commandment – set off a chain of consequences, like a rock thrown into a pond makes a ripple effect. Understanding קידושין limited only as a ritual rabbinic mitzva, this perversion changed the status of the Torah away from a Constitutional basic law document unto a religious law of ritual observances as codified in the assimilated statute law Shulkan Aruch. Torah common law bears no resemblance to assimilated statute law, any more than a bastard child born from adultery, resembles the profaned husband’s קידושין with his wife.
LikeLike