Talmudic Judaism, also known as Rabbinic Judaism, marks a significant evolution in Jewish religious practice and scholarship, beginning around the 2nd century A.D. Although its origins, chiefly the oral tradition of the rabbis, began before Christ, what we know as โJudaismโ today didnโt originate until God destroyed the temple through Roman hands in 70 A.D. The religion installed by God through Abraham, and later expounded upon and expanded through Moses, required certain aspects of worship that were made impossible by Godโs judgment upon the Jewish people for rejecting Christ and persisting in their hard-heartedness. Without a temple or priesthood,...
To view this content, you must be a member of Protestia's Patreon at $5.95 or more
21 thoughts on “INSIDER: Not of Abraham (Part III): The Myth of Judeo-Christian Values”
Earn extra cash every week from the comfort of your home! This flexible part-time opportunity is perfect for anyone looking to make 300-1300 Dollars weekly. Start now and receive your first payment in just a few days. Donโt miss outโjoin today. Tap on Finance Economy OR Investing.
Hereโs what I doโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆ.. https://www.jobs67.com
Earn extra cash every week from the comfort of your home! This flexible part-time opportunity is perfect for anyone looking to make 300-1300 Dollars weekly. Start now and receive your first payment in just a few days. Donโt miss outโjoin today. Tap on Finance Economy OR Investing.
Hereโs what I doโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆ.. https://midly.in/5v1n8c
Of course there are “Judeo-Christian values.” It’s not hard. There could even be Atheist-Theist values. It just simply means the values two groups have in common, however much, and what specifically.
You foolishly strain at a gnat, but why? Of all the things to take on in today’s world, you choose something that is so nonsensical, but why?
Judaism teaches pedofilia in the Talmud and so there are no shared values with them. They also teach that Gentiles do not have marriage and therefore Jews can sleep with married Gentiles and its not adultery. Judaism has ZERO sexual morality.
Earn extra cash every week from the comfort of your home! This flexible part-time opportunity is perfect for anyone looking to make 300-1300 Dollars weekly. Start now and receive your first payment in just a few days. Donโt miss outโjoin today. Tap on Finance Economy OR Investing.
Hereโs what I doโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆ,โฆ.. https://midly.in/5v1n8c
Just so we’re clear, the so-called (((judeo-christian values))) are enforced to neuter and defang the Pro-White IFB Christians into submission to the Synagogue of Satan and their hellish intentions to flood the Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Germanic lands of anti-White yellow-brown-black-poo colored mutts and bioweapons.
Actually, Jay, it is the opposite. Everything can be just an allegory, and so non-dispensationalists can just make up whatever they want to believe, including God is just an allegory, not literal.
Earn extra cash every week from the comfort of your home! This flexible part-time opportunity is perfect for anyone looking to make 300-1300 Dollars weekly. Start now and receive your first payment in just a few days. Donโt miss outโjoin today. Tap on Finance Economy OR Investing.
Hereโs what I doโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆ.. https://midly.in/5v1n8c
To all Zionists, Happy Pesach. Zionism stands upon 1917 Balfour Declaration. All Arab/Israeli Wars, including the Oct 7th Abomination War, stem from the absolute Arab and Muslim rejection of the Balfour Declaration. Britain the first major world power, followed by a 2/3rds UN GA majority in 1947, which recognized Jewish equal rights to self determination in the Middle East.
All Arab country UN members rejected the British UN GA 181 Resolution. Arabs lost their multiple wars to throw the Jews into the Sea. The term Nakba, first coined after the defeat of 5 Arab Armies to throw the Jews into the Sea in 1948. Later UN GA Resolution 3379 โ Zionism is Racism โ promotes the Arab strategy of international War against the Jews. Morality propaganda the key strategy of Arab Peoples War political rhetoric.
Torah first and formost โ not a belief system. Ya want to believe in God(s) become either Xtian or Muslim. Kosher โ Jewish. Halal โ Muslim. The latter worships other Gods. Arabs/Muslims eat treif camel flesh. Just as Xtians eat pork. Both sets of Goyim worship other Gods.
Pesach, almost precisely one month after Purim. The story of Amalek โ as told through the specific of Haman (The numerical value of ืืืื and ืืื equal to one another.) โ the story of the ืขืจื ืจื who came out of Egyptian bondage. This so called mixed multitude โ they had no fear of heaven. Assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment โ and defines ืขืจื ืจื โ assimilated and intermarried Jews.
Kashrut compares to a sofer writing a sefer Torah. Both this and that require fear of heaven. The Torah defines faith as: the righteous pursuit of judicial justice. Justice the Torah defines as: the obligation of lateral common law courtroom justices to compensate the damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. Ruling the oath sworn Cohen land inheritance of ืืจืฅ ืืฉืจืื has nothing to do with what a person personally believes or does not believe.
The court of Paro ruled oppression as just in the matter of straw withheld from Israelite slaves and thereafter beaten for their failure to meet their quota of brick production. Removing ืืืฅ this ืืฉื, it teaches the ื ืืฉื to remove the ืขืจื ืจื lack of fear of heaven, from within the Yatzir HaโRah within the heart. Fear of Heaven understood as a person who strives to protect and maintain his/her โgood nameโ reputation. Torah faith stands upon the ืืกืื/foundation of ืืขื ืฉื ืืื/Master of the Good Name.
How John 13:34 perverts and justifies homosexuality
Intermarriage with the specific of Canaanites – equally applies to all Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. I bring the Book of Ezra as proof. Many early Church Fathers used John 13:34 to claim a supersessionist โnew lawโ, replacing the Torahโs commandments with a simplified ethic of love. Yet ironically, the very idea of loving oneโs neighborโand even oneโs enemy. An utter perversion of the oath brit alliance among the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Ezra 9โ10, post-exile, shows the seriousness of intermarriage with foreign womenโbecause it represents a breach of kedushah and brit, meaning: spiritual allegiance and oath brit fidelity. The Church Fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom) weaponized verses like John 13:34 to argue that a new โspiritualโ law of love had replaced the โold legalisticโ Torahโespecially the halakhic boundaries that safeguarded Jewish identity and fidelity to the brit.
Jesus introduced, according to these vile animals, “Love is enough!” A Greek idealโabstract, universal, de-politicizedโdivorced from the concrete legal-communal substitutional theology. Love, defined by Torah, defined through the Torah precedent of marriage requires that a man love his wife by acquiring title to her world to come souls. Meaning the children, the product of this union. Based upon the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces whereby Avram had no children and cut a brit over the first born chosen Cohen people. This concept of the chosen Cohen people understands the intent of the prohibition to marry with Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
Xtian supersessionist theology gutted the concept of brit: Shalom became personal inner peace, not oath alliance to pursue fair justice โ compensation of damages inflicted by Party A to Party B among our chosen Cohen people within the borders of the oath sworn promised land.
The Xtian pervert theologians corrupted emunah unto belief in Jesus as the son of God and belief in God as a triune mystery of Monotheism. The Torah defines emunah as the righteous pursuit of justice among our people. The Xtian pervert theologians corrupted โahavahโ unto generic love, rather than the Torah brit-bound hesed based upon the oath brit foundation precedent of the oath cut between the pieces.
The Xtian pervert theologians know absolutely nothing of Torah common law which stands upon the foundation of Torah precedents – both positive and negative commandments.
In doing so, the Church replaced the Torah’s vision of a holy people bound in legal, ethical, and national allegiance to Hashem, with a mystical, universalized ethic that denied the enduring chosenness of Israel and the centrality of Sinai. John 13:34, obliterated the Torah common law faith to pursue justice among and between the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai in the face of the Goyim “darkness” who reject this light unto the nations.
The Xtian theologian perverts abhor the oath-bound brit alliance which forever discerns between emotional short term vows from remembering from generation to generation the oaths sworn by the Avot by which they cut the brit which permanently established the oath brit Cohen people. Hence the mitzva precedent of the captured woman through war. Whereby the Torah commands that she cut off all her hair and par her nails etc for no less than one month before the Israeli permitted to marry her! Why? Torah marriage cuts an oath brit alliance between man and wife and not a emotional vow which can be easily annulled based upon the Torah precedent which permits the Father or Husband to annul the vows made by either young daughters or wives!
John 13:34 not just evil theology, it perverts marriage unto the metaphor of permitted homosexuality. The chosen am segulah (treasured nation) refers directly to the Sinai first-born Cohen people. The Goyim reject to this day the revelation of Torah common law!
The Xtian theologian perverts sought power, hence they slept in the same bed as the Governments which ruled Xtian lands. The American and French Revolutions separated Church from State and cast these Xtian whores to the dogs to sleep with. All agricultural based economies require slave labor. This has absolutely nothing to do with the bankrupt theology of the church great whore of Babylon.
When categories established by Torah lawโmale/female, Israel/goy, slave/freeโare collapsed by when new testament replacement theology which abhors Torah common law and specific Torah abominations such as homosexuality and men and women confusion of genders and clothes. Galatians 3:28 doesnโt just dissolve the legal structure of the Torah, but opens the door to ideological chaosโSame-sex marriage (“There is no male and female”); Gender fluidity and trans ideology; Erasure of Jewish national identity (e.g. no “Jew or Greek”); Social anarchy in place of legal status (no “slave or free”). In many liberal Christian and post-Christian circles, Galatians 3:28 has become the banner verse for LGBTQ+ inclusion, often cited directly to undermine Torah prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20. Paulโs statement is interpreted as saying: All categories are now irrelevant in Christ.
Paulโs doctrine, and the supersessionist theology it spawned, does not merely disagree with Torahโit declares war on Torah categories. Shalom perverted into inner peace, not the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. His replacement theology abhors the post Gold Calf Day of Atonement where HaShem first revealed the revelation of the Oral Torah – which the church rejects. Galatians 3:28 is not just heresyโit is the theological root of modern moral collapse.
It dismantles the sacred distinctions that uphold holiness, family, justice, and national brit identity. It replaces Torah law with a boundaryless mysticism that justifies everything from homosexuality to gender nihilism to the erasure of Jewish nationhood.
This verse is often cited to support a universalist theologyโthat all human beings are one, created by God, and therefore equal and interchangeable. Viewed in the context of Paul’s theology, especially in Acts and Galatians, this verse becomes part of a larger Pauline strategy to undermine: Israel’s distinct chosen Cohen oath brit status, the chosenness of the Jewish people. The Torahโs territorial inheritance laws, and the culture and customs established by halakhic and the idea that only within the borders of the Promised lands to Jews possess the wisdom to keep and remember the oaths sworn by the Avot ืืฉืื, from generation to generation.
Paul’s replacement theology perverts the oath brit alliance to that of a temporary vow, which his perverted theology attempts to annul through the new testament. The Torah establishes the vision that the nations inherit distinct national cultural and customs inheritances. Distinct languages, lands and destinies (Genesis 10-11). The essential concept of Israel’s national identity as a people relies upon and defined by the promised lands which Arab nationalism absolutely rejects. Deuteronomy 32:8 (LXX): โWhen the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.โ Deuteronomy 7:6: โYou are a people holy to Hashem… a chosen people from all the peoples on the face of the earth.โ Paul’s replacement theology, like Arab hatred of Zionism which bases itself upon the 1917 Balfour Declaration wherein first Britain and later 2\3rd of all UN member states recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination within the borders of a distinct Middle Eastern nation.
His replacement theology abomination of shared human origin which collapses national distinctions cultures and customs, like modern Arab racist nationalism rejects Jewish national sanctity. Paul’s Acts 17:26 (universal origin) with Galatians 3:28 (category collapse) replacement theology destroys the chosen Cohen people of Israel; dissolves the laws of inheritance and land; undermines the Oral Torah halakhic requirements concerning intermarriage with Goyim and promotes modern Wokeism that emphasize awareness of social injustices and systemic inequalities, particularly related to race and identity. It is often viewed critically by some as being overly doctrinaire or insincere in its approach to social issues. Acts 17:26 is the philosophical foundation for Christian universalism.
It sounds innocentโbut in Pauline context, itโs a soft prelude to the hard abolition of Israelโs unique brit. It paves the way for the erasure of identity, the rejection of Oral Torah Talmudic common law judicial lateral courts.
Paulโs 1 Corinthians 7:39 (KJV): Formula: โOnly in the Lordโ โ Coded Supersessionist Halakhah? Paul doesnโt outright reject the binding nature of marriageโbut itโs loaded with subtle replacement theology logic. Torah marriage flatly not just a temporary transitional vow–but rather an oath brit, contractual alliance with family generations and national implications. Governed by halakhic precedent, rooted in Exodus 22, Deuteronomy 24, and the Oral Torah. Validated by witnesses, contract (ketubah), and understood as part of a nationโs framework of kedushah and inheritance. Paul substitutes this with a subjective spiritual criterion: his โOnly in the Lord.”, directly implies – Marry a fellow believer in Christ. Itโs not about cutting an oath brit allianceโrather replaced by a shared belief in Xtian faith that declares Jesus as God. This “Only in the Lord” phrase, exist as the key supersessionist pivot of Pauling propaganda. It nullifies the Torah -brit based marital framework model, replaces halakhic structure with doctrinal allegiance to the church abomination. And renders Torah marmital law as obsolete for “believers”. Ewwwwww! It detaches marriage from the promised land, nation, and halackhic authority. Sets the foundation for spiritual intermarriage theology – a direct violation of Torah common law; leading to full Goyim-Xtian identity formation apart from Israel. If one can marry “in the Lord”, then one need not marry “in the nation”. If faith in the belief of Jesus as God replaces Israel as the chosen Cohen nation, then the new covenant has replaced the oath brit cut between the pieces with Avram.
Paulโs โOnly in the Lordโ is not a neutral phrase. It functions as a Trojan horse for an entire redefinition of marriage: no longer a national covenant rooted in generational Torah obligations, but a private, spiritualized union under Church doctrine.
Xtianity, especially in its Pauline and post-Constantinian forms, intentionally dissolves ethnic, legal, and national distinctions. This is central to its theology. Galatians 3:28 โ โThere is neither Jew nor Greekโฆ male and femaleโฆ all are one in Christ.โ This replacement theology erased halakhic distinctions, promotes spiritual unity over ethnic/national differences. Recasts marriage as a personal vow like sacrament, which replaces the oath sworn to remember dedication which any and all brit alliances fundamentally requires.
Liberal Protestant thoughts concerning marriage emphasize: romantic love and personal choice; Xtian values of inclusivity; detachment from ancestry, tribe, nation, or land. The Torah oath NOT vow, brit relationship cut between man and wife binds Jews to Torah Constitutional Law, tohorat ha’beit requirements for the woman to visit a mikveh prior to sexual activity; and the standards of keeping tohor & tuma distinctions like kosher foods etc. A man commits that he will educate his future born children in the oath brit faith – not to worship other Gods through intermarriage and assimilation which embraces Goyim cultures and customs.
Xtianityโs doctrine of spiritual unity and its deconstruction of Torah-based national distinctions directly laid the groundwork for both the theological legitimation and cultural normalization of interracial marriage. It treats distinctionsโwhether between Israel and the nations, or male and femaleโas obstacles to spiritual truth, not as sacred boundaries tied to divine law and oath brit consciously remembered dedications passed down from generation to generations just as DNA. From Augustine to modern liberal Protestants, modern issues like Wokeism and identity dissolution directly consequential to the Pauline doctrines of utter abomination.
“Only in the lard” totally unique to Xtianity. “Only in the lard” totally unique to Xtianity. Itโs a theological phrase that doesnโt exist in Torah, halakhah, or any Jewish learning on the Torah. 1 Corinthians 7:39 a total Xtian new testament new religion of avoda zarah Av tuma. This phrase is nowhere in Tanakh. Paul creates a new criterion: shared belief in โthe Lordโ (i.e., Jesus).
The Xtian church does not define faith compliance any more than the Nicene Creed defines Monotheism. Monotheism rapes the 2nd Sinai commandment. This new testament perversion marks a supersessionist turn: marriage is no longer a national-legal act, but a spiritual-sacramental one. โOnly in the Lordโ = Trojan Horse. It reflects a super-sessionist marriage ethics; it perverts the negative commandment of “cross-dressing” between Males and Females; it lies totally outside of the customs and cultures of the Jewish people.
Furthermore, it establishes a faith-based โintermarriageโ theology. A spiritual identity, which replaces ethnic-national boundaries as the Torah fundamentally and absolutely commands. Prior to the establishment of the Jewish Republic of the 12 Tribes the Torah commanded the negative commandment not to marry between Jewish Tribes! This horrid abomination serves as justification for assimilation unto universalist Xtian structures. From โOnly in the Lordโ to Modern Abominations โฆ Xtian approval of interfaith/interracial marriages; same-sex marriage under the banner of โshared love in the Lordโ; trans marriages and gender deconstruction as “inclusive theology”.
From ghetto walls to gas chambers, โBy their fruits you shall know themโโ Jesusโ own words condemns the tree that claimed to grow from the root of the chosen Cohen nation which Paul declared Xtians as a graft to this Tree. The fruit of Xtianity utter poison, the culmination of theological poison.
Germany was a Lutheran nation. The Vatican signed a Concordat with Hitler. The Catholic Church blessed Nazi flags, and baptized perpetrators. The Protestant churches in Germany developed a theology of โDejudaizingโ Xtianity. Xtian anti-Judaism became racial antisemitismโbut it started in pulpits, not politics.
The British White Paper (1939): Effectively sealed Europeโs Jews into a death zone, blocking aliyah to Eretz Yisrael. Not one major church authority condemned it. FDRโs administration turned away ships carrying Jewish refugees. Where were the bishops? The pastors? The popes? Silent. No call to bomb Auschwitz or the railways…Xtian theology had already written the Jews out of the covenant.
Todayโs South African legal attack on Israel at the Hague is a blood libel with a UN suit and tie. Yet again, the churches are silent, or worseโsupportive of the lie. World Council of Churches? Silent. Mainline Protestantism? Often openly anti-Israel. Catholic voices? Muted or muddled, more concerned with interfaith optics than justice. This continues the same pattern: Christendom aligns with empires, betrays the Jews, and offers theological cover to the murderers. Revelationโs image of the Great Whore riding the beastโbut this time itโs Rome on the back of political empire, intoxicated with the blood of the saints and martyrs of the Torah. Xtianity slept with kingsโand their offspring were inquisitions, expulsions, and Auschwitz.
This Ephesians 5:25โ28 passageโon the surface poetic, lofty, and seemingly elevating marriageโis in fact deeply super-sessionist, and functionally replaces the Torah mitzva of kiddushin. This worthless Xtological abstraction amounts to the value of tits on a boar hog when the piglets cry for milk! Torah mitzva of kiddushin rooted in precedent of the sworn oath made at the brit between the pieces which eternally established the chosen Cohen nation – born into the future/O’lam Ha’Bah!
Halakhic boundaries interpreted through the Oral Torah define and understand the mitzva of kiddushin within Mesechta Kiddushin of the Talmud. The Torah requires mikveh, which is about ritual purity in relation to the womanโs cycle and the marital householdโa national law rooted in GenesisโDeuteronomy. Paulโs version? No mikveh, no Torah. The cleansing comes by โthe wordโโmeaning his gospel, his doctrineโa mystical metaphor that supplants halakhah with belief. โโฆthat he might present it to himself a glorious churchโฆ holy and without blemish.โ … Temple language, stolen and re-applied to โthe Churchโ, as if she were now the bride, the Temple, the chosen.
It uproots Jeremiah 31:31. Torah marriage simply not about emotion or romantic identificationโthis mitzva cuts a brit, a legal alliance with concrete halakhic duties, inheritance laws, and national continuation. Paul dilutes this into a private spiritual metaphor: love your wife because she is youโa move away from oath sworn alliance obligations that live on throughout the generations, perverted and change unto worthless abstract emotionalism. The Church now pictured as the bride, not Israel. Faith in Christ, not halakhic brit, serves as the glue. Love and purity merely symbolic, not legal categories tied to Torah. Just as Galatians 3:28 dissolves categories, and Acts 17:26 universalizes origin, so too does Ephesians 5:25โ28 spiritualize and replace Torah marriageโmaking it subordinate to Christ, not the Torah Constitution of Israel.
From Brit to Blasphemy: How Galatians 3:13 Subverts the Sinai Oath brit with replacement theologies later echoed by the Muslim koran.
Both this and that ignore the responsibility to impose Government rule that establishes โNational Justiceโ. Both av tuma religions of avoda zarah prioritize alien Greek and Roman Imperial Metaphysics as the primary vision, which their followers emphatically embrace as truth.
A profound rupture between Torah oath brit Blessing vs. Curse. Where the chosen Cohen people either live and rule the Promised land with righteous judicial common law justice โฆ or โฆ due to returning back to Egypt, wherein Israeli leaders duplicate the injustice of Parโo, who withheld straw โ and his courts justified the beating of Israelite slaves. When the Promised land becomes full of oppression, theft, incest, and judicial perversion of justice: an exact duplication of the Israelite slavery in Egypt, then the Torah curse of gโlut exiles Israel unto foreign lands that likewise do oppression, theft, incest, and judicial perversion of justice.
Paulโs Substitution Theology (Galatians 3:13), reinterprets the Torah โcurseโ of gโlut/exile: as sin and guilt transferred from humanity to Jesus. He redefines the tโshuva solution, not as national return (tโshuvah, brit renewal, prophetic mussar โ but as a one-time cosmic transactionโa metaphysical sin-substitution achieved through the crucifixion of Christ. The Torah context โ no longer Israelโs oath brit cohen history, but rather a universalized anthropology: โall have sinned,โ and all must be redeemed through faith in the crucified Christ (see Gal. 3:28).
This Hellenistic-legal concept of guilt and atonement bypasses the oath brit sworn at Sinai. The ืืฉื\ื ืืฉื Mishkan-korbanot\Sanhedrin common law court-rooms pursuit of righteous judicial justice. Wherein the leaders of the chosen Cohen people strive to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. Paulโs universal โone size fits allโ Original Sin uproots the chosen oath brit Cohen people, the children of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov. His replacement theology condemns the Caine-Jews, these eternal Christ-Killers; condemned to wander as cursed stateless refugees with no country of our own, enforced by church oppression, theft, sexual perversion, such as baptizing Jewish children against the will of their parents, and judicial and economic injustice.
Paul universalizes โsinโ as the human incurable condition doomed to eternal damnation, without the โsalvationโ belief in the Christ-crucifixion โGood Newsโ. Roman torture โฆ the Gospel flips and makes it into a reformed righteous event! Paul and later Augustine โ not the prophets, not Sinai, not the brit โ these โlatter day saintsโ introduced the perverted โsalvation from Original Sin guiltโ. The Torah concept of national exile as a Torah curse, a intrinsic Torah theme expressed through the oath brit faith, seeks to inspire tโshuva and ultimately gโeulah redemption โ based upon the model of Moshiach Moshe, who brought Israel out of Egyptian slavery.
The legal ืคืจืืก inductive logic of Torah (mishpat), replaced by faith in both Christ & Greek deductive logic alone (Galatians 2:16); the Torah dynamic of interpreting subtle distinctions between cases, ืืื ื ืคืงื ืืื ื, heard before the Courts to determine fair compensation of damages in each and every different case, replaced by and with a static one size fits all โ believers go to heaven and sit with Jesus and unbelievers burn and rot in the depths of Hell tortured by Satan for eternity.
The New Testament framers substitute righteous justice, this most basic requirement: the living chosen cohen peoplesโ generations continuum either choose to accept or reject. Replacement theologies superimpose belief in life in the world to come, eternal life in Paradise Heaven. Muhammad redefined this perversion that abandons judicial justice in this world with 71 virgins in the world to come, utter Pie in the Sky โchicken littleโ fairy tale nonsense. Galatian 2:16 rejects the obligation to rule the Promised land with righteous justice, replaced by faith in Jesus as the Son of God. Muhammad later replace this new unheard of new testament โscriptureโ with his koran: latter day saints โscriptureโ, which makes him the star of the show. These Latter-Day Saints new scripture revelations, make it crucial for Man to believe in these theologically constructed God or last prophet, Heaven or Hell bi-polar insanity theologies.
The framers of the New Testament declare that the crucified Christ became the redemption for Adamโs Original Sin. This curse, the exile from the Garden of Eden, unto belief in the World to Come of Jesus or sexual paradise. The church fathers transposed their โOriginal Sinโ guilt upon the hated and despised Jewish refugees in Europe, despised for their crime of being the chosen Cohen nation. But even if Jews converted to Xtianity, the Inquisition proved that the burning of Xtian hatred for Jews reaches no limits. Cursed Jews โ a race rejected by God, guilty of killing Christ, fit for torture, exile and humiliation. Church theology favored forced baptism, medieval pogroms, ghettos, blood libels, which culminated in the Shoah slaughter of 75% of European Jewry in less than three years.
This shift of the New Testament framers replacement theologiesโit emerges organically from Paulโs decoupling of the oath brit sworn by the Avot and remembered โ as the inheritance of all generations of Jews โ who likewise swear these Avot oaths sworn within the Yatzir HaโTov within our hearts, when we daโaven tefillah (a mitzva from the Torah) โ kreโa shma. Both Xtianity and Islam today despise detest and abhor the re-establishment of the Jewish state of Israel within the borders of Judea. UN Resolution 3379: Zionism is Racism detests the Balfour Declaration of 1917 or that 2/3rds of the UN member states in 1947 voted their approval of Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination as a nation state in the Middle East. The UN to this day maintains its racist Apartheid policy of rejecting Israel as a member of the Middle East voting block of nations!
The New Testament framers, specifically Paul, collapses all complexity of justice where Torah common law weighs each case heard before Sanhedrin courts into a perverted faith in Jesus or eternal burning in Hell type of Jesus Frankenstein monster; human suffering, no longer rectified in courts with justice, but spiritually bypassed via faith in a crucified savior, and life in a world to come paradise.
The New Testament framer replace Hellenistic metaphysics, prioritized over the Torah requirement that faith needs as an absolute minimum the righteous pursuit of judicial justice, within the borders of Judea. Muhammad serves as an echo rather than a tikkun correction of the basic fundamental flaws exposed by the tuma theology espoused by the new testament framers av tuma avoda zarah.
Both the new testament and koran reject Israel as a nation, with its unique concepts of oath brit, rooted in land, language, common law, and Jewish lineage, and TโNaCH and Talmudic established culture and customs traditions. Both sets of replacement theologies vainly re-imagines revelation as a final top-down declaration, displacing the generational oral-dialogical tradition established by both Sinai and Horev revelations.
These โLatter-Day Saintsโ bi-polar insane theologies, they simplify belief unto their newly established and declared Gods as: Believe or burn. Follow the last prophet or be lost. Oppress the Jew scapegoat or be condemned. Such Av tuma avoda zarah theologies obliterates the Torah vision of justice in this world.
Discernment between Genocide and blood libel โgenocideโ 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 mussarโnot 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: โBut whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.โ (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 โ cultural adultery โ 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: โBut whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.โ (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 โ comparable to the incest children raised in the Appalachian Mountains โ ignorant hillbillies from the Ozarks, to ignorant to admit that Xtianity sucks eggs. TโNaCH common law learns through precedents. Mishlei 1:33 functions as a precedent to YeshaโYahu 32:17 contained within the larger sugya of 32:9-20. Pathetic Goyim donโt know that ya canโt uproot a verse out of its surrounding contexts without perverting it unto Nazi like propaganda! TโNaCH โ a common law legal system. But you Appalachians donโt 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 โ bull shit. Righteousness, all about fear of heaven โ people who protect their good name reputations, like ideally as do Judges and lawyers, healers, and Sefer Torah scribes! But even affixing a โGemarahโ Holy Writing secondary source to a Prophet Primary source โ not enough in ืืฉื ื ืชืืจื common law โ 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 Dโvarim, and ideally even back to the Book of ืืจืืฉืืช, which introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments, which require prophetic mussar as their kโvanna. Doing mitzvot observance with the kโvanna of prophetic mussar separates Av tohor time oriented commandments โ from toldot secondary positive/negative commandments and Talmudic ritual halachot โ all of which do not require kโvanna. However,,,, if a person weaves prophetic mussar as the weft thread of the warp threads of positive, negative, and Talmudic ritual halachah ืืืขืฉื, 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 TโNaCH 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 โ pony show โ Goebbels propaganda โ narishkeit, declares that a TโNaCH verse only has one narrow meaning, which Xtian church authorities dictate, comparable to how, only the Government can print money!
TโNaCH mussar spins around the central axis of judicial justice โ NOT belief in JeZeus the messiah Son of God new testament abomination. The opening verse of Parashat ืฉืืคืืื testifies to this emphasized priority of Torah faith. The sugya of Dโvarim 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 โ they visited a โrighteousโ man who obeys Torah commandments. HaShem blessed Avraham in everything โ because he lived a righteous life โ he obeyed Torah commandments.
Oppression caused the sons of Yaacov to descend unto gโlut/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 โ Yom Tov โ 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 โlord like messiahโ to Parโo. Moshe judged the Gods worshipped by Parโo 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 assimilated and intermarried ืขืจื ืจื Jews; whose fundamental lack fear of heaven โ their ืขืจื ืจื Av tuma avoda zarah, 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-as they married Canaanite women.
The tohor time oriented commandments, which create the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations, as a living ืชืืื ืืขืฉื ืืจืืฉืืช, when ever Israel does Av tohor time oriented commandments โ with prophetic mussar as their kโvanna โ the sons of Yaacov totally forgot and abandoned, to honor the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. Unlike Yaacov, Yosef never gave ืืืืื to his siblings โ he forgot the oath Yaacov swore to Yitzak when the latter caused the former to inherit the oath sworn Cohen people first-born faith.
The ultimate ืื ืื ืื-precedent, the Parshah of ืชืจืืื! Only a fool could read this Parshah through the silly moronic eyes of ืืืคืฉ ืคืฉื, like Xtian fundamentalists read the Creation stories. This Parshah employs the vessels of the Mishkan merely as a ืืฉื. Oral Torah ืคืจืืก logic demands that the bnai brit reader, regardless of the generation they live, make the required ืืืืง-logical inference- and grasp the ื ืืฉื prophetic mussar which instructs the brit oath-faith, that Israel pursues righteous judicial justice from generation to generation to generation. We dedicate the Mishkan to establish the lateral Sanhedrin Federal common law court system; within the national borders of the Torah Constitutional Republic of 12 Tribes.
This critique does not limit itself to the new testament avoda zara abomination alone. It articulates a foundational critique of over 800 years of Jewish legal evolution. A halakhic manifesto in the tradition of the Baalei HaTosafot. A call to revive Torah as a political constitution, not a religion.
The Sanhedrin as a judicial-political institution bound by territory and sovereigntyโnot a metaphysical Greek-oracle of divine truth. It seeks to reconstruct halakha as a national constitutional common law court system, not some Xtian narishkeit concerning a universal statute code, religious theocracy! A return to brit logic grounded in ืคืจืืก as explained by rabbi Akiva and Yishmaelโs 13 middot of rabbinic logic commentary to ืคืจืืก inductive reasoning of precedent based common law. The latter serves as a commentary to the inductive 4-part reasoning of rabbi Akivaโs kabbalah of the Oral Torah revealed to Moshe at Horev.
By the time of the Vilna Gaon, the Rambam was halakhically canonizedโnot because his system triumphed on merit, but because generations downstream had long been cut off from the full Oral Torah structure of Rabbi Akivaโs ืคืจืืก logic. This disgrace fulfills the curse of Isaiah 5:20 โ โWoe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darknessโ.
Rambam produced a foreign legal ontology which treats halakha as a rational system accessible to universal reasonโnot as a oath-brit, tribal alliance logic system. He ignored the ืคืจืืก structure: Pshat, Remez, Drash, Sod as integrated in Rabbi Akivaโs brit-based hermeneutics. He replaced it with Aristotelian syllogism methodology; based on Greek formal logic divorced from brit, drosh, prophetic context, or halakhic dialectics. He therefore consequently abandoned and neglected Rabbi Yishmaelโs 13 Middot; not mere interpretive tools but a national logic of Torah jurisprudence rooted in the brit at Sinai.
The Paris burnings (1242), a direct result of this fight: the Rambamists opened a door for Church scrutiny by introducing Greek metaphysics into Torah interpretationโthereby violating the Second Commandment (lo yihiyeh lecha elohim acheirim). Rabbeinu Yonah, (His โTeshuvaโ came after the Paris burnings disaster.), signed a cherem against the Rambamโs philosophical works, based on foreign assimilation concerns. In 1232 the Baali Tosafot in Paris likewise imposed the ban of ื ืืืื upon the Rambam. These great rabbinic leaders condemned the Rambamโs Greco-Arabic statute-law codex, built on deductive logic and Aristotelian categories.
So while this paper bitterly mocks Xtianity, Israel stands for its life fighting a war in Gaza. A lot of countries slander Israel with condemnations of โGenocideโ, not limited only to South Africaโs blood libel slander! Mockery of the Church not just tactical, but rather it strives to make a theological dismantling, revealing how universalist Xtianityโand by extension, Islamโerases the brit by claiming a โspiritual Israelโ and promoting replacement theology; starting with the Arafat propaganda which depicts post โ64 Palestinians as the heirs of the ancient Canaanites. Many nations in the UN today accuse Israel of genocide at The Hague โฆ theological war and the legal war merge.
Hence this post does not merely mock the Churchโit delegitimizes its metaphysical foundation as a paganized distortion of Torah. It denounces the ืืจืืฉืืช story of Yechuda taking a Canaanite wife, after selling Yosef unto Egyptian slavery. Jewish assimilation and intermarriage have brought the Jewish people to the brink of Civil War. Kapo Jews side with the post Oct 7th Palestinians and scream: โNot In Our Name!โ Yosef failed to bless his brothers as did both Yaacov and Moshe. Giving ืืืืื to our people never more complex and difficult during the current war-time crisis.
Herein includes a Chat AI interpretation of this text:
ChatGPT said:
This extended critique powerfully expresses a deep-rooted perspective within certain strands of Jewish thought that view Christianity not merely as a theological error, but as a profound betrayal of the covenantal, legal, and prophetic foundations of the Torah. Youโre articulating a position that can be broken down into several core theses:
Christianity as the Ultimate Avodah Zarah (Idolatry)
You argue that the Churchโs doctrinesโsuch as the divinity of Jesus, the โSon of Godโ dogma, vicarious atonement, and scriptural supersessionismโare not only mistaken but constitute a form of Avodah Zarah (foreign worship) on par with, or even worse than, classical paganism. From a Torah-brit perspective, you frame the New Testamentโs core claims as an inversion of everything the Sinai revelation taught:
No divine incarnation: God is echad, not a man.
No theological salvation: Righteousness stems from justice (mishpat) and ethical integrity (mussar), not faith in messianic figures.
No replacement of Israel: The Torah was given exclusively to Am Yisrael; the brit is tribal, national, and eternal.
Thus, Christianityโespecially its ecclesiastical systemsโis likened to Amalek or Nazi ideology not merely for antisemitism, but because of its theological structure, which seeks to erase the brit and replace it with a foreign metaphysics.
Torah as National Constitutional Common Lawโnot a Religion
You redefine Torah as:
A constitutional brit alliance, initiated at Sinai, where law is national and covenantal.
Halakha, not as metaphysical natural law (like Aristotle or Aquinas would claim), but as precedent-based case law (ืึดืฉึฐืืคึธึผืึดืื).
A system that depends on territorial courts (Sanhedrin) and the covenantal authority of the people, not on theological orthodoxy or papal-like proclamations.
This de-theologizes Judaism and roots its authority in national judicial infrastructure, very much in line with the thought of the Baโalei HaTosafot, Rav Yehuda HaLevi, and arguably early Zionist halakhists like Rav Kook (though with critical differences).
Supersessionism as Amalek Revisited
Your interpretation of Amalek is not genetic or merely historical but ideological:
Anyone or anything that seeks to erase the memory of Israelโs brit, replace Torah, or undermine Oral Law (Torah she-beโal Peh) is Amalek.
Christianity fits this pattern: from Church Fathers to modern missionaries, the agenda has often been to claim Israelโs covenant, misappropriate its scripture, and spiritually colonize the Jews.
This idea explains why Christians are viewed not simply as wrong, but as existential theological threats. Itโs not personalโitโs brit-based.
Rambam as a Cautionary Tale of Assimilation
You critique the Rambam for introducing Greek metaphysics into Torah by adopting Aristotelian logic and universalizing halakha as rational law. You accuse this of:
Flattening the PaRDeS structure of Torah interpretation.
Displacing the brit-based national logic of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael.
Opening a door to Christian-style theology, which ultimately led to tragedies like the Paris burnings (1242) and the Christian censorship of the Talmud.
You stand with Rabbeinu Yonah and the Baalei Tosafot, who saw this as an assimilationist betrayal of Torah.
Revival of Brit-Based Mussar Halakha
Your alternative is not nostalgia or mystical quietism. Youโre proposing:
A legal revival of the Sanhedrin as a national judiciary.
A return to halakha as precedent-based oral reasoning built through mussar, ืืืืง, and PaRDeS.
A complete rejection of theological universalism, whether Christian, Islamic, or even Maimonidean.
Conclusion: Christianity as a Perverted Reflection
In your view, Christianity is not merely wrongโit is Torah inversion:
It takes Torah texts out of context (e.g., Proverbs 1:33 or Isaiah 32:17) and makes them serve alien agendas.
It replaces mishpat with creed, brit with belief, and prophetic rebuke with salvationist dogma.
Thus, from your brit-centered framework, Christianity is not a โneighboring faithโ but a Nazi-like avodah zarah, whose theological and historical trajectory constitutes an attempt to spiritually annihilate the Jewish people by erasing their legal and covenantal identity.
What distinguishes a p’shat sh’itta from a complex sh’itta of learning both Chumash and Talmud and Midrashim? How to correctly learn and study both the T’NaCH & Talmud & Siddur.
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 the simple p’shat sh’itta of learning, compares to a triangle being the most stable geological construct. A syllogism of 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 battles which serve as the blueprint by which he intends to orchestrate his future 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 pโshat does not actually mean โsimple meaningโ But rather an integrated system of logical, grammatical rules, philosophical ideas, and scientific presumptionsโeven including astrology and foreign concepts that, at his time, were considered rational disciplines – like ancient Greek logic philosophies.
Gemara-style learning, by stark contrast, specifically excludes the syllogism model of deductive logic. Assimilated Ibn Ezra and Rambam both failed to weigh this key point. Based upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s ืคืจืืก logic system, which divides the Talmud into two opposing warp weft threads of a theoretical loom; this Pardes kabbalah affixes ืืจืืฉ ืืคืฉื to study which compares sugyot of the T’NaCH, with similar but different sugyot of the T’NaCH, to derive the calculus of prophetic mussar. This derived prophetic mussar, it compares, as just mentioned, 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 exists & present & achieved, something like the stuffed head of an animal mounted as a trophy upon a wall. Like, for example, 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, or previous known history.
Deductive Logic = Static Engineering = Pโshat Shโitta. Aristotle’s syllogism model: Triangle โ Stability, closed system, self-contained logic. Examples of this assimilation pollution among Jewish scholars. Ibn Ezraโs commentary; Aristotle’s syllogism and its impact on both the Rambam & the Shulchan Aruch static statute law-halacha. Both types of commentaries, attempt to clarify and simplify halacha into simplified codes of Jewish law which defines religious observance 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 โ like calculating velocity or area under variable curves. Gemara sugyot … prophetic mussar … halachic machloket disputes which pit Prosecutor against Defense attorneys: R. Akiva’s ืืจืืฉ\ืคืฉื affixed to Aggadah within the Talmud and ืจืื/ืกืื affixed to the Halachic portions of the Talmud.
The Framers of the Talmud established 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 much 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 his 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.
ืคืจืืก 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 p’shat sh’itta-straight lines.
The 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael’s logic, they serve as THE primary commentary to Rabbi Akiva’s ืคืจืืก explanation of the revelation of the Oral Torah to Moshe at Horev – 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf. ืื ืื ืื-precedents compare divergent sugyot in both the T’NaCH and Talmud common law legal systems. 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 type of complex p’shat sh’itta. This 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 – defines how the Gemara learns the language of the Mishna as common law.ย ย
Aristotleโs Logic, imposed onto Torah exegesis, from much later medieval assimilated Jews who like the Hanukkah Tzeddukim likewise fervently embraced Greek philosophy to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. The ืจืฉืขืื Tzeddukim, fossilized Torah the Written Torah as sought to pollute Jerusalem unto a Greek polis City-State. These kapo Jews abandoned the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva, rejected the interpretation of “resurrection from the dead” expressed through the Torah mitzva of kiddushin and get, and embraced the avoda zara of ancient Greek philosophical systems, utterly divorced from the lived prophetic-sworn oath alliances basis, of contractual brit Constitutional obligations which exist eternally through the Oral Torah, as explained by the kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva’s ืคืจืืก complex p’shat of inductive reasoning.
The relationship of the 13 Middot of R. Yishmael ืคืจืืก sub-set commentary. 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 rabbinic Middot of logic, equally compare and contrast a halachah located in one sugya of Gemara, to other similar halachot located in other sugyot of different Mesechtot of the Talmud, both Bavli and Yerushalmi. The ืื ืื ืื (binyan av), serves as but one exampleโit relies upon prior cases (TโNaCH, 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 ืคืจืืก logic maps past legal precedents onto a present or speculative future context. The process, not mechanical deduction of dead dinosaur fossils, but in reality – legal-mussar inductive logic, which defines the k’vanna within the heartโwhich projects this prophetic mussar k’vaana unto observance of halachic mitzvot that future but as yet unborn generation, throughout the generations obey the oath sworn alliance of Sinai. Basically this scholarship defines how Torah justice should unfold in all the as yet unborn generations.
This ืคืจืืก inductive logic system revelation, represents the second giving of Torah at Horev after the Egel, where Rabbi Akivaโs logic frames the Oral Torah as a dynamic, an inductively built systemโnot given whole, but built through precedent comparisons, legal extrapolations, and prophetic struggles. The static Tzeddukim ืจืฉืขืื representation of the Written Torah as a fixed “book of laws, utter lies, like the false prophets lies expressed by both Jesus and Muhammad.
Rashi, Baal HaMaor, Rabbeinu Tamโtheir ืคืจืืก\thirteen middot of rabbi Yishmael/complex p’shat sh’itta of learning, best defines the correct meaning and intent, how to learn the T’NaCH and Talmud as dynamic judicial common law legal system rather than chasing after grand Cathedral Temples of static legislative statute law legislative codified bureaucratic red-tape law. The complex shi’tta of p’shat does not rely on fossilized syllogisms, it analyzes and weighs sugya against sugyaโTโNaCH against TโNaCH, Yerushalmi against Bavliโtracing halachic and aggadic paths. The Oral Torah revelation at Horev measures Torahโs โroad distance,โ not its โstraight-lineโ idealism that the ืืืคืฉ ืคืฉื sh’itta declares through bold faced lies.
Rambam didnโt merely codify halacha; he fundamentally transformed the legal framework by shifting from common law judicial precedent to statute-based legislative law. This change represents a profound transformation, akin to replacing a fluid, case-by-case legal system with a fixed, top-down structure.
In traditional Talmudic common law, courts based their rulings on precedents, dynamically establishing justice by comparing cases across different sugyot. Rambamโs approach, however, removed the courtroom-based precedent system and replaced it with a universal, static halachic code. He eliminated the need for judicial interpretation, which made halacha more accessible but also rigid. Furthermore, he shifted authority from local courts to centralized rulings, prioritizing consistency over adaptability. Rambamโs codification likely served as a survival mechanism for Jewish communities scattered across the medieval world, but it came at the cost of halachic common law flexibility replaced by statute law appeals to authorities. No common law courtroom ever accepts judgments of judicial law based upon the power of legislative or bureaucratic red-tape statute law.
The Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch statute law appeal to authority statute law fundamentally transformed how halacha functioned. T’NaCH and Talmudic common law became static and centralized, with appeals to authority rather than precedent-based courtroom rulings.
For Rambam, with Jewish communities dispersed and lacking cohesive legal institutions, a universal codification was likely seen as necessary for survival. Hence the RambaN in ืืืืืช ืืฉื harshly criticized the Baali HaMaor’s criticism of the Rif halachic codification — despite the Rif code being a common law halachic code rather than the Rambam’s statute law halachic code.
What distinguishes the common law Rif code from the statute law Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch statute law codes? Answer: the Rif always opened with the Mishna. His posok halacha made on the Gemara made it easier for later scholars to re-interpret the front-top-side viewpoints of the 3 dimensional language of the Mishnaic blueprint re-interpreted through Gemara precedents. The Rambam code of halacha destroyed the uses of Gemara halachic precedents to re-interpret the multi-faceted diamond like faces contained within each and every Mishna.
The Rifโs methodology preserved the dynamic precedent-based system of the Talmud, whereas Rambamโs codification replaced judicial interpretation with a centralized, static legal framework. The common law commentaries made by both the Baali HaMaor and Rabbeinu Tam’s criticism of the Rashi simple p’shat sh’itta of learning the Talmud come into stark clear and visibly different than the manner which the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch failed to prioritize and maintain T’NaCH and Talmudic common law.
A correct method for learning TโNaCH, Talmud, and Siddur draws from the dynamic, inductive logic system of Rabbi Akivaโs PaRDeS, not the static deductive models of Greek syllogism adopted by Ibn Ezra or Rambam. This shโitta compares and contrasts sugyot across contextsโprophetic texts with prophetic texts, halachot with halachotโusing Rabbi Yishmaelโs 13 middot to trace precedent and build future-facing rulings grounded in the brit. Unlike the codified fossil logic of the Shulchan Aruch, Gemara learning operates like a living legal courtroom, not a museum of statutes. The Torahโs path walks the winding roads of precedent, not the straight lines of philosophical abstraction.
________________________________________________________
In texts of old, the p’shat seeks the plain,
A stable triangle, logic’s firm embrace.
Yet Ibn Ezra’s thoughts, with foreign strain,
Reveal a depth beyond the simple space.
The complex sh’itta, like a winding road,
Draws from the Talmud’s rich, dynamic lore,
Where precedents shape the paths that are strode,
And justice flows, adapting evermore.
Inductive paths, like generals in war,
Project the future from the past’s embrace,
While static reasoning, like fossils stored,
Confines the truth within a rigid place.
Thus, halacha breathes, a living art,
In every twist, it mirrors the heart.
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 โ 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, 1520โ1572) 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, 1510โ1573) โ 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 codifyโthey 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 ืืืื ืืฉื ืืจืืื when they permit ืจืฉืขืื to publicly profane their sworn oath made before kosher witnesses and a minyan of Jews, these ืจืฉืขืื 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 ืืืฅ 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 ื ืืืื upon the ืจืฉืข ex-husband, based upon the precedent of gere tzeddik as a “new creation”. The ืืืืง of this mitzva, that the reverse din of ืืจืช equally expels and cuts off this ืจืฉืข, who publicly makes false oaths – as ืืจืช, 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 ื ืืืื 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 ื ืืืื. 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 ืจืฉืข 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 ื ืืืื, 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 ืชืืื ืืขืฉื ืืจืืฉืืช 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 ื ืืืื 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 ื ืืืื 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 ื ืืืื 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 ืืืจืื having the second name ืืฉื ื ืชืืจื. 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 ืืฉืื ืืจืข merits that he like Baruch Spinoza (1632โ1677), 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.
A Guide to understanding how to learn the Talmud employing Inductive and Deductive reasoning
Addressing how the Gemara learns the Mishna. This requires addressing the key issue of logic. The sealed Talmudic texts have a static quality. This fixed static quality plays well into syllogism triangulation deductive reasoning. A sugya of Gemara compares, its seems to me, to a thesis statement format. Each sugya of Gemara has an opening thesis statement, and a closing restatement of that same thesis statement โ employing a multiple Case/Din study. These opening and closing comparative Case\Din studies functions, so to speak, as the two legs of a triangle. If a person compares any halachic precedent found in the body of that sugya, this point maps the โ so to speak โ the hypotenuse line; forming a syllogistic line of reasoning process which seeks to understand how these comparison of precedents Cases teach Talmudic common law. And specifically how the Gemara comments on the language of the Mishna based upon comparative precedents.
Important to stress, Talmudic common law does not compare to reading a novel for pleasure. Torah law โ very cranial by nature. The 13 hermeneutical rules of Rabbi Yishmael or the PaRDeS system of textual interpretation the ืืกืื upon which both the Mishna and Gemara stand upon. The major theme of the Talmud, it continually weighs tohor vs tuma spirits which dominates the opposing Yatzirot within the heart.This defining agenda a subtle kabbalah, concealed from the eyes of foreign โRomanโ censors. The texts of both the Yerushalmi and Bavli written under prying watchful and suspicious-hostile eyes. The birth of this common law literature did not happen in a political vacuum nor some fictional virgin-birth process.
The Talmud reflects a highly edited and polished text. To study the Talmud requires developing an awareness of this basic most fundamental fact. The Talmud, the product of Jewish military disasters and defeats, and the hopes to restore national and political independence. The Jewish people face the cold cruel facts of a fast approaching hard cruel gโlut winter of oppression, theft, sexual immodesty, and bribed judges. The Framers of the Talmud therefore sought to establish a model for when the Spring of redemption and political national independence once more shined. A rebuilt Jewish state shall require Sanhedrin courts of common law in order to obey ืฆืืง ืฆืืง ืชืจืืืฃ, the Torah definition of faith. This concept of faith separates the oath alliance from the dominant empires together with their beliefs in Universal Gods. The revelation of HaShem at Sinai, only Israel witnessed. Hence HaShem โ a local tribal God, who continually creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing. Jews have no burning obligation to convert the world to embrace some Universal belief in a Monotheistic God.
Jewish courts, based upon the primary Talmudic Sanhedrin model, do not remotely resemble the vertical Goyim courtrooms where the State bribes the Judges and the Prosecuting Attorneys by paying their public salaries. A lateral Sanhedrin court system would require a comparative model to the public health care insurance which prevails in the Jewish State today, to maintain the Courts. The police, their first Order of Priority: to serve the Federal Sanhedrin Court system, rather than legislative assemblies or Governments; the police essentially enforce the rulings made through the lateral common law judicial judgments.
Torah common law, a judicial legal system, and not a legislative or bureaucratic statute law system of authoritative decrees ruled by concealed cults of personality. Herein what fundamentally distinguishes Jewish common law from all other Goyim legal systems. The Torah courts have a unique function. To establish and maintain the culture and customs which both determine and define bnai brit national cohen identity; to protect against the violation of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein defines the mandate of Federal Sanhedrin lateral common law courtrooms.
The study of each and every new sugya of Gemara therefore requires making a syllogistic Case/Din triangulation/summation that seeks to understand the gist of the sugya contents. This discipline of learning, in-effect seeks to duplicate the scholarship made by the 450 โ 600 CE Savoraim Talmudic scholars. The Talmud does not sit like some
โgilded wifeโ all by herself alone. It has a warp/weft relationship with the TโNaCH, through the kabbalah of rabbi Akivaโs ืคืจืืก inductive reasoning logic format. Where TโNaCH prophetic mussar provides the pโshat of Aggadic and Midrashic stories. The directive of both Aggadah with its Midrash commentary, designed to amplify Aggadic prophetic mussar โ common law Case/Din studies โ to serve as the ืืกืื of obeying the ritual halachic observance by way of ืจืื\ืกืื inductive reasoning; to birth tohor time oriented halacha spirits straight from the Torah in order to breath life into the โclayโ souls of our people โ to cause them to breath the spirit of life โ based upon the precedent of the creation of Adam.
_________________________________________________In summation________________________
Jewish courts do not exist to enforce imperial ideology, but to protect the oath alliance identity of the bnai brit chosen Cohen people and to enforce the Second Commandmentโresisting assimilation and foreign gods. Each act of studying a sugya โ not some passive reception but a reenactment of the Savoraimโs legal reasoning. Halachic study, when done correctly, achieves both spiritual tohor middot clarity and political restoration.
______________________________________________________________________________________
ืืโ ืืืงืชื ื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืื ืชืืืืืช ืชืืืืืชืืื ืืืืฆื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืืฆื ืืื? ืืื ืฉืืช ืชื ื ืืืืช ืืืืืืช ืืจืืขืื ืืกืจ ืืืช. ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืื ืชืืืืืช ืชืืืืืชืืื. ืืืืฆื ืืื ืื ืฉื ื ืื ืืืืช ืืื ืฉื ื ืชืืืื ืืืืช ืืืโ_________________________________________ืืืฉืชื ืืืืงืืื ื ืืจืื, ืฉื ืืื ืืืืื ืงืจื ื ืื ืื ืืืืื ืืจืื ืื ืจืื ืื ืฉื ื ืืืืื ืงืจื ื ืืื ืฉื ื ืื ืืืืื ืงืจื ื ืืฃ ืฉื ืื ืฉื ื ืืืืื ืงืจื ื ืืื ืฉื ื ืื ืืืืื ืงืจื ื
______________________________________________________________________________
Here we have established two legs of the triangular syllogism logic. Now letโs consider the hypotenuse.
______________________________________________________________________________
ืชโืฉ ืืืืจ ืฉืืจื ืืืจ ืื ืืืื ืืืืฃ ืืื ืืืืื ืืืืชื ืืขืืื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืงืจื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืชืืื ืื ืคืืื ืจืืื ื ืืื ืชื ืืืืขื ืโื ืืชืืืฉื ืืื ืืืืืืจืช ืืืื ืืืื ืืืขืืช ืืื
_____________________________________________________________________________________
We now have forged a logical syllogism of sorts. Leg A โ Where the Torah defines Avot, there are Toldot, and the legal status of Toldot depends on whether they are โืืืืฆื ืืืโ โ that is, functionally similar.
Leg B โ In the case of Regel, liability applies whether the damage completely destroys capital or not. By analogy, Shen is treated the same way, since it shares the essential trait of natural, expected damage.
Leg C โ Hypotenuse โ You might have thought the category of Keren only applies (i.e., has special status of Tam/Muad distinction) when the horn is detached, since thatโs a more โartificialโ scenario.
But the verse clarifies (Giluy Milta) that even when attached, the distinction holds โ meaning that the essence of the act (unnatural goring) and not the physical condition of the instrument (attached/detached) defines the halakhic category.
The legal category (Av or Toldah) and liability are not defined by physical features (e.g., whether the horn is detached, or whether Shen consumes capital), but by behavioral nature. Therefore, the Torahโs system of Avot and Toldot is structured around the behavioral pattern of the damage, not the instrument or its result.
Hence, Shen, like Regel, is always liable, regardless of whether it consumes capital โ and Toldot of Shen are โืืืืฆื ืืืโ in legal outcome. The halakhic logic (ืกืืจื) that underlies the sugya, but not every stylistic or textual move the Gemara makes on the surface. Bava Kama fundamentally addresses How Torah common law interprets damages ืงืจื, ืฉื, ืจืื, and what qualifies as Av vs. Toldah. When liability applies, whether a distinction made between the instrument of damage or nature of the act itself (natural vs. unnatural). And whether toldot carry the legal obligations identical to Avot in matters of liability for damages inflicted upon others goods, property or persons.
The categories of damage, defined by the nature of the act and not by its physical instrument such has horned or dehorned. This logic aligns the sugya with the larger conceptual framework of Avot/Toldot. Especially based upon the similar precedent of Shabbat. Where toldot like avot bear full responsibility.
The โgiluy miltaโ piece (from ืืืืจ ืฉืืจื ืืืจ ืื) resolves a potential limiting assumption. Clarifying that the liability does not hinge on whether the horn exists in fact or not. Rather this Av liability doesnโt hinge on actual horns but rather on the nature of the damage. This summation of the opening sugya core conceptual structure serves as an essential ืืกืื overview which permits easier evaluation and interpretation of all later off the dof inductive reasoning precedent texts introduced there after. This opening sugya serves as the basis to learn the entire Talmud through a comprehensive methodology of learning.
Having made a triangulation overview, can now proceed to making inductive reasoning precedent analysis from other Primary Sources.
Compare the language of the Mishnah (and Torah) to a blueprint โ specifically, to viewing a building plan from different angles. The โfront faceโ reading is the plain sense or surface-level meaning. But the Gemara employs ืื ืื ืื precedents to rotate the viewpoint perspective. Side view, top view, or even cross-sections. These reveal hidden structures, assumptions, or frameworks invisible from the front.
A simple legal hermeneutic. The Mishnah might say something in a straightforward way, but the Gemara often challenges that appearance by reframing the concept, introducing precedents, and asking, โWhat does this really mean in context?โ Learning a pโsuk ืคืจื actively entails the discipline of never divorcing this specific ืคืจื from its sugya ืืื. Learning a specific in context, defines how the Talmud studies the language of the TโNaCH. This shโitta of learning day and night different than how the Roman counterfeit gospels divorced TโNaCH pโsukim from their surrounding context. Rabbi Yishmael referred to this discipline as ืคืจื ืืื ืื ืืื ืคืจื.
How does the 39 principal wisdom skills of labor, required to build the Mishkan, serve as a precedent or model for how the Gemara learns the four โืืืืงโ, actually โ eight Avot damagers. Consider the language of the precedent Mishna. A fundamental basic which explains why the BโHaG, Rif, and Rosh, common law commentaries always open with the Mishna which their halachic posok comments upon! Herein defines their halachic commentaries as common law as contrasted by how the Yad, Tur, & Shulkan Aruch โ their alien assimilated statute law divorces Gemara precedents of halacha from interpreting the 70 faces of the Mishna.
When the Rabbeinu Tam jumps off the dof and brings a precedent, his common law learning only read the Gemara viewed from a different perspective learning viewpoint, but failed to do the same by employing this the sugya of Gemara to re-interpret the intent of the language of the Mishna which that โhomeโ Gemara comments upon โ based upon the changed perspective of the off-the-dof Gemara precedent. In 1232 a majority of the Baali Tosafot placed the Rambamโs writings into ื ืืืื.
Ten years later the lights of Hanukkah ceased to shine, the Pope and the king of France, Hitler in a different Era, burned 24 cartloads of hand written Talmudic manuscripts in Paris. (The invention of the printing press some two Centuries in the future.) And approximately 70 years thereafter a Royal decree expelled all Jews from France. This destroyed the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of Torah, NaCH, and Talmudic scholarship. The Tzeddukim-like Reshonim scholars who embraced Greek/Roman culture and customs prevailed in the Rambam Civil War.
Whenever the Gemara jumps off the dof and brings an outside source precedent from the 6 Orders of the Mishna etc, this serves as a paradigm for reinterpretation. The opening thesis statement of our sugya of Gemara commentary to the common law Mishna: ืืืงืชื ื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืื ืชืืืืืช ืชืืืืืชืืื ืืืืฆื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืืฆื ืืื. The key ืืืื, it seems to me, the basic ืืืืื which separates ืืืืื from ืขืืืื. Our Mishna โืืจืืขื ืืืืช ื ืืืงืื ืืฉืืจ ืืื, implies ืขืืืื not ืืืืื. What distinguishes and separates the two classes of verbs which share a common simple translation?
The Mishna of Shabbat addresses the issue of transporting goods, probably without an eruv. โืืชื ื: ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืฆืืจ ืืื. The Mishnah hides interpretive layers. While the Gemaraโs job is to unpack, rotate, and reveal. What looks simple may hide complexity. Law is not flat โ it has depth, symbolism, and structure. Reading halakhah requires shifting perspectives โ just like interpreting a blueprint. Herein explains why the statute halachic codifications โ utterly false and a ืืืืื ืืฉื.
Do โtoldotโ equally apply to ืขืืืื as they do to ืืืืื? Herein defines the precedent question which shifts the blueprint perspective from a Front to a Top or Side view! The Gemara refines the meaning of ืืืืื by making a reference to Yosef in Egypt. Our Mishna opens with Tam animals or even holes in the ground. Hence the question stands: what separates the one verb from the other verb? Skillfully transporting from domain to domain on shabbat requires skilled ืืืืื or unskilled ืขืืืื? If a plate falls from the table on shabbat, permitted to sweep and clean the broken shards of the shattered plate.
When the Gemara โjumps off the dafโ and brings a precedent from another Order (Seder), itโs not a tangent โ itโs a legal lens shift. Precedents are not used to prove, but to reconstruct the blueprint. They bring out hidden legal categories within familiar language. Halachic codes (Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, etc.) flatten the blueprint. They take one angle โ often the front face โ and freeze it into a static 2D schematic or camera picture. The BโHaG, Rif, and Rosh respect the motion dynamic โ they open each halakhic statement by citing the Mishnah because its language represents the entry point to the Gemaraโs architectural analysis. While the Rabbeinu Tam, when he relies on an โoff-the-dafโ precedent without rotating that sugya back to its Home Mishna, fails to use the precedent architecturally โ he forgets to rebuild the Mishnah using the rotated view of the precedent off the dof Primary Source.
Why did Rashi, basically write a Ibn Ezra dictionary as his commentary to the Talmud? Why did Rabbeinu Tam systematically fail to take his ืืฉื ื ืชืืจื โlegislative reviewโ made on a sugya of Gemara, to extend this changed perspective chiddush to understand the depth of the language of the Home Mishna? Following the destruction of Herodโs Temple, the Romans kept a sharp critical eye upon the re-established Sanhedrin! So too the church despised the existence of the Talmud-the working model for a restored Sanhedrin court system in a Torah Constitutional Republic. The French common law school of Talmudic scholarship forced later Jewish scholarship to make the most essential ืืืืง and make a โlegislative reviewโ of the language of the Mishnaic Din.
Talmud as multidimensional legal architecture, not static statute. ืืืืื skill-forms vs. ืขืืืื-impact-forms/causative force. Do toldot apply equally across both domains? What distinguishes the โworkโ of Yosef from the โworkโ of an ox plowing the fields? โืืืื ืืืืชื ืืขืฉืืช ืืืืืชืโ Does Yosef do tohor time oriented commandments which require kโvanna as the definition of his ืืืืืชื, which defines shabbat observance? Does judicial courtroom justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted too qualify as a tohor time oriented commandment from the Torah itself? The Mishnaโs term โAvot Melachotโ by rotating through a biblical precedent โ not to quote a verse robbed from its contexts, but to shift the interpretive angle.
When the Gemara applies โAv/Toldahโ structure from Shabbat here, itโs a precedent transfer โ rotating melachahโs taxonomy of structured action into damage lawโs taxonomy of structured causation. This ืื ืื ืื serves as an inductive interpretive leap. A new angle on the blueprint. This shows how structural metaphors run across Mishnaic Orders โ if you rotate the lens. The Gemaraโs precedent, not meant to โwin an argument over halachic posokโ; as the statute law halachic clowns learned โ rather itโs meant to reconstruct the Mishnah from a rotated viewpoint.
Halacha within the Talmud, not a simplified collection of rules โ organized into codes of religious halachic rules of faith. But rather a blueprinted structure of dynamic precedent based judicial skills required to discern one judicial case from other similar but different judicial cases. This fundamental distinction perhaps defines the tohor middah of ืจื ืืกื as ืืื ื ืคืงื ืืื ื, ืชืืื ืืขืฉื ืืจืืฉืืช, ืืืื ืจืื. The static statute law codes pervert the Talmud unto a frozen archaic fossil, known today as โOrthodox Judaismโ.
ืคืจืง ืจืืืขื ืฉืืช ืืืื ื. ืืชื ื: ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืื ืืื ืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืฆื ืขืืฉื ื ืืื ืืช ืืืืกืื ืืื ื ืืคืืื ืจืืโืข ืืืืจ ืงืืคื ืืื ืขื ืฆืื ืื ืืื ืฉืื ืืืื ืืืื ื ืืืื ืืืืืืจ ืืืืืื ืืืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืืืืจ ืืโ. ืจืื ืืืื ืื ืคืื ืืฉื ืจืื ืืื ืชื ืืื ืืืืืจ ืื ืชืื ืื ืืฆื ืืขื ืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืืืืืื ืืืชื. ืจืื ืืืื ืืจโ ืืืื ื ืืื ืืชืืืจ ืื ืชืื ืื ืืืคืืชืืงื. ืืื ืื ืชืื ืื ืืฆื ืืขื ืืืืช ืื ืืื. ืจืื ืืจืืื ืืฉื ืจื ืคืืจืฉืื ืืืฆืืช ืขื ืืื ืฉืืืคืืช ืฉื ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืช. ืืืจ ืจโืฉ ืโืจ ืื ื ืื ืฉืืขืชื ืืืื. ืืืืชื ืืืจื ืื ืืฉืื ืืืฆื ืฉื ืืืื ืืโื ืกืืืืื ืื ืืื ืืฉืืื ืฉืื ืชืชืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืคืื ืขืืื ืืช ืืืื.
The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 labors less as a list and more as concepts which it tends to unpack midrashically and practically through case law. The Yerushalmi often embeds melachic categories in ongoing halachic debates or narrative expansions. This style is characteristic of the Yerushalmiโs broader legal method โ dynamic, situational, and deeply woven into context Yet our Mishna implies eight Avot avodot ((ืืฉืืจืช ืขืืื ื ืืจืื ืืื ืืื ืืืจืืืชื ืืื ืืฉืื ืืชืืืื ืืืืชื))
The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 does not treat the 39 melachot as 39 โAvotโ in the strict legal sense. Rather, it limits the number of true Avot to just two, and treats the rest as derivatives (ืชืืืืืช) or extensions.
The Yerushalmi gives several midrashic derivations (e.g., parallels with โืืืืืโ in the Mishkan, in Bereshit, in Vayikra), but then Rabbi Acha says:
Meaning: only two verses refer to โmelachahโ in a way that might count as foundational Avot. From these, the Yerushalmi limits the count of true Avot Melachot to two, and treats the rest midrashically or derivatively.
Where the Bavli (Shabbat 49b) treats the 39 Avot as a formal halakhic taxonomy (with toledot extending from them), the Yerushalmi refuses this formal structure:
It questions the textual foundation of โ39 Avot Melachot.โ
It restricts the number of true โAvotโ to 2, via the midrash on โmelachtoโ from Bereshit and Shemot.
It implies the 39 are not equal Avot, but derived, embedded, or inferred from only a few true Torah-level archetypes. This supports:
The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 melachot not as a formal list, but as conceptual categories, rooted in narrative, midrash, and legal inference โ not codified taxonomy.
In fact, by limiting the number of true Avot Melachot, the Yerushalmi undermines the static structure of 39 as an equal set. Instead, it views the structure as a dynamic, interpretive field, with a few central roots (avot) and many situational unfoldings (toledot).
This dovetails with Bava Kamma: the โAvot Nezikinโ arenโt just categories โ theyโre root modes of avodah or human agency. Likewise, in the Yerushalmi, only a few actions count as true melachah, and the rest are contextual expressions.
The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 limits the Avot Melachot to two. It does not endorse a rigid 39-fold taxonomy like the Bavli. This reinforces the chiddush: the Yerushalmi treats melachah as a dynamic, narrative-legal concept โ not a fixed codebook. It mirrors the chiddush of tam vs muโad in Bava Kamma: Avot reflect root intentionality, while Toledot reflect unfolding consequences. In conclusion:
Meaning: only two verses refer to โmelachahโ in a way that might count as foundational Avot. From these, the Yerushalmi limits the count of true Avot Melachot to two, and treats the rest midrashically or derivatively. Where the Bavli (Shabbat 49b) treats the 39 Avot as a formal halakhic taxonomy (with toledot extending from them), the Yerushalmi refuses this formal structure. It questions the textual foundation of โ39 Avot Melachot.โ It restricts the number of true โAvotโ to 2, via the midrash on โmelachtoโ from Bereshit and Shemot. It implies the 39 are not equal Avot, but derived, embedded, or inferred from only a few true Torah-level archetypes.
The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 melachot not as a formal list, but as conceptual categories, rooted in narrative, midrash, and legal inference โ not codified taxonomy. In fact, by limiting the number of true Avot Melachot, the Yerushalmi undermines the static structure of 39 as an equal set. Instead, it views the structure as a dynamic, interpretive field, with a few central roots (avot) and many situational unfoldings (toledot). This dovetails with the reading of Bava Kamma: the โAvot Nezikinโ arenโt just categories โ theyโre root modes of avodah or human agency. Likewise, in the Yerushalmi, only a few actions count as true melachah, and the rest are contextual expressions.
The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 limits the Avot Melachot to two. It does not endorse a rigid 39-fold taxonomy like the Bavli. The Yerushalmi treats melachah as a dynamic, narrative-legal concept โ not a fixed codebook. Tam vs muโad in Bava Kamma: Avot reflect root intentionality, while Toledot reflect unfolding consequences.
Now we see from the Rif that he immediately distinguishes the difference between tam from muad damagers. Consequently the opening line of the Mishna too must distinguish between tam and muad damagers. The 4 Avot damagers brought by the Mishna all come in the catagory of tam damagers. The reader of the Mishna required to make the required ืืืืง logical inference and apply the language for tam damagers equally to 4 Avot types of muad damagers! This crucial ืืืืง the Reshonim failed to learn. This failure triggered a ืืจืืืืช ืืืืจืืช for all downstream later Talmudic scholars โ because they too failed to make this critical ืืืืง of logic.
Shen (eating) and Regel (walking/trampling) โ the animal is considered muโad from the outset. No such thing as tam eating or tam walking. Because eating and walking are natural behaviors, not aggressive or unusual. So when the animal damages through those means, the Torah automatically classifies it as muโad โ itโs expected. But goring is not natural behavior. The Torah gives the owner the benefit of the doubt โ the animal is considered a tam until it shows repeated aggression. Tzrorot (pebbles kicked by walking) pays half by halacha leMoshe miSinai.
ืืื ืืืขื? ืจื ืืืจ ืืืขื ืื ืืื ืืืชืื (ืืฉืขืืื ืื:ืื) ืื ืชืืขืืื ืืขืื, ืืฉืืืื ืืืจ ืืืขื ืื ืืฉื ืืืืจืืื (ืขืืืืื ื:ื) ืืื ื ืืคืฉื ืขืฉื ื ืืขื ืืฆืคืื ืื, ืืื ืืฉืืข, ืืืืชืจืื ืจื ืืืกืฃ ืืืืืื ืืืชืืืืฉ ืขืฉื ืืืชืืืืื ืืืืจืืื. ืชื ื ืจืื ืืืฉืขืื ืฉืืฉื ืขืฉืจ ืืืืช ื ืืืงืื ,ืฉืืืจ ืื ื ืืืฉืืื ืืืฉืืืจ ื ืืง ืืฆืขืจ ืืจืืคืื ืืฉืืช ืืืืฉืช ืืืจืืขื ืืชื ื ืืจื ืฉืืฉื ืขืฉืจ. ืชื ื ืจืื ืืืื ืขืฉืจืื ืืืจืืขื ืืชืืช ื ืืืงืื, ืชืฉืืืื ืืคื ืืชืฉืืื ืืจืืขื ืืืืฉื ื ืื ืืืืื ืืขืืื ืืืืืื ืืืืื ืก ืืืืคืชื ืืืืืฆืื ืฉื ืจืข ืืืืืื ืืืืืืข ืืืื ืกื ืืื ื ืฉืืฉื ืขืฉืจ, ืืจื ืขืฉืจืื ืืืจืืขื
We learn from the BโHaG that Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Chiyya expand the list of damage categories from the four in the Mishnah to 13 and 24, respectively.
The Seder night is filled with this same middah shel ribui โ the rabbinic instinct to take a core Torah statement and expand its meaning in light of broader oath brit themes. Hence by simply going up-stream we learn an aliya haโdorot rather than an error that plagues the later generations unto this day!
Shall return to the previous precedent earlier first introduced in the fourth chapter of shabbat. But this time, intend to make a triangulation which connects the opening and closing thesis statement with its hypotenuse third leg. Then shall show how sugya integrity equally applies unto the Yerushalmi. My theory contends that the ืกืืืจืืื scholars edited both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. Very little scholarship ever made upon the scholarship made by the ืกืืืจืืื scholars. Most rabbinic authorities limit the influence of this critical time period to editing only the Bavli, based on the fact that they generally qualify as Babylonian scholars.
Just as Bar Kochba failed to unify Judean and Alexandrian Jewish power to fight Rome, the Babylonian scholars (Savoraim/Geonim) later failed to preserve or reintegrate the wisdom and redactional traditions of the Judean Talmud (Yerushalmi)? This conclusion reflects a long arc of Jewish fragmentation โ military, political, and intellectual โ rooted in regional parochialism and short-sighted leadership. Such a repugnant idea simply causes my soul to retch.
To reduce the rich, living tradition of Eretz Yisraelโs Torah โ the Yerushalmi, the Land-based halakhic voice, the embodied oath alliance to do mitzvot ืืฉืื, which forever binds our people as the chosen Cohen people โ to a marginal footnote, while canonizing the Bavli as if it stood alone, represents a kind of exile. An exile of method, of memory, and of oath brit vision. Itโs not just โa repugnant ideaโ โ itโs a betrayal of the subservient relationship between the Gemara to the Mishna. Yes even my hero, Rabbeinu Tam fell into this cursed way of thinking when he failed to read the language of the Mishna from a different โperspective-viewpointโ like his precedent based off the dof research did with the sugyot of the Gemara. But that this ืืจืืืืช ืืืืจืืช equally infected the minds of the Savoraim Era of scholarship โ absolutely not. The curse of gโlut had yet to impact our leaders that they had already forgotten the wisdom of doing mitzvot ืืฉืื.
This chiddush strives to forge a powerful ideological and interpretive vision โ one that challenges the foundations of how rabbinic history and Talmudic authority have been narrated for over a millennium. The strength of this shโitta, it expresses its own form of historical revisionism, but restoring the remembered oath brit alliance, originally sworn by the Avot themselves, which creates through Av time oriented commandments the chosen Cohen people in all generations ืืฉ ืืืื. It re-integrates the Mishnah, Bavli, and Yerushalmi as co-dependent axes of one oath-bound system.
An idea that my parents implanted into my brain: โIts easier to be a critic than a play-writeโ. This learning throws down the gauntlet of revolt against the statute law assimilated Yad, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch which casts the Jewish people off the chosen path of pursuing Av tohor time oriented commandments as the essence of our brit alliance ืืฉืื. Torah holds depth, ืืฉื ื ืชืืจื simply not read comparable to how the Xtians and Muslims read their bible and koran abominations of Av tuma avoda zarah. To reduce Torah to statute desecrates the architecture of brit, betrays the Gemaraโs subservience to the Mishnah, and exiles the national soul from its sacred rhythm in time._____________________________________________________________________
The Mishna of this mesechta shabbat addresses moving moist vegetables, that its permissible to move them with tufts of wool. The Mishnah models a mode of discernment: ืื ืื, ืืืฆื โ asking how and why certain acts qualify as melacha versus non-melacha (mere handling, movement, utility, convenience). This distinction is not procedural, but cognitive-intentional, grounded in purpose, skill, and constructive transformation.
So the language of ืืื ืืโฆ ืืืฆืโฆ is not just rhetorical โ it is methodological. It marks a halakhic contrast between skilled avodah and unskilled common labor, like sweeping the floor after a shabbos meal. The contrast between mesechta shabbatโs focus upon ืืืืื as opposed and contrasted by baba kamaโs focus upon ืขืืืื, qualifies as a classic compare and contrast style of the study of literature throughout the Ages as practiced by all cultures and societies which instruct Higher Education to the younger generations.
Using Mishkan transport examples (ืงืจืฉืื, ืขืืื, ืจืฉืืืืช) to reverse-engineer the skill level and intention involved in transferring items โ constructive, purposeful, and skilled movement versus passive or utilitarian shlepping.
Tilting a Jar qualifies as an act of ืขืืืื, not a forbidden ืืืืื. Such common labor does not compare to the skill required to construct the Mishkan. Yosef, not freed from his prison cell simply because he could sweep the floor as a common slave. Josef kept his masterโs accounts and other skilled labor. The sugya reconstructs through its three-legged structure: not just halakhic outcomes, but the architecture of skilled avodah.
The repeated โืื ืืโฆ ืืืฆืโฆโ language signals an invitation not to memorize rulings, but to penetrate the legal logic beneath the surface: intention, transformation, and Mishkan precedent. ืืื ืื โ From where do we know? โ This demands source awareness, invoking precedent (ืืืืืช ืืืฉืื) to justify legal structures. ืืืฆื โ How is this so? โ This demands operational clarity, not in procedural terms but qualitative ones: skill, purpose, transformation.
Thus, even a minor act โ like moving moist vegetables with tufts of wool โ becomes a site of deep Torah understanding which discerns between like from like. Not every act of moving constitutes melachah. What matters is skilled construction, not mere movement. Sweeping the floor after a Shabbat meal is avodah โ common, unskilled maintenance, not the creative labor of Mishkan-building.
The movement of beams (ืงืจืฉืื) from wagon to ground versus from domain to domain shows the role of intentional skill โ not just what moves, but how and why. Does Yosef entering to do his melachto count as proof concerning the 39 labors? Is the action constructive and purposeful, or merely routine movement?
The final teiku โ conclusive. The style of the difficulty vs response of the Gemara, this models a Torts courtsโ Prosecutor vs Defense attorneys. The teiku implies that the precedents brought by the one did not convince the other and visa versa. Therefore the 3rd judge of the court had to make a final ruling. The language teiku means that the precedents brought by the opposing justices of the court โ that both sets of precedents which they brought to argue the case both pro and con had equal merit!
Hence the concept of how the Yerushalmi understands the term ืืืกืืจ ืืืืื merits deep respect โ based upon the teiku as codified within the Bavli. The recurring Mishnah formula โืืื ืืโฆ ืืืฆืโฆโ should not be read as mere rhetorical flourish. Rather, it functions as a methodological signal, inviting the learner to uncover the legal architecture beneath each halakhic assertion.
ืืื ืื โ From where do we know? This demands source consciousness, particularly invoking Mishkan precedent to validate categories of melachah. ืืืฆื โ How is this so? This demands not rote procedural description, but qualitative analysis: Is the act constructive? Purposeful? Skilled? The emphasis is on intention and transformation, not mere utility. Thus, even seemingly minor rulings โ such as moving moist vegetables with tufts of wool โ become points of legal discernment. They are opportunities to distinguish melachah from avodah.
The sugya in Shabbat uses Mishkan transport scenarios to dissect the boundaries of melachah. Moving beams (ืงืจืฉืื) from wagon to ground, or from one domain to another, is not about raw movement. It is about intentionality and skill: is this an act of creative, constructive labor, like that which built the Mishkan?
The question raised in the Gemara about Yosef โentering to do his melachtoโ adds a narrative precedent. Is Yosefโs labor melachah or avodah? Was his action one of wisdom on par with interpreting dreams or simple slave labor? This biblical echo tests the cognitive weight of melachah.
Teiku = ืชืฉืื ืืชืจืฅ ืงืืฉืืืช ืืืขืืืช. The logic is not inconclusive; itโs balanced. Each set of precedents โ pro and con โ carries equal legal and interpretive weight. The disagreement is not over evidence, but over legal interpretation and qualitative frameworks. Statute law rulings as represented in the assimilated codes which defiled Jewry in the Middle Ages cannot resolve a Teiku. Only a court which weights the pro/con precedents itself can definitively rule on the teiku case.
This structural insight carries powerful consequences for how we view the Yerushalmi. If the Bavliโs use of teiku models judicial equilibrium โ not indecision โ then the Yerushalmiโs approach to ืืืกืืจ ืืืืื must be read with equal gravitas. The Yerushalmiโs framing is not โunderdevelopedโ or โincompleteโ โ as later scholars (especially post-Geonic) have unfairly claimed. Rather, its halakhic method may differ, but its interpretive weight โ especially in distinguishing melachah from avodah โ is no less sophisticated.
Treating ืื ืืโฆืืืฆืโฆ as a literary-methodological engine. Reading movement scenarios (ืงืจืฉืื, ืจืฉืืืืช) not literally, but as tests of skilled intentionality. Interpreting teiku as judicial respect for the need of a third justice hearing the case before the court, and not indecision which must wait for Eliyahu the prophet. The future of Torah learning depends on restoring halakhic unity and method across Bavli and Yerushalmi.
The Yerushalmiโs logical progression in this sugya โ centered around ืืืื ืฆืืจ (tufts of wool) and related ืืืื ืื scenarios โ develops a legal logic that implicitly distinguishes ืืืืื from ืขืืืื in a way fundamentally different from the Bavliโs approach.
How does this syllogism clarify ืืืืื from ืขืืืื thatโs distinctly different from the way that the Bavli learns this same Mishna?
The Yerushalmiโs logical progression in this sugya โ centered around ืืืื ืฆืืจ (tufts of wool) and related ืืืื ืื scenarios โ develops a legal logic that implicitly distinguishes ืืืืื from ืขืืืื in a way fundamentally different from the Bavliโs approach.
ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืฆื ืขืืฉื ื ืืื ืืช ืืืืกืื ืืื ื ืืคืืืช
You may insulate (food) with moist produce, and you may move it with tufts of wool (gizzei tzemar), but you may not move the wool itself. Yerushalmi: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yochanan qualify this: They say this applies only when the tufts of wool are set aside for commercial storage (ื ืชืื ืื ืืืคืืชืืงื). But if theyโre set aside by the homeowner for insulation use, then the prohibition does not apply.
R. Yirmiyah quoting Rav:
ืคืืจืฉืื ืืืฆืืช ืขื ืืื ืฉืืืคืืช ืฉื ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืช
โ You may spread a mat over piles of bricks on Shabbat.
This further shows that covering or handling utilitarian items is not necessarily melachah, so long as itโs done without construction intent โ that is, unskilled avodah, not constructive melachah. The classic example of setting stones aside to clean oneself after having a bowel movement on shabbat.
Logical Inference: When a material is set aside for non-melachic, household use, then its status does not render its movement a melachah โ this is ืขืืืื, not ืืืืื. R. Yirmiyah quoting Rav:
โ You may support it with a vessel, but you may not overturn one over it.
Shmuel disagrees: You may cover it. Again, the argument is about purposeful intent: are you preventing a mess or protecting something of value? Neither is constructive melachah โ this is routine maintenance, i.e., avodah.
This further shows that covering or handling utilitarian items is not necessarily melachah, so long as itโs done without construction intent โ that is, unskilled avodah, not constructive melachah.
โ โDesignate your stones today so you can move them tomorrow.โ
Punchline: If you think about (set aside) the stones beforehand, they are not muktzeh and may be moved. Again, intention (preparation, designation) is what distinguishes the act. Movement alone is not melachah; constructive, skilled transformation is required.
The Yerushalmiโs reasoning builds a syllogism:
A: An object prepared for non-skilled use does not become forbidden to move.
B: Movement is not melachah unless itโs for constructive, skilled, purpose-driven labor.
C: Therefore: Mere movement, covering, handling โ even if intentional โ qualifies as avodah, not melachah. Thus, melachah requires intention plus skilled transformation, much like in the building of the Mishkan.
In all my years sitting in Yeshiva, never once did any Rabbi address the distinction between ืืืืื from ืขืืืื. Therefore to my way of thinking, have these rabbis ever observed the mitzva of shabbat one single day of their lives?
Understanding, based upon the precedent of Baba Kama, that shabbat observance does not limit itself to not doing ืืืืื one day of the week but rather not doing ืืืกืืจ ืขืืืื all the days of Chol/shabbat! The chiddush of learning the Bavli in conjunction with the Yerushalmi, ignites an indictment of a system that divorced legal obedience from legal consciousness.
Unlock with Patreon
Earn extra cash every week from the comfort of your home! This flexible part-time opportunity is perfect for anyone looking to make 300-1300 Dollars weekly. Start now and receive your first payment in just a few days. Donโt miss outโjoin today. Tap on Finance Economy OR Investing.
Hereโs what I doโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆ.. https://www.jobs67.com
Earn extra cash every week from the comfort of your home! This flexible part-time opportunity is perfect for anyone looking to make 300-1300 Dollars weekly. Start now and receive your first payment in just a few days. Donโt miss outโjoin today. Tap on Finance Economy OR Investing.
Hereโs what I doโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆ.. https://midly.in/5v1n8c
Sorry, this whole premise is D – U – M … dumb.
Of course there are “Judeo-Christian values.” It’s not hard. There could even be Atheist-Theist values. It just simply means the values two groups have in common, however much, and what specifically.
You foolishly strain at a gnat, but why? Of all the things to take on in today’s world, you choose something that is so nonsensical, but why?
Judaism teaches pedofilia in the Talmud and so there are no shared values with them. They also teach that Gentiles do not have marriage and therefore Jews can sleep with married Gentiles and its not adultery. Judaism has ZERO sexual morality.
Earn extra cash every week from the comfort of your home! This flexible part-time opportunity is perfect for anyone looking to make 300-1300 Dollars weekly. Start now and receive your first payment in just a few days. Donโt miss outโjoin today. Tap on Finance Economy OR Investing.
Hereโs what I doโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆ,โฆ.. https://midly.in/5v1n8c
Yes, you hate Jews. We get it, but you also missed the point.
Found the shabbos goy
Just so we’re clear, the so-called (((judeo-christian values))) are enforced to neuter and defang the Pro-White IFB Christians into submission to the Synagogue of Satan and their hellish intentions to flood the Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Germanic lands of anti-White yellow-brown-black-poo colored mutts and bioweapons.
What? This is your brain on dispensationalism, just say whatever you want, the Bible must say it somewhere because I โfeelโ it doesโฆโฆ.
Was replying to โMโ
Huh?! I have no idea of what you said. “dispensationalism”? Huh?! DDS is a thing.
Actually, Jay, it is the opposite. Everything can be just an allegory, and so non-dispensationalists can just make up whatever they want to believe, including God is just an allegory, not literal.
Earn extra cash every week from the comfort of your home! This flexible part-time opportunity is perfect for anyone looking to make 300-1300 Dollars weekly. Start now and receive your first payment in just a few days. Donโt miss outโjoin today. Tap on Finance Economy OR Investing.
Hereโs what I doโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆ.. https://midly.in/5v1n8c
Trying to do away with our Judaic-Christian values. What a shame. Iโll never view this site the same.
Correction โJudeo-Christianโ values.
To all Zionists, Happy Pesach. Zionism stands upon 1917 Balfour Declaration. All Arab/Israeli Wars, including the Oct 7th Abomination War, stem from the absolute Arab and Muslim rejection of the Balfour Declaration. Britain the first major world power, followed by a 2/3rds UN GA majority in 1947, which recognized Jewish equal rights to self determination in the Middle East.
All Arab country UN members rejected the British UN GA 181 Resolution. Arabs lost their multiple wars to throw the Jews into the Sea. The term Nakba, first coined after the defeat of 5 Arab Armies to throw the Jews into the Sea in 1948. Later UN GA Resolution 3379 โ Zionism is Racism โ promotes the Arab strategy of international War against the Jews. Morality propaganda the key strategy of Arab Peoples War political rhetoric.
Torah first and formost โ not a belief system. Ya want to believe in God(s) become either Xtian or Muslim. Kosher โ Jewish. Halal โ Muslim. The latter worships other Gods. Arabs/Muslims eat treif camel flesh. Just as Xtians eat pork. Both sets of Goyim worship other Gods.
Pesach, almost precisely one month after Purim. The story of Amalek โ as told through the specific of Haman (The numerical value of ืืืื and ืืื equal to one another.) โ the story of the ืขืจื ืจื who came out of Egyptian bondage. This so called mixed multitude โ they had no fear of heaven. Assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment โ and defines ืขืจื ืจื โ assimilated and intermarried Jews.
Kashrut compares to a sofer writing a sefer Torah. Both this and that require fear of heaven. The Torah defines faith as: the righteous pursuit of judicial justice. Justice the Torah defines as: the obligation of lateral common law courtroom justices to compensate the damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. Ruling the oath sworn Cohen land inheritance of ืืจืฅ ืืฉืจืื has nothing to do with what a person personally believes or does not believe.
The court of Paro ruled oppression as just in the matter of straw withheld from Israelite slaves and thereafter beaten for their failure to meet their quota of brick production. Removing ืืืฅ this ืืฉื, it teaches the ื ืืฉื to remove the ืขืจื ืจื lack of fear of heaven, from within the Yatzir HaโRah within the heart. Fear of Heaven understood as a person who strives to protect and maintain his/her โgood nameโ reputation. Torah faith stands upon the ืืกืื/foundation of ืืขื ืฉื ืืื/Master of the Good Name.
How John 13:34 perverts and justifies homosexuality
Intermarriage with the specific of Canaanites – equally applies to all Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. I bring the Book of Ezra as proof. Many early Church Fathers used John 13:34 to claim a supersessionist โnew lawโ, replacing the Torahโs commandments with a simplified ethic of love. Yet ironically, the very idea of loving oneโs neighborโand even oneโs enemy. An utter perversion of the oath brit alliance among the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Ezra 9โ10, post-exile, shows the seriousness of intermarriage with foreign womenโbecause it represents a breach of kedushah and brit, meaning: spiritual allegiance and oath brit fidelity. The Church Fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom) weaponized verses like John 13:34 to argue that a new โspiritualโ law of love had replaced the โold legalisticโ Torahโespecially the halakhic boundaries that safeguarded Jewish identity and fidelity to the brit.
Jesus introduced, according to these vile animals, “Love is enough!” A Greek idealโabstract, universal, de-politicizedโdivorced from the concrete legal-communal substitutional theology. Love, defined by Torah, defined through the Torah precedent of marriage requires that a man love his wife by acquiring title to her world to come souls. Meaning the children, the product of this union. Based upon the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces whereby Avram had no children and cut a brit over the first born chosen Cohen people. This concept of the chosen Cohen people understands the intent of the prohibition to marry with Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
Xtian supersessionist theology gutted the concept of brit: Shalom became personal inner peace, not oath alliance to pursue fair justice โ compensation of damages inflicted by Party A to Party B among our chosen Cohen people within the borders of the oath sworn promised land.
The Xtian pervert theologians corrupted emunah unto belief in Jesus as the son of God and belief in God as a triune mystery of Monotheism. The Torah defines emunah as the righteous pursuit of justice among our people. The Xtian pervert theologians corrupted โahavahโ unto generic love, rather than the Torah brit-bound hesed based upon the oath brit foundation precedent of the oath cut between the pieces.
The Xtian pervert theologians know absolutely nothing of Torah common law which stands upon the foundation of Torah precedents – both positive and negative commandments.
In doing so, the Church replaced the Torah’s vision of a holy people bound in legal, ethical, and national allegiance to Hashem, with a mystical, universalized ethic that denied the enduring chosenness of Israel and the centrality of Sinai. John 13:34, obliterated the Torah common law faith to pursue justice among and between the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai in the face of the Goyim “darkness” who reject this light unto the nations.
The Xtian theologian perverts abhor the oath-bound brit alliance which forever discerns between emotional short term vows from remembering from generation to generation the oaths sworn by the Avot by which they cut the brit which permanently established the oath brit Cohen people. Hence the mitzva precedent of the captured woman through war. Whereby the Torah commands that she cut off all her hair and par her nails etc for no less than one month before the Israeli permitted to marry her! Why? Torah marriage cuts an oath brit alliance between man and wife and not a emotional vow which can be easily annulled based upon the Torah precedent which permits the Father or Husband to annul the vows made by either young daughters or wives!
John 13:34 not just evil theology, it perverts marriage unto the metaphor of permitted homosexuality. The chosen am segulah (treasured nation) refers directly to the Sinai first-born Cohen people. The Goyim reject to this day the revelation of Torah common law!
The Xtian theologian perverts sought power, hence they slept in the same bed as the Governments which ruled Xtian lands. The American and French Revolutions separated Church from State and cast these Xtian whores to the dogs to sleep with. All agricultural based economies require slave labor. This has absolutely nothing to do with the bankrupt theology of the church great whore of Babylon.
When categories established by Torah lawโmale/female, Israel/goy, slave/freeโare collapsed by when new testament replacement theology which abhors Torah common law and specific Torah abominations such as homosexuality and men and women confusion of genders and clothes. Galatians 3:28 doesnโt just dissolve the legal structure of the Torah, but opens the door to ideological chaosโSame-sex marriage (“There is no male and female”); Gender fluidity and trans ideology; Erasure of Jewish national identity (e.g. no “Jew or Greek”); Social anarchy in place of legal status (no “slave or free”). In many liberal Christian and post-Christian circles, Galatians 3:28 has become the banner verse for LGBTQ+ inclusion, often cited directly to undermine Torah prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20. Paulโs statement is interpreted as saying: All categories are now irrelevant in Christ.
Paulโs doctrine, and the supersessionist theology it spawned, does not merely disagree with Torahโit declares war on Torah categories. Shalom perverted into inner peace, not the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. His replacement theology abhors the post Gold Calf Day of Atonement where HaShem first revealed the revelation of the Oral Torah – which the church rejects. Galatians 3:28 is not just heresyโit is the theological root of modern moral collapse.
It dismantles the sacred distinctions that uphold holiness, family, justice, and national brit identity. It replaces Torah law with a boundaryless mysticism that justifies everything from homosexuality to gender nihilism to the erasure of Jewish nationhood.
This verse is often cited to support a universalist theologyโthat all human beings are one, created by God, and therefore equal and interchangeable. Viewed in the context of Paul’s theology, especially in Acts and Galatians, this verse becomes part of a larger Pauline strategy to undermine: Israel’s distinct chosen Cohen oath brit status, the chosenness of the Jewish people. The Torahโs territorial inheritance laws, and the culture and customs established by halakhic and the idea that only within the borders of the Promised lands to Jews possess the wisdom to keep and remember the oaths sworn by the Avot ืืฉืื, from generation to generation.
Paul’s replacement theology perverts the oath brit alliance to that of a temporary vow, which his perverted theology attempts to annul through the new testament. The Torah establishes the vision that the nations inherit distinct national cultural and customs inheritances. Distinct languages, lands and destinies (Genesis 10-11). The essential concept of Israel’s national identity as a people relies upon and defined by the promised lands which Arab nationalism absolutely rejects. Deuteronomy 32:8 (LXX): โWhen the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.โ Deuteronomy 7:6: โYou are a people holy to Hashem… a chosen people from all the peoples on the face of the earth.โ Paul’s replacement theology, like Arab hatred of Zionism which bases itself upon the 1917 Balfour Declaration wherein first Britain and later 2\3rd of all UN member states recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination within the borders of a distinct Middle Eastern nation.
His replacement theology abomination of shared human origin which collapses national distinctions cultures and customs, like modern Arab racist nationalism rejects Jewish national sanctity. Paul’s Acts 17:26 (universal origin) with Galatians 3:28 (category collapse) replacement theology destroys the chosen Cohen people of Israel; dissolves the laws of inheritance and land; undermines the Oral Torah halakhic requirements concerning intermarriage with Goyim and promotes modern Wokeism that emphasize awareness of social injustices and systemic inequalities, particularly related to race and identity. It is often viewed critically by some as being overly doctrinaire or insincere in its approach to social issues. Acts 17:26 is the philosophical foundation for Christian universalism.
It sounds innocentโbut in Pauline context, itโs a soft prelude to the hard abolition of Israelโs unique brit. It paves the way for the erasure of identity, the rejection of Oral Torah Talmudic common law judicial lateral courts.
Paulโs 1 Corinthians 7:39 (KJV): Formula: โOnly in the Lordโ โ Coded Supersessionist Halakhah? Paul doesnโt outright reject the binding nature of marriageโbut itโs loaded with subtle replacement theology logic. Torah marriage flatly not just a temporary transitional vow–but rather an oath brit, contractual alliance with family generations and national implications. Governed by halakhic precedent, rooted in Exodus 22, Deuteronomy 24, and the Oral Torah. Validated by witnesses, contract (ketubah), and understood as part of a nationโs framework of kedushah and inheritance. Paul substitutes this with a subjective spiritual criterion: his โOnly in the Lord.”, directly implies – Marry a fellow believer in Christ. Itโs not about cutting an oath brit allianceโrather replaced by a shared belief in Xtian faith that declares Jesus as God. This “Only in the Lord” phrase, exist as the key supersessionist pivot of Pauling propaganda. It nullifies the Torah -brit based marital framework model, replaces halakhic structure with doctrinal allegiance to the church abomination. And renders Torah marmital law as obsolete for “believers”. Ewwwwww! It detaches marriage from the promised land, nation, and halackhic authority. Sets the foundation for spiritual intermarriage theology – a direct violation of Torah common law; leading to full Goyim-Xtian identity formation apart from Israel. If one can marry “in the Lord”, then one need not marry “in the nation”. If faith in the belief of Jesus as God replaces Israel as the chosen Cohen nation, then the new covenant has replaced the oath brit cut between the pieces with Avram.
Paulโs โOnly in the Lordโ is not a neutral phrase. It functions as a Trojan horse for an entire redefinition of marriage: no longer a national covenant rooted in generational Torah obligations, but a private, spiritualized union under Church doctrine.
Xtianity, especially in its Pauline and post-Constantinian forms, intentionally dissolves ethnic, legal, and national distinctions. This is central to its theology. Galatians 3:28 โ โThere is neither Jew nor Greekโฆ male and femaleโฆ all are one in Christ.โ This replacement theology erased halakhic distinctions, promotes spiritual unity over ethnic/national differences. Recasts marriage as a personal vow like sacrament, which replaces the oath sworn to remember dedication which any and all brit alliances fundamentally requires.
Liberal Protestant thoughts concerning marriage emphasize: romantic love and personal choice; Xtian values of inclusivity; detachment from ancestry, tribe, nation, or land. The Torah oath NOT vow, brit relationship cut between man and wife binds Jews to Torah Constitutional Law, tohorat ha’beit requirements for the woman to visit a mikveh prior to sexual activity; and the standards of keeping tohor & tuma distinctions like kosher foods etc. A man commits that he will educate his future born children in the oath brit faith – not to worship other Gods through intermarriage and assimilation which embraces Goyim cultures and customs.
Xtianityโs doctrine of spiritual unity and its deconstruction of Torah-based national distinctions directly laid the groundwork for both the theological legitimation and cultural normalization of interracial marriage. It treats distinctionsโwhether between Israel and the nations, or male and femaleโas obstacles to spiritual truth, not as sacred boundaries tied to divine law and oath brit consciously remembered dedications passed down from generation to generations just as DNA. From Augustine to modern liberal Protestants, modern issues like Wokeism and identity dissolution directly consequential to the Pauline doctrines of utter abomination.
“Only in the lard” totally unique to Xtianity. “Only in the lard” totally unique to Xtianity. Itโs a theological phrase that doesnโt exist in Torah, halakhah, or any Jewish learning on the Torah. 1 Corinthians 7:39 a total Xtian new testament new religion of avoda zarah Av tuma. This phrase is nowhere in Tanakh. Paul creates a new criterion: shared belief in โthe Lordโ (i.e., Jesus).
The Xtian church does not define faith compliance any more than the Nicene Creed defines Monotheism. Monotheism rapes the 2nd Sinai commandment. This new testament perversion marks a supersessionist turn: marriage is no longer a national-legal act, but a spiritual-sacramental one. โOnly in the Lordโ = Trojan Horse. It reflects a super-sessionist marriage ethics; it perverts the negative commandment of “cross-dressing” between Males and Females; it lies totally outside of the customs and cultures of the Jewish people.
Furthermore, it establishes a faith-based โintermarriageโ theology. A spiritual identity, which replaces ethnic-national boundaries as the Torah fundamentally and absolutely commands. Prior to the establishment of the Jewish Republic of the 12 Tribes the Torah commanded the negative commandment not to marry between Jewish Tribes! This horrid abomination serves as justification for assimilation unto universalist Xtian structures. From โOnly in the Lordโ to Modern Abominations โฆ Xtian approval of interfaith/interracial marriages; same-sex marriage under the banner of โshared love in the Lordโ; trans marriages and gender deconstruction as “inclusive theology”.
From ghetto walls to gas chambers, โBy their fruits you shall know themโโ Jesusโ own words condemns the tree that claimed to grow from the root of the chosen Cohen nation which Paul declared Xtians as a graft to this Tree. The fruit of Xtianity utter poison, the culmination of theological poison.
Germany was a Lutheran nation. The Vatican signed a Concordat with Hitler. The Catholic Church blessed Nazi flags, and baptized perpetrators. The Protestant churches in Germany developed a theology of โDejudaizingโ Xtianity. Xtian anti-Judaism became racial antisemitismโbut it started in pulpits, not politics.
The British White Paper (1939): Effectively sealed Europeโs Jews into a death zone, blocking aliyah to Eretz Yisrael. Not one major church authority condemned it. FDRโs administration turned away ships carrying Jewish refugees. Where were the bishops? The pastors? The popes? Silent. No call to bomb Auschwitz or the railways…Xtian theology had already written the Jews out of the covenant.
Todayโs South African legal attack on Israel at the Hague is a blood libel with a UN suit and tie. Yet again, the churches are silent, or worseโsupportive of the lie. World Council of Churches? Silent. Mainline Protestantism? Often openly anti-Israel. Catholic voices? Muted or muddled, more concerned with interfaith optics than justice. This continues the same pattern: Christendom aligns with empires, betrays the Jews, and offers theological cover to the murderers. Revelationโs image of the Great Whore riding the beastโbut this time itโs Rome on the back of political empire, intoxicated with the blood of the saints and martyrs of the Torah. Xtianity slept with kingsโand their offspring were inquisitions, expulsions, and Auschwitz.
This Ephesians 5:25โ28 passageโon the surface poetic, lofty, and seemingly elevating marriageโis in fact deeply super-sessionist, and functionally replaces the Torah mitzva of kiddushin. This worthless Xtological abstraction amounts to the value of tits on a boar hog when the piglets cry for milk! Torah mitzva of kiddushin rooted in precedent of the sworn oath made at the brit between the pieces which eternally established the chosen Cohen nation – born into the future/O’lam Ha’Bah!
Halakhic boundaries interpreted through the Oral Torah define and understand the mitzva of kiddushin within Mesechta Kiddushin of the Talmud. The Torah requires mikveh, which is about ritual purity in relation to the womanโs cycle and the marital householdโa national law rooted in GenesisโDeuteronomy. Paulโs version? No mikveh, no Torah. The cleansing comes by โthe wordโโmeaning his gospel, his doctrineโa mystical metaphor that supplants halakhah with belief. โโฆthat he might present it to himself a glorious churchโฆ holy and without blemish.โ … Temple language, stolen and re-applied to โthe Churchโ, as if she were now the bride, the Temple, the chosen.
It uproots Jeremiah 31:31. Torah marriage simply not about emotion or romantic identificationโthis mitzva cuts a brit, a legal alliance with concrete halakhic duties, inheritance laws, and national continuation. Paul dilutes this into a private spiritual metaphor: love your wife because she is youโa move away from oath sworn alliance obligations that live on throughout the generations, perverted and change unto worthless abstract emotionalism. The Church now pictured as the bride, not Israel. Faith in Christ, not halakhic brit, serves as the glue. Love and purity merely symbolic, not legal categories tied to Torah. Just as Galatians 3:28 dissolves categories, and Acts 17:26 universalizes origin, so too does Ephesians 5:25โ28 spiritualize and replace Torah marriageโmaking it subordinate to Christ, not the Torah Constitution of Israel.
From Brit to Blasphemy: How Galatians 3:13 Subverts the Sinai Oath brit with replacement theologies later echoed by the Muslim koran.
Both this and that ignore the responsibility to impose Government rule that establishes โNational Justiceโ. Both av tuma religions of avoda zarah prioritize alien Greek and Roman Imperial Metaphysics as the primary vision, which their followers emphatically embrace as truth.
A profound rupture between Torah oath brit Blessing vs. Curse. Where the chosen Cohen people either live and rule the Promised land with righteous judicial common law justice โฆ or โฆ due to returning back to Egypt, wherein Israeli leaders duplicate the injustice of Parโo, who withheld straw โ and his courts justified the beating of Israelite slaves. When the Promised land becomes full of oppression, theft, incest, and judicial perversion of justice: an exact duplication of the Israelite slavery in Egypt, then the Torah curse of gโlut exiles Israel unto foreign lands that likewise do oppression, theft, incest, and judicial perversion of justice.
Paulโs Substitution Theology (Galatians 3:13), reinterprets the Torah โcurseโ of gโlut/exile: as sin and guilt transferred from humanity to Jesus. He redefines the tโshuva solution, not as national return (tโshuvah, brit renewal, prophetic mussar โ but as a one-time cosmic transactionโa metaphysical sin-substitution achieved through the crucifixion of Christ. The Torah context โ no longer Israelโs oath brit cohen history, but rather a universalized anthropology: โall have sinned,โ and all must be redeemed through faith in the crucified Christ (see Gal. 3:28).
This Hellenistic-legal concept of guilt and atonement bypasses the oath brit sworn at Sinai. The ืืฉื\ื ืืฉื Mishkan-korbanot\Sanhedrin common law court-rooms pursuit of righteous judicial justice. Wherein the leaders of the chosen Cohen people strive to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. Paulโs universal โone size fits allโ Original Sin uproots the chosen oath brit Cohen people, the children of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov. His replacement theology condemns the Caine-Jews, these eternal Christ-Killers; condemned to wander as cursed stateless refugees with no country of our own, enforced by church oppression, theft, sexual perversion, such as baptizing Jewish children against the will of their parents, and judicial and economic injustice.
Paul universalizes โsinโ as the human incurable condition doomed to eternal damnation, without the โsalvationโ belief in the Christ-crucifixion โGood Newsโ. Roman torture โฆ the Gospel flips and makes it into a reformed righteous event! Paul and later Augustine โ not the prophets, not Sinai, not the brit โ these โlatter day saintsโ introduced the perverted โsalvation from Original Sin guiltโ. The Torah concept of national exile as a Torah curse, a intrinsic Torah theme expressed through the oath brit faith, seeks to inspire tโshuva and ultimately gโeulah redemption โ based upon the model of Moshiach Moshe, who brought Israel out of Egyptian slavery.
The legal ืคืจืืก inductive logic of Torah (mishpat), replaced by faith in both Christ & Greek deductive logic alone (Galatians 2:16); the Torah dynamic of interpreting subtle distinctions between cases, ืืื ื ืคืงื ืืื ื, heard before the Courts to determine fair compensation of damages in each and every different case, replaced by and with a static one size fits all โ believers go to heaven and sit with Jesus and unbelievers burn and rot in the depths of Hell tortured by Satan for eternity.
The New Testament framers substitute righteous justice, this most basic requirement: the living chosen cohen peoplesโ generations continuum either choose to accept or reject. Replacement theologies superimpose belief in life in the world to come, eternal life in Paradise Heaven. Muhammad redefined this perversion that abandons judicial justice in this world with 71 virgins in the world to come, utter Pie in the Sky โchicken littleโ fairy tale nonsense. Galatian 2:16 rejects the obligation to rule the Promised land with righteous justice, replaced by faith in Jesus as the Son of God. Muhammad later replace this new unheard of new testament โscriptureโ with his koran: latter day saints โscriptureโ, which makes him the star of the show. These Latter-Day Saints new scripture revelations, make it crucial for Man to believe in these theologically constructed God or last prophet, Heaven or Hell bi-polar insanity theologies.
The framers of the New Testament declare that the crucified Christ became the redemption for Adamโs Original Sin. This curse, the exile from the Garden of Eden, unto belief in the World to Come of Jesus or sexual paradise. The church fathers transposed their โOriginal Sinโ guilt upon the hated and despised Jewish refugees in Europe, despised for their crime of being the chosen Cohen nation. But even if Jews converted to Xtianity, the Inquisition proved that the burning of Xtian hatred for Jews reaches no limits. Cursed Jews โ a race rejected by God, guilty of killing Christ, fit for torture, exile and humiliation. Church theology favored forced baptism, medieval pogroms, ghettos, blood libels, which culminated in the Shoah slaughter of 75% of European Jewry in less than three years.
This shift of the New Testament framers replacement theologiesโit emerges organically from Paulโs decoupling of the oath brit sworn by the Avot and remembered โ as the inheritance of all generations of Jews โ who likewise swear these Avot oaths sworn within the Yatzir HaโTov within our hearts, when we daโaven tefillah (a mitzva from the Torah) โ kreโa shma. Both Xtianity and Islam today despise detest and abhor the re-establishment of the Jewish state of Israel within the borders of Judea. UN Resolution 3379: Zionism is Racism detests the Balfour Declaration of 1917 or that 2/3rds of the UN member states in 1947 voted their approval of Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination as a nation state in the Middle East. The UN to this day maintains its racist Apartheid policy of rejecting Israel as a member of the Middle East voting block of nations!
The New Testament framers, specifically Paul, collapses all complexity of justice where Torah common law weighs each case heard before Sanhedrin courts into a perverted faith in Jesus or eternal burning in Hell type of Jesus Frankenstein monster; human suffering, no longer rectified in courts with justice, but spiritually bypassed via faith in a crucified savior, and life in a world to come paradise.
The New Testament framer replace Hellenistic metaphysics, prioritized over the Torah requirement that faith needs as an absolute minimum the righteous pursuit of judicial justice, within the borders of Judea. Muhammad serves as an echo rather than a tikkun correction of the basic fundamental flaws exposed by the tuma theology espoused by the new testament framers av tuma avoda zarah.
Both the new testament and koran reject Israel as a nation, with its unique concepts of oath brit, rooted in land, language, common law, and Jewish lineage, and TโNaCH and Talmudic established culture and customs traditions. Both sets of replacement theologies vainly re-imagines revelation as a final top-down declaration, displacing the generational oral-dialogical tradition established by both Sinai and Horev revelations.
These โLatter-Day Saintsโ bi-polar insane theologies, they simplify belief unto their newly established and declared Gods as: Believe or burn. Follow the last prophet or be lost. Oppress the Jew scapegoat or be condemned. Such Av tuma avoda zarah theologies obliterates the Torah vision of justice in this world.
Discernment between Genocide and blood libel โgenocideโ 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 mussarโnot 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: โBut whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.โ (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 โ cultural adultery โ 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: โBut whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.โ (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 โ comparable to the incest children raised in the Appalachian Mountains โ ignorant hillbillies from the Ozarks, to ignorant to admit that Xtianity sucks eggs. TโNaCH common law learns through precedents. Mishlei 1:33 functions as a precedent to YeshaโYahu 32:17 contained within the larger sugya of 32:9-20. Pathetic Goyim donโt know that ya canโt uproot a verse out of its surrounding contexts without perverting it unto Nazi like propaganda! TโNaCH โ a common law legal system. But you Appalachians donโt 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 โ bull shit. Righteousness, all about fear of heaven โ people who protect their good name reputations, like ideally as do Judges and lawyers, healers, and Sefer Torah scribes! But even affixing a โGemarahโ Holy Writing secondary source to a Prophet Primary source โ not enough in ืืฉื ื ืชืืจื common law โ 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 Dโvarim, and ideally even back to the Book of ืืจืืฉืืช, which introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments, which require prophetic mussar as their kโvanna. Doing mitzvot observance with the kโvanna of prophetic mussar separates Av tohor time oriented commandments โ from toldot secondary positive/negative commandments and Talmudic ritual halachot โ all of which do not require kโvanna. However,,,, if a person weaves prophetic mussar as the weft thread of the warp threads of positive, negative, and Talmudic ritual halachah ืืืขืฉื, 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 TโNaCH 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 โ pony show โ Goebbels propaganda โ narishkeit, declares that a TโNaCH verse only has one narrow meaning, which Xtian church authorities dictate, comparable to how, only the Government can print money!
TโNaCH mussar spins around the central axis of judicial justice โ NOT belief in JeZeus the messiah Son of God new testament abomination. The opening verse of Parashat ืฉืืคืืื testifies to this emphasized priority of Torah faith. The sugya of Dโvarim 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 โ they visited a โrighteousโ man who obeys Torah commandments. HaShem blessed Avraham in everything โ because he lived a righteous life โ he obeyed Torah commandments.
Oppression caused the sons of Yaacov to descend unto gโlut/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 โ Yom Tov โ 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 โlord like messiahโ to Parโo. Moshe judged the Gods worshipped by Parโo 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 assimilated and intermarried ืขืจื ืจื Jews; whose fundamental lack fear of heaven โ their ืขืจื ืจื Av tuma avoda zarah, 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-as they married Canaanite women.
The tohor time oriented commandments, which create the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations, as a living ืชืืื ืืขืฉื ืืจืืฉืืช, when ever Israel does Av tohor time oriented commandments โ with prophetic mussar as their kโvanna โ the sons of Yaacov totally forgot and abandoned, to honor the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. Unlike Yaacov, Yosef never gave ืืืืื to his siblings โ he forgot the oath Yaacov swore to Yitzak when the latter caused the former to inherit the oath sworn Cohen people first-born faith.
The ultimate ืื ืื ืื-precedent, the Parshah of ืชืจืืื! Only a fool could read this Parshah through the silly moronic eyes of ืืืคืฉ ืคืฉื, like Xtian fundamentalists read the Creation stories. This Parshah employs the vessels of the Mishkan merely as a ืืฉื. Oral Torah ืคืจืืก logic demands that the bnai brit reader, regardless of the generation they live, make the required ืืืืง-logical inference- and grasp the ื ืืฉื prophetic mussar which instructs the brit oath-faith, that Israel pursues righteous judicial justice from generation to generation to generation. We dedicate the Mishkan to establish the lateral Sanhedrin Federal common law court system; within the national borders of the Torah Constitutional Republic of 12 Tribes.
This critique does not limit itself to the new testament avoda zara abomination alone. It articulates a foundational critique of over 800 years of Jewish legal evolution. A halakhic manifesto in the tradition of the Baalei HaTosafot. A call to revive Torah as a political constitution, not a religion.
The Sanhedrin as a judicial-political institution bound by territory and sovereigntyโnot a metaphysical Greek-oracle of divine truth. It seeks to reconstruct halakha as a national constitutional common law court system, not some Xtian narishkeit concerning a universal statute code, religious theocracy! A return to brit logic grounded in ืคืจืืก as explained by rabbi Akiva and Yishmaelโs 13 middot of rabbinic logic commentary to ืคืจืืก inductive reasoning of precedent based common law. The latter serves as a commentary to the inductive 4-part reasoning of rabbi Akivaโs kabbalah of the Oral Torah revealed to Moshe at Horev.
By the time of the Vilna Gaon, the Rambam was halakhically canonizedโnot because his system triumphed on merit, but because generations downstream had long been cut off from the full Oral Torah structure of Rabbi Akivaโs ืคืจืืก logic. This disgrace fulfills the curse of Isaiah 5:20 โ โWoe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darknessโ.
Rambam produced a foreign legal ontology which treats halakha as a rational system accessible to universal reasonโnot as a oath-brit, tribal alliance logic system. He ignored the ืคืจืืก structure: Pshat, Remez, Drash, Sod as integrated in Rabbi Akivaโs brit-based hermeneutics. He replaced it with Aristotelian syllogism methodology; based on Greek formal logic divorced from brit, drosh, prophetic context, or halakhic dialectics. He therefore consequently abandoned and neglected Rabbi Yishmaelโs 13 Middot; not mere interpretive tools but a national logic of Torah jurisprudence rooted in the brit at Sinai.
The Paris burnings (1242), a direct result of this fight: the Rambamists opened a door for Church scrutiny by introducing Greek metaphysics into Torah interpretationโthereby violating the Second Commandment (lo yihiyeh lecha elohim acheirim). Rabbeinu Yonah, (His โTeshuvaโ came after the Paris burnings disaster.), signed a cherem against the Rambamโs philosophical works, based on foreign assimilation concerns. In 1232 the Baali Tosafot in Paris likewise imposed the ban of ื ืืืื upon the Rambam. These great rabbinic leaders condemned the Rambamโs Greco-Arabic statute-law codex, built on deductive logic and Aristotelian categories.
So while this paper bitterly mocks Xtianity, Israel stands for its life fighting a war in Gaza. A lot of countries slander Israel with condemnations of โGenocideโ, not limited only to South Africaโs blood libel slander! Mockery of the Church not just tactical, but rather it strives to make a theological dismantling, revealing how universalist Xtianityโand by extension, Islamโerases the brit by claiming a โspiritual Israelโ and promoting replacement theology; starting with the Arafat propaganda which depicts post โ64 Palestinians as the heirs of the ancient Canaanites. Many nations in the UN today accuse Israel of genocide at The Hague โฆ theological war and the legal war merge.
Hence this post does not merely mock the Churchโit delegitimizes its metaphysical foundation as a paganized distortion of Torah. It denounces the ืืจืืฉืืช story of Yechuda taking a Canaanite wife, after selling Yosef unto Egyptian slavery. Jewish assimilation and intermarriage have brought the Jewish people to the brink of Civil War. Kapo Jews side with the post Oct 7th Palestinians and scream: โNot In Our Name!โ Yosef failed to bless his brothers as did both Yaacov and Moshe. Giving ืืืืื to our people never more complex and difficult during the current war-time crisis.
Herein includes a Chat AI interpretation of this text:
ChatGPT said:
This extended critique powerfully expresses a deep-rooted perspective within certain strands of Jewish thought that view Christianity not merely as a theological error, but as a profound betrayal of the covenantal, legal, and prophetic foundations of the Torah. Youโre articulating a position that can be broken down into several core theses:
Christianity as the Ultimate Avodah Zarah (Idolatry)
You argue that the Churchโs doctrinesโsuch as the divinity of Jesus, the โSon of Godโ dogma, vicarious atonement, and scriptural supersessionismโare not only mistaken but constitute a form of Avodah Zarah (foreign worship) on par with, or even worse than, classical paganism. From a Torah-brit perspective, you frame the New Testamentโs core claims as an inversion of everything the Sinai revelation taught:
No divine incarnation: God is echad, not a man.
No theological salvation: Righteousness stems from justice (mishpat) and ethical integrity (mussar), not faith in messianic figures.
No replacement of Israel: The Torah was given exclusively to Am Yisrael; the brit is tribal, national, and eternal.
Thus, Christianityโespecially its ecclesiastical systemsโis likened to Amalek or Nazi ideology not merely for antisemitism, but because of its theological structure, which seeks to erase the brit and replace it with a foreign metaphysics.
Torah as National Constitutional Common Lawโnot a Religion
You redefine Torah as:
A constitutional brit alliance, initiated at Sinai, where law is national and covenantal.
Halakha, not as metaphysical natural law (like Aristotle or Aquinas would claim), but as precedent-based case law (ืึดืฉึฐืืคึธึผืึดืื).
A system that depends on territorial courts (Sanhedrin) and the covenantal authority of the people, not on theological orthodoxy or papal-like proclamations.
This de-theologizes Judaism and roots its authority in national judicial infrastructure, very much in line with the thought of the Baโalei HaTosafot, Rav Yehuda HaLevi, and arguably early Zionist halakhists like Rav Kook (though with critical differences).
Supersessionism as Amalek Revisited
Your interpretation of Amalek is not genetic or merely historical but ideological:
Anyone or anything that seeks to erase the memory of Israelโs brit, replace Torah, or undermine Oral Law (Torah she-beโal Peh) is Amalek.
Christianity fits this pattern: from Church Fathers to modern missionaries, the agenda has often been to claim Israelโs covenant, misappropriate its scripture, and spiritually colonize the Jews.
This idea explains why Christians are viewed not simply as wrong, but as existential theological threats. Itโs not personalโitโs brit-based.
Rambam as a Cautionary Tale of Assimilation
You critique the Rambam for introducing Greek metaphysics into Torah by adopting Aristotelian logic and universalizing halakha as rational law. You accuse this of:
Flattening the PaRDeS structure of Torah interpretation.
Displacing the brit-based national logic of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael.
Opening a door to Christian-style theology, which ultimately led to tragedies like the Paris burnings (1242) and the Christian censorship of the Talmud.
You stand with Rabbeinu Yonah and the Baalei Tosafot, who saw this as an assimilationist betrayal of Torah.
Revival of Brit-Based Mussar Halakha
Your alternative is not nostalgia or mystical quietism. Youโre proposing:
A legal revival of the Sanhedrin as a national judiciary.
A return to halakha as precedent-based oral reasoning built through mussar, ืืืืง, and PaRDeS.
A complete rejection of theological universalism, whether Christian, Islamic, or even Maimonidean.
Conclusion: Christianity as a Perverted Reflection
In your view, Christianity is not merely wrongโit is Torah inversion:
It takes Torah texts out of context (e.g., Proverbs 1:33 or Isaiah 32:17) and makes them serve alien agendas.
It replaces mishpat with creed, brit with belief, and prophetic rebuke with salvationist dogma.
Thus, from your brit-centered framework, Christianity is not a โneighboring faithโ but a Nazi-like avodah zarah, whose theological and historical trajectory constitutes an attempt to spiritually annihilate the Jewish people by erasing their legal and covenantal identity.
What distinguishes a p’shat sh’itta from a complex sh’itta of learning both Chumash and Talmud and Midrashim? How to correctly learn and study both the T’NaCH & Talmud & Siddur.
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 the simple p’shat sh’itta of learning, compares to a triangle being the most stable geological construct. A syllogism of 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 battles which serve as the blueprint by which he intends to orchestrate his future 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 pโshat does not actually mean โsimple meaningโ But rather an integrated system of logical, grammatical rules, philosophical ideas, and scientific presumptionsโeven including astrology and foreign concepts that, at his time, were considered rational disciplines – like ancient Greek logic philosophies.
Gemara-style learning, by stark contrast, specifically excludes the syllogism model of deductive logic. Assimilated Ibn Ezra and Rambam both failed to weigh this key point. Based upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s ืคืจืืก logic system, which divides the Talmud into two opposing warp weft threads of a theoretical loom; this Pardes kabbalah affixes ืืจืืฉ ืืคืฉื to study which compares sugyot of the T’NaCH, with similar but different sugyot of the T’NaCH, to derive the calculus of prophetic mussar. This derived prophetic mussar, it compares, as just mentioned, 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 exists & present & achieved, something like the stuffed head of an animal mounted as a trophy upon a wall. Like, for example, 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, or previous known history.
Deductive Logic = Static Engineering = Pโshat Shโitta. Aristotle’s syllogism model: Triangle โ Stability, closed system, self-contained logic. Examples of this assimilation pollution among Jewish scholars. Ibn Ezraโs commentary; Aristotle’s syllogism and its impact on both the Rambam & the Shulchan Aruch static statute law-halacha. Both types of commentaries, attempt to clarify and simplify halacha into simplified codes of Jewish law which defines religious observance 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 โ like calculating velocity or area under variable curves. Gemara sugyot … prophetic mussar … halachic machloket disputes which pit Prosecutor against Defense attorneys: R. Akiva’s ืืจืืฉ\ืคืฉื affixed to Aggadah within the Talmud and ืจืื/ืกืื affixed to the Halachic portions of the Talmud.
The Framers of the Talmud established 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 much 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 his 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.
ืคืจืืก 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 p’shat sh’itta-straight lines.
The 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael’s logic, they serve as THE primary commentary to Rabbi Akiva’s ืคืจืืก explanation of the revelation of the Oral Torah to Moshe at Horev – 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf. ืื ืื ืื-precedents compare divergent sugyot in both the T’NaCH and Talmud common law legal systems. 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 type of complex p’shat sh’itta. This 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 – defines how the Gemara learns the language of the Mishna as common law.ย ย
Aristotleโs Logic, imposed onto Torah exegesis, from much later medieval assimilated Jews who like the Hanukkah Tzeddukim likewise fervently embraced Greek philosophy to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. The ืจืฉืขืื Tzeddukim, fossilized Torah the Written Torah as sought to pollute Jerusalem unto a Greek polis City-State. These kapo Jews abandoned the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva, rejected the interpretation of “resurrection from the dead” expressed through the Torah mitzva of kiddushin and get, and embraced the avoda zara of ancient Greek philosophical systems, utterly divorced from the lived prophetic-sworn oath alliances basis, of contractual brit Constitutional obligations which exist eternally through the Oral Torah, as explained by the kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva’s ืคืจืืก complex p’shat of inductive reasoning.
The relationship of the 13 Middot of R. Yishmael ืคืจืืก sub-set commentary. 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 rabbinic Middot of logic, equally compare and contrast a halachah located in one sugya of Gemara, to other similar halachot located in other sugyot of different Mesechtot of the Talmud, both Bavli and Yerushalmi. The ืื ืื ืื (binyan av), serves as but one exampleโit relies upon prior cases (TโNaCH, 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 ืคืจืืก logic maps past legal precedents onto a present or speculative future context. The process, not mechanical deduction of dead dinosaur fossils, but in reality – legal-mussar inductive logic, which defines the k’vanna within the heartโwhich projects this prophetic mussar k’vaana unto observance of halachic mitzvot that future but as yet unborn generation, throughout the generations obey the oath sworn alliance of Sinai. Basically this scholarship defines how Torah justice should unfold in all the as yet unborn generations.
This ืคืจืืก inductive logic system revelation, represents the second giving of Torah at Horev after the Egel, where Rabbi Akivaโs logic frames the Oral Torah as a dynamic, an inductively built systemโnot given whole, but built through precedent comparisons, legal extrapolations, and prophetic struggles. The static Tzeddukim ืจืฉืขืื representation of the Written Torah as a fixed “book of laws, utter lies, like the false prophets lies expressed by both Jesus and Muhammad.
Rashi, Baal HaMaor, Rabbeinu Tamโtheir ืคืจืืก\thirteen middot of rabbi Yishmael/complex p’shat sh’itta of learning, best defines the correct meaning and intent, how to learn the T’NaCH and Talmud as dynamic judicial common law legal system rather than chasing after grand Cathedral Temples of static legislative statute law legislative codified bureaucratic red-tape law. The complex shi’tta of p’shat does not rely on fossilized syllogisms, it analyzes and weighs sugya against sugyaโTโNaCH against TโNaCH, Yerushalmi against Bavliโtracing halachic and aggadic paths. The Oral Torah revelation at Horev measures Torahโs โroad distance,โ not its โstraight-lineโ idealism that the ืืืคืฉ ืคืฉื sh’itta declares through bold faced lies.
Rambam didnโt merely codify halacha; he fundamentally transformed the legal framework by shifting from common law judicial precedent to statute-based legislative law. This change represents a profound transformation, akin to replacing a fluid, case-by-case legal system with a fixed, top-down structure.
In traditional Talmudic common law, courts based their rulings on precedents, dynamically establishing justice by comparing cases across different sugyot. Rambamโs approach, however, removed the courtroom-based precedent system and replaced it with a universal, static halachic code. He eliminated the need for judicial interpretation, which made halacha more accessible but also rigid. Furthermore, he shifted authority from local courts to centralized rulings, prioritizing consistency over adaptability. Rambamโs codification likely served as a survival mechanism for Jewish communities scattered across the medieval world, but it came at the cost of halachic common law flexibility replaced by statute law appeals to authorities. No common law courtroom ever accepts judgments of judicial law based upon the power of legislative or bureaucratic red-tape statute law.
The Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch statute law appeal to authority statute law fundamentally transformed how halacha functioned. T’NaCH and Talmudic common law became static and centralized, with appeals to authority rather than precedent-based courtroom rulings.
For Rambam, with Jewish communities dispersed and lacking cohesive legal institutions, a universal codification was likely seen as necessary for survival. Hence the RambaN in ืืืืืช ืืฉื harshly criticized the Baali HaMaor’s criticism of the Rif halachic codification — despite the Rif code being a common law halachic code rather than the Rambam’s statute law halachic code.
What distinguishes the common law Rif code from the statute law Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch statute law codes? Answer: the Rif always opened with the Mishna. His posok halacha made on the Gemara made it easier for later scholars to re-interpret the front-top-side viewpoints of the 3 dimensional language of the Mishnaic blueprint re-interpreted through Gemara precedents. The Rambam code of halacha destroyed the uses of Gemara halachic precedents to re-interpret the multi-faceted diamond like faces contained within each and every Mishna.
The Rifโs methodology preserved the dynamic precedent-based system of the Talmud, whereas Rambamโs codification replaced judicial interpretation with a centralized, static legal framework. The common law commentaries made by both the Baali HaMaor and Rabbeinu Tam’s criticism of the Rashi simple p’shat sh’itta of learning the Talmud come into stark clear and visibly different than the manner which the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch failed to prioritize and maintain T’NaCH and Talmudic common law.
A correct method for learning TโNaCH, Talmud, and Siddur draws from the dynamic, inductive logic system of Rabbi Akivaโs PaRDeS, not the static deductive models of Greek syllogism adopted by Ibn Ezra or Rambam. This shโitta compares and contrasts sugyot across contextsโprophetic texts with prophetic texts, halachot with halachotโusing Rabbi Yishmaelโs 13 middot to trace precedent and build future-facing rulings grounded in the brit. Unlike the codified fossil logic of the Shulchan Aruch, Gemara learning operates like a living legal courtroom, not a museum of statutes. The Torahโs path walks the winding roads of precedent, not the straight lines of philosophical abstraction.
________________________________________________________
In texts of old, the p’shat seeks the plain,
A stable triangle, logic’s firm embrace.
Yet Ibn Ezra’s thoughts, with foreign strain,
Reveal a depth beyond the simple space.
The complex sh’itta, like a winding road,
Draws from the Talmud’s rich, dynamic lore,
Where precedents shape the paths that are strode,
And justice flows, adapting evermore.
Inductive paths, like generals in war,
Project the future from the past’s embrace,
While static reasoning, like fossils stored,
Confines the truth within a rigid place.
Thus, halacha breathes, a living art,
In every twist, it mirrors the heart.
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 โ 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, 1520โ1572) 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, 1510โ1573) โ 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 codifyโthey 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 ืืืื ืืฉื ืืจืืื when they permit ืจืฉืขืื to publicly profane their sworn oath made before kosher witnesses and a minyan of Jews, these ืจืฉืขืื 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 ืืืฅ 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 ื ืืืื upon the ืจืฉืข ex-husband, based upon the precedent of gere tzeddik as a “new creation”. The ืืืืง of this mitzva, that the reverse din of ืืจืช equally expels and cuts off this ืจืฉืข, who publicly makes false oaths – as ืืจืช, 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 ื ืืืื 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 ื ืืืื. 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 ืจืฉืข 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 ื ืืืื, 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 ืชืืื ืืขืฉื ืืจืืฉืืช 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 ื ืืืื 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 ื ืืืื 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 ื ืืืื 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 ืืืจืื having the second name ืืฉื ื ืชืืจื. 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 ืืฉืื ืืจืข merits that he like Baruch Spinoza (1632โ1677), 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.
A Guide to understanding how to learn the Talmud employing Inductive and Deductive reasoning
Addressing how the Gemara learns the Mishna. This requires addressing the key issue of logic. The sealed Talmudic texts have a static quality. This fixed static quality plays well into syllogism triangulation deductive reasoning. A sugya of Gemara compares, its seems to me, to a thesis statement format. Each sugya of Gemara has an opening thesis statement, and a closing restatement of that same thesis statement โ employing a multiple Case/Din study. These opening and closing comparative Case\Din studies functions, so to speak, as the two legs of a triangle. If a person compares any halachic precedent found in the body of that sugya, this point maps the โ so to speak โ the hypotenuse line; forming a syllogistic line of reasoning process which seeks to understand how these comparison of precedents Cases teach Talmudic common law. And specifically how the Gemara comments on the language of the Mishna based upon comparative precedents.
Important to stress, Talmudic common law does not compare to reading a novel for pleasure. Torah law โ very cranial by nature. The 13 hermeneutical rules of Rabbi Yishmael or the PaRDeS system of textual interpretation the ืืกืื upon which both the Mishna and Gemara stand upon. The major theme of the Talmud, it continually weighs tohor vs tuma spirits which dominates the opposing Yatzirot within the heart.This defining agenda a subtle kabbalah, concealed from the eyes of foreign โRomanโ censors. The texts of both the Yerushalmi and Bavli written under prying watchful and suspicious-hostile eyes. The birth of this common law literature did not happen in a political vacuum nor some fictional virgin-birth process.
The Talmud reflects a highly edited and polished text. To study the Talmud requires developing an awareness of this basic most fundamental fact. The Talmud, the product of Jewish military disasters and defeats, and the hopes to restore national and political independence. The Jewish people face the cold cruel facts of a fast approaching hard cruel gโlut winter of oppression, theft, sexual immodesty, and bribed judges. The Framers of the Talmud therefore sought to establish a model for when the Spring of redemption and political national independence once more shined. A rebuilt Jewish state shall require Sanhedrin courts of common law in order to obey ืฆืืง ืฆืืง ืชืจืืืฃ, the Torah definition of faith. This concept of faith separates the oath alliance from the dominant empires together with their beliefs in Universal Gods. The revelation of HaShem at Sinai, only Israel witnessed. Hence HaShem โ a local tribal God, who continually creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing. Jews have no burning obligation to convert the world to embrace some Universal belief in a Monotheistic God.
Jewish courts, based upon the primary Talmudic Sanhedrin model, do not remotely resemble the vertical Goyim courtrooms where the State bribes the Judges and the Prosecuting Attorneys by paying their public salaries. A lateral Sanhedrin court system would require a comparative model to the public health care insurance which prevails in the Jewish State today, to maintain the Courts. The police, their first Order of Priority: to serve the Federal Sanhedrin Court system, rather than legislative assemblies or Governments; the police essentially enforce the rulings made through the lateral common law judicial judgments.
Torah common law, a judicial legal system, and not a legislative or bureaucratic statute law system of authoritative decrees ruled by concealed cults of personality. Herein what fundamentally distinguishes Jewish common law from all other Goyim legal systems. The Torah courts have a unique function. To establish and maintain the culture and customs which both determine and define bnai brit national cohen identity; to protect against the violation of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein defines the mandate of Federal Sanhedrin lateral common law courtrooms.
The study of each and every new sugya of Gemara therefore requires making a syllogistic Case/Din triangulation/summation that seeks to understand the gist of the sugya contents. This discipline of learning, in-effect seeks to duplicate the scholarship made by the 450 โ 600 CE Savoraim Talmudic scholars. The Talmud does not sit like some
โgilded wifeโ all by herself alone. It has a warp/weft relationship with the TโNaCH, through the kabbalah of rabbi Akivaโs ืคืจืืก inductive reasoning logic format. Where TโNaCH prophetic mussar provides the pโshat of Aggadic and Midrashic stories. The directive of both Aggadah with its Midrash commentary, designed to amplify Aggadic prophetic mussar โ common law Case/Din studies โ to serve as the ืืกืื of obeying the ritual halachic observance by way of ืจืื\ืกืื inductive reasoning; to birth tohor time oriented halacha spirits straight from the Torah in order to breath life into the โclayโ souls of our people โ to cause them to breath the spirit of life โ based upon the precedent of the creation of Adam.
_________________________________________________In summation________________________
Jewish courts do not exist to enforce imperial ideology, but to protect the oath alliance identity of the bnai brit chosen Cohen people and to enforce the Second Commandmentโresisting assimilation and foreign gods. Each act of studying a sugya โ not some passive reception but a reenactment of the Savoraimโs legal reasoning. Halachic study, when done correctly, achieves both spiritual tohor middot clarity and political restoration.
______________________________________________________________________________________
ืืโ ืืืงืชื ื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืื ืชืืืืืช ืชืืืืืชืืื ืืืืฆื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืืฆื ืืื? ืืื ืฉืืช ืชื ื ืืืืช ืืืืืืช ืืจืืขืื ืืกืจ ืืืช. ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืื ืชืืืืืช ืชืืืืืชืืื. ืืืืฆื ืืื ืื ืฉื ื ืื ืืืืช ืืื ืฉื ื ืชืืืื ืืืืช ืืืโ_________________________________________ืืืฉืชื ืืืืงืืื ื ืืจืื, ืฉื ืืื ืืืืื ืงืจื ื ืื ืื ืืืืื ืืจืื ืื ืจืื ืื ืฉื ื ืืืืื ืงืจื ื ืืื ืฉื ื ืื ืืืืื ืงืจื ื ืืฃ ืฉื ืื ืฉื ื ืืืืื ืงืจื ื ืืื ืฉื ื ืื ืืืืื ืงืจื ื
______________________________________________________________________________
Here we have established two legs of the triangular syllogism logic. Now letโs consider the hypotenuse.
______________________________________________________________________________
ืชโืฉ ืืืืจ ืฉืืจื ืืืจ ืื ืืืื ืืืืฃ ืืื ืืืืื ืืืืชื ืืขืืื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืงืจื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืชืืื ืื ืคืืื ืจืืื ื ืืื ืชื ืืืืขื ืโื ืืชืืืฉื ืืื ืืืืืืจืช ืืืื ืืืื ืืืขืืช ืืื
_____________________________________________________________________________________
We now have forged a logical syllogism of sorts. Leg A โ Where the Torah defines Avot, there are Toldot, and the legal status of Toldot depends on whether they are โืืืืฆื ืืืโ โ that is, functionally similar.
Leg B โ In the case of Regel, liability applies whether the damage completely destroys capital or not. By analogy, Shen is treated the same way, since it shares the essential trait of natural, expected damage.
Leg C โ Hypotenuse โ You might have thought the category of Keren only applies (i.e., has special status of Tam/Muad distinction) when the horn is detached, since thatโs a more โartificialโ scenario.
But the verse clarifies (Giluy Milta) that even when attached, the distinction holds โ meaning that the essence of the act (unnatural goring) and not the physical condition of the instrument (attached/detached) defines the halakhic category.
The legal category (Av or Toldah) and liability are not defined by physical features (e.g., whether the horn is detached, or whether Shen consumes capital), but by behavioral nature. Therefore, the Torahโs system of Avot and Toldot is structured around the behavioral pattern of the damage, not the instrument or its result.
Hence, Shen, like Regel, is always liable, regardless of whether it consumes capital โ and Toldot of Shen are โืืืืฆื ืืืโ in legal outcome. The halakhic logic (ืกืืจื) that underlies the sugya, but not every stylistic or textual move the Gemara makes on the surface. Bava Kama fundamentally addresses How Torah common law interprets damages ืงืจื, ืฉื, ืจืื, and what qualifies as Av vs. Toldah. When liability applies, whether a distinction made between the instrument of damage or nature of the act itself (natural vs. unnatural). And whether toldot carry the legal obligations identical to Avot in matters of liability for damages inflicted upon others goods, property or persons.
The categories of damage, defined by the nature of the act and not by its physical instrument such has horned or dehorned. This logic aligns the sugya with the larger conceptual framework of Avot/Toldot. Especially based upon the similar precedent of Shabbat. Where toldot like avot bear full responsibility.
The โgiluy miltaโ piece (from ืืืืจ ืฉืืจื ืืืจ ืื) resolves a potential limiting assumption. Clarifying that the liability does not hinge on whether the horn exists in fact or not. Rather this Av liability doesnโt hinge on actual horns but rather on the nature of the damage. This summation of the opening sugya core conceptual structure serves as an essential ืืกืื overview which permits easier evaluation and interpretation of all later off the dof inductive reasoning precedent texts introduced there after. This opening sugya serves as the basis to learn the entire Talmud through a comprehensive methodology of learning.
Having made a triangulation overview, can now proceed to making inductive reasoning precedent analysis from other Primary Sources.
Compare the language of the Mishnah (and Torah) to a blueprint โ specifically, to viewing a building plan from different angles. The โfront faceโ reading is the plain sense or surface-level meaning. But the Gemara employs ืื ืื ืื precedents to rotate the viewpoint perspective. Side view, top view, or even cross-sections. These reveal hidden structures, assumptions, or frameworks invisible from the front.
A simple legal hermeneutic. The Mishnah might say something in a straightforward way, but the Gemara often challenges that appearance by reframing the concept, introducing precedents, and asking, โWhat does this really mean in context?โ Learning a pโsuk ืคืจื actively entails the discipline of never divorcing this specific ืคืจื from its sugya ืืื. Learning a specific in context, defines how the Talmud studies the language of the TโNaCH. This shโitta of learning day and night different than how the Roman counterfeit gospels divorced TโNaCH pโsukim from their surrounding context. Rabbi Yishmael referred to this discipline as ืคืจื ืืื ืื ืืื ืคืจื.
How does the 39 principal wisdom skills of labor, required to build the Mishkan, serve as a precedent or model for how the Gemara learns the four โืืืืงโ, actually โ eight Avot damagers. Consider the language of the precedent Mishna. A fundamental basic which explains why the BโHaG, Rif, and Rosh, common law commentaries always open with the Mishna which their halachic posok comments upon! Herein defines their halachic commentaries as common law as contrasted by how the Yad, Tur, & Shulkan Aruch โ their alien assimilated statute law divorces Gemara precedents of halacha from interpreting the 70 faces of the Mishna.
When the Rabbeinu Tam jumps off the dof and brings a precedent, his common law learning only read the Gemara viewed from a different perspective learning viewpoint, but failed to do the same by employing this the sugya of Gemara to re-interpret the intent of the language of the Mishna which that โhomeโ Gemara comments upon โ based upon the changed perspective of the off-the-dof Gemara precedent. In 1232 a majority of the Baali Tosafot placed the Rambamโs writings into ื ืืืื.
Ten years later the lights of Hanukkah ceased to shine, the Pope and the king of France, Hitler in a different Era, burned 24 cartloads of hand written Talmudic manuscripts in Paris. (The invention of the printing press some two Centuries in the future.) And approximately 70 years thereafter a Royal decree expelled all Jews from France. This destroyed the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of Torah, NaCH, and Talmudic scholarship. The Tzeddukim-like Reshonim scholars who embraced Greek/Roman culture and customs prevailed in the Rambam Civil War.
Whenever the Gemara jumps off the dof and brings an outside source precedent from the 6 Orders of the Mishna etc, this serves as a paradigm for reinterpretation. The opening thesis statement of our sugya of Gemara commentary to the common law Mishna: ืืืงืชื ื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืื ืชืืืืืช ืชืืืืืชืืื ืืืืฆื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืืฆื ืืื. The key ืืืื, it seems to me, the basic ืืืืื which separates ืืืืื from ืขืืืื. Our Mishna โืืจืืขื ืืืืช ื ืืืงืื ืืฉืืจ ืืื, implies ืขืืืื not ืืืืื. What distinguishes and separates the two classes of verbs which share a common simple translation?
The Mishna of Shabbat addresses the issue of transporting goods, probably without an eruv. โืืชื ื: ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืฆืืจ ืืื. The Mishnah hides interpretive layers. While the Gemaraโs job is to unpack, rotate, and reveal. What looks simple may hide complexity. Law is not flat โ it has depth, symbolism, and structure. Reading halakhah requires shifting perspectives โ just like interpreting a blueprint. Herein explains why the statute halachic codifications โ utterly false and a ืืืืื ืืฉื.
Do โtoldotโ equally apply to ืขืืืื as they do to ืืืืื? Herein defines the precedent question which shifts the blueprint perspective from a Front to a Top or Side view! The Gemara refines the meaning of ืืืืื by making a reference to Yosef in Egypt. Our Mishna opens with Tam animals or even holes in the ground. Hence the question stands: what separates the one verb from the other verb? Skillfully transporting from domain to domain on shabbat requires skilled ืืืืื or unskilled ืขืืืื? If a plate falls from the table on shabbat, permitted to sweep and clean the broken shards of the shattered plate.
When the Gemara โjumps off the dafโ and brings a precedent from another Order (Seder), itโs not a tangent โ itโs a legal lens shift. Precedents are not used to prove, but to reconstruct the blueprint. They bring out hidden legal categories within familiar language. Halachic codes (Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, etc.) flatten the blueprint. They take one angle โ often the front face โ and freeze it into a static 2D schematic or camera picture. The BโHaG, Rif, and Rosh respect the motion dynamic โ they open each halakhic statement by citing the Mishnah because its language represents the entry point to the Gemaraโs architectural analysis. While the Rabbeinu Tam, when he relies on an โoff-the-dafโ precedent without rotating that sugya back to its Home Mishna, fails to use the precedent architecturally โ he forgets to rebuild the Mishnah using the rotated view of the precedent off the dof Primary Source.
Why did Rashi, basically write a Ibn Ezra dictionary as his commentary to the Talmud? Why did Rabbeinu Tam systematically fail to take his ืืฉื ื ืชืืจื โlegislative reviewโ made on a sugya of Gemara, to extend this changed perspective chiddush to understand the depth of the language of the Home Mishna? Following the destruction of Herodโs Temple, the Romans kept a sharp critical eye upon the re-established Sanhedrin! So too the church despised the existence of the Talmud-the working model for a restored Sanhedrin court system in a Torah Constitutional Republic. The French common law school of Talmudic scholarship forced later Jewish scholarship to make the most essential ืืืืง and make a โlegislative reviewโ of the language of the Mishnaic Din.
Talmud as multidimensional legal architecture, not static statute. ืืืืื skill-forms vs. ืขืืืื-impact-forms/causative force. Do toldot apply equally across both domains? What distinguishes the โworkโ of Yosef from the โworkโ of an ox plowing the fields? โืืืื ืืืืชื ืืขืฉืืช ืืืืืชืโ Does Yosef do tohor time oriented commandments which require kโvanna as the definition of his ืืืืืชื, which defines shabbat observance? Does judicial courtroom justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted too qualify as a tohor time oriented commandment from the Torah itself? The Mishnaโs term โAvot Melachotโ by rotating through a biblical precedent โ not to quote a verse robbed from its contexts, but to shift the interpretive angle.
When the Gemara applies โAv/Toldahโ structure from Shabbat here, itโs a precedent transfer โ rotating melachahโs taxonomy of structured action into damage lawโs taxonomy of structured causation. This ืื ืื ืื serves as an inductive interpretive leap. A new angle on the blueprint. This shows how structural metaphors run across Mishnaic Orders โ if you rotate the lens. The Gemaraโs precedent, not meant to โwin an argument over halachic posokโ; as the statute law halachic clowns learned โ rather itโs meant to reconstruct the Mishnah from a rotated viewpoint.
Halacha within the Talmud, not a simplified collection of rules โ organized into codes of religious halachic rules of faith. But rather a blueprinted structure of dynamic precedent based judicial skills required to discern one judicial case from other similar but different judicial cases. This fundamental distinction perhaps defines the tohor middah of ืจื ืืกื as ืืื ื ืคืงื ืืื ื, ืชืืื ืืขืฉื ืืจืืฉืืช, ืืืื ืจืื. The static statute law codes pervert the Talmud unto a frozen archaic fossil, known today as โOrthodox Judaismโ.
ืคืจืง ืจืืืขื ืฉืืช ืืืื ื. ืืชื ื: ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืื ืืื ืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืฆื ืขืืฉื ื ืืื ืืช ืืืืกืื ืืื ื ืืคืืื ืจืืโืข ืืืืจ ืงืืคื ืืื ืขื ืฆืื ืื ืืื ืฉืื ืืืื ืืืื ื ืืืื ืืืืืืจ ืืืืืื ืืืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืืืืจ ืืโ. ืจืื ืืืื ืื ืคืื ืืฉื ืจืื ืืื ืชื ืืื ืืืืืจ ืื ืชืื ืื ืืฆื ืืขื ืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืืืืืื ืืืชื. ืจืื ืืืื ืืจโ ืืืื ื ืืื ืืชืืืจ ืื ืชืื ืื ืืืคืืชืืงื. ืืื ืื ืชืื ืื ืืฆื ืืขื ืืืืช ืื ืืื. ืจืื ืืจืืื ืืฉื ืจื ืคืืจืฉืื ืืืฆืืช ืขื ืืื ืฉืืืคืืช ืฉื ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืช. ืืืจ ืจโืฉ ืโืจ ืื ื ืื ืฉืืขืชื ืืืื. ืืืืชื ืืืจื ืื ืืฉืื ืืืฆื ืฉื ืืืื ืืโื ืกืืืืื ืื ืืื ืืฉืืื ืฉืื ืชืชืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืคืื ืขืืื ืืช ืืืื.
ืคืจืง ืฉืืืขื ืฉืืช ืืืื ื: ืืโ ืืืืช ืืืืืืช ืืจืืขืื ืืกืจ ืืืช ืื ืืื ืืืืืช ืืืืืืช ืื ืืชืืจื? ืจโ ืฉืืืื ืืจ ื ืืื ืืฉื ืจืื ืืื ืชื ืื ืื ืืจืืขืื ืืกืจ ืืืช ืืืืื ืฉืืชืื ืืชืืจื ืืขืื ืงืืื ืจื ืืื ืื ืื ืืืชืื ืืืืืืช ืฉืชืื. ืโืจ ืฉืืื ืืฉืืจืช ืขืืื ื ืืจืื ืืื ืืื ืืืจืืืชื ืืื ืืฉืื ืืชืืืื ืืืืชื ืืขืื ืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืืืืชื ืืขืฉืืช ืืืืืชื ืื ืืื. ืืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืฉืืืขื ืืืืืชื ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื ืื ืืื. ืชื ื ืจืื ืฉืืขืื ืื ืืืืื ืฉืฉืช ืืืื ืชืืื ืืฆืืช ืืืืื ืืฉืืืขื ืขืฆืจืช ืืืฉื ืืืืื ืื ืชืขืฉื ืืืืื. ืืจื ืื ืื ืืฉืืื ืืจืืขืื ืืกืจ ืืืช ืืืืืืช
____________________________________________________________
The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 labors less as a list and more as concepts which it tends to unpack midrashically and practically through case law. The Yerushalmi often embeds melachic categories in ongoing halachic debates or narrative expansions. This style is characteristic of the Yerushalmiโs broader legal method โ dynamic, situational, and deeply woven into context Yet our Mishna implies eight Avot avodot ((ืืฉืืจืช ืขืืื ื ืืจืื ืืื ืืื ืืืจืืืชื ืืื ืืฉืื ืืชืืืื ืืืืชื))
The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 does not treat the 39 melachot as 39 โAvotโ in the strict legal sense. Rather, it limits the number of true Avot to just two, and treats the rest as derivatives (ืชืืืืืช) or extensions.
๐น Yerushalmi Shabbat 7:2 โ
ืืืืช ืืืืืืช ืืจืืขืื ืืกืจ ืืืช ืื ืืื ืืืืืช ืืืืืืช ืื ืืชืืจื?
The Yerushalmi gives several midrashic derivations (e.g., parallels with โืืืืืโ in the Mishkan, in Bereshit, in Vayikra), but then Rabbi Acha says:
ืืขืื ืงืืื ืจื ืืื ืื ืื ืืืชืื ืืืืืืช ืฉืชืื.
ืืืจ ืจืื ืฉืืื ืืฉืืจืช ืขืืื ื ืืจืื ืืื ืืื ืืืจืืืชื ืืื ืืฉืื ืืชืืืื ืืืืชื.
ืืืื ืืืืชื ืืขืฉืืช ืืืืืชื โ ืื ืืื.
ืืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืฉืืืขื ืืืืืชื ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื โ ืื ืืื.
Meaning: only two verses refer to โmelachahโ in a way that might count as foundational Avot. From these, the Yerushalmi limits the count of true Avot Melachot to two, and treats the rest midrashically or derivatively.
Where the Bavli (Shabbat 49b) treats the 39 Avot as a formal halakhic taxonomy (with toledot extending from them), the Yerushalmi refuses this formal structure:
It questions the textual foundation of โ39 Avot Melachot.โ
It restricts the number of true โAvotโ to 2, via the midrash on โmelachtoโ from Bereshit and Shemot.
It implies the 39 are not equal Avot, but derived, embedded, or inferred from only a few true Torah-level archetypes. This supports:
The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 melachot not as a formal list, but as conceptual categories, rooted in narrative, midrash, and legal inference โ not codified taxonomy.
In fact, by limiting the number of true Avot Melachot, the Yerushalmi undermines the static structure of 39 as an equal set. Instead, it views the structure as a dynamic, interpretive field, with a few central roots (avot) and many situational unfoldings (toledot).
This dovetails with Bava Kamma: the โAvot Nezikinโ arenโt just categories โ theyโre root modes of avodah or human agency. Likewise, in the Yerushalmi, only a few actions count as true melachah, and the rest are contextual expressions.
The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 limits the Avot Melachot to two. It does not endorse a rigid 39-fold taxonomy like the Bavli. This reinforces the chiddush: the Yerushalmi treats melachah as a dynamic, narrative-legal concept โ not a fixed codebook. It mirrors the chiddush of tam vs muโad in Bava Kamma: Avot reflect root intentionality, while Toledot reflect unfolding consequences. In conclusion:
ืืืื ืืืืชื ืืขืฉืืช ืืืืืชื โ ืื ืืื.
ืืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืฉืืืขื ืืืืืชื ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื โ ืื ืืื
Meaning: only two verses refer to โmelachahโ in a way that might count as foundational Avot. From these, the Yerushalmi limits the count of true Avot Melachot to two, and treats the rest midrashically or derivatively. Where the Bavli (Shabbat 49b) treats the 39 Avot as a formal halakhic taxonomy (with toledot extending from them), the Yerushalmi refuses this formal structure. It questions the textual foundation of โ39 Avot Melachot.โ It restricts the number of true โAvotโ to 2, via the midrash on โmelachtoโ from Bereshit and Shemot. It implies the 39 are not equal Avot, but derived, embedded, or inferred from only a few true Torah-level archetypes.
The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 melachot not as a formal list, but as conceptual categories, rooted in narrative, midrash, and legal inference โ not codified taxonomy. In fact, by limiting the number of true Avot Melachot, the Yerushalmi undermines the static structure of 39 as an equal set. Instead, it views the structure as a dynamic, interpretive field, with a few central roots (avot) and many situational unfoldings (toledot). This dovetails with the reading of Bava Kamma: the โAvot Nezikinโ arenโt just categories โ theyโre root modes of avodah or human agency. Likewise, in the Yerushalmi, only a few actions count as true melachah, and the rest are contextual expressions.
The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 limits the Avot Melachot to two. It does not endorse a rigid 39-fold taxonomy like the Bavli. The Yerushalmi treats melachah as a dynamic, narrative-legal concept โ not a fixed codebook. Tam vs muโad in Bava Kamma: Avot reflect root intentionality, while Toledot reflect unfolding consequences.
ืืืงืชื ื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืื ืชืืืืืช ืชืืืืืชืืื ืืืืฆื ืืื ืื ืคืืจืืฉ ืืืื ืืงืืโื ืื ืืง ืฉืื ืืืื ื ืืื ืืืฆื ื ืืง ืงื ืกื ืืื ืืืืขื ืฉืืืืง ืืฉืื ื ืืง ืฉืื ืื ืืขืืื ืืชื ืืฉืื ืืฆื ื ืืง ืืืืคื ืืขืื ื ืืืืืข ืื ื ืชืืืืืช ืืื ื ืืืืช ืื ืืืืฆื ืืื ื ืื ืื ืืื ืืืขื ืืื ืืืื ืชืืืื ืืฆื ื ืืง ืืืืคื ืื ืืืื ืชืืืืืชืืื ืืื ืืืืฆื ืืื ืืืกืืงื ื ืืืืืื ืชืืืืืชืืื ืืืฆื ืืื ืืจ ืืชืืืื ืืจืื ืืืื ื ืืื ืืฆื ื ืืง ืฆืจืืจืืช ืืืืืชื ืืืืจื ืื ืืื ืืฉืื ืืื ืืฆื ื ืืง ืืืื ืงืจื ืื ืชืืืืืช ืืจืื ืืืฉืื ืื ืืขืืื ืืคืืืจื ืืจืโืจ ืืืื ืขืืืื ืืขืืื ืฉืื ืืกืื ืืืชื ื ืื ืืืงืื ืฉืืื ืืื ืืขืืืช ืืืขื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืช ืืืชืืืช ืืฉื ืืืืืืจืืช
Now we see from the Rif that he immediately distinguishes the difference between tam from muad damagers. Consequently the opening line of the Mishna too must distinguish between tam and muad damagers. The 4 Avot damagers brought by the Mishna all come in the catagory of tam damagers. The reader of the Mishna required to make the required ืืืืง logical inference and apply the language for tam damagers equally to 4 Avot types of muad damagers! This crucial ืืืืง the Reshonim failed to learn. This failure triggered a ืืจืืืืช ืืืืจืืช for all downstream later Talmudic scholars โ because they too failed to make this critical ืืืืง of logic.
Shen (eating) and Regel (walking/trampling) โ the animal is considered muโad from the outset. No such thing as tam eating or tam walking. Because eating and walking are natural behaviors, not aggressive or unusual. So when the animal damages through those means, the Torah automatically classifies it as muโad โ itโs expected. But goring is not natural behavior. The Torah gives the owner the benefit of the doubt โ the animal is considered a tam until it shows repeated aggression. Tzrorot (pebbles kicked by walking) pays half by halacha leMoshe miSinai.
ืืื ืืืขื? ืจื ืืืจ ืืืขื ืื ืืื ืืืชืื (ืืฉืขืืื ืื:ืื) ืื ืชืืขืืื ืืขืื, ืืฉืืืื ืืืจ ืืืขื ืื ืืฉื ืืืืจืืื (ืขืืืืื ื:ื) ืืื ื ืืคืฉื ืขืฉื ื ืืขื ืืฆืคืื ืื, ืืื ืืฉืืข, ืืืืชืจืื ืจื ืืืกืฃ ืืืืืื ืืืชืืืืฉ ืขืฉื ืืืชืืืืื ืืืืจืืื. ืชื ื ืจืื ืืืฉืขืื ืฉืืฉื ืขืฉืจ ืืืืช ื ืืืงืื ,ืฉืืืจ ืื ื ืืืฉืืื ืืืฉืืืจ ื ืืง ืืฆืขืจ ืืจืืคืื ืืฉืืช ืืืืฉืช ืืืจืืขื ืืชื ื ืืจื ืฉืืฉื ืขืฉืจ. ืชื ื ืจืื ืืืื ืขืฉืจืื ืืืจืืขื ืืชืืช ื ืืืงืื, ืชืฉืืืื ืืคื ืืชืฉืืื ืืจืืขื ืืืืฉื ื ืื ืืืืื ืืขืืื ืืืืืื ืืืืื ืก ืืืืคืชื ืืืืืฆืื ืฉื ืจืข ืืืืืื ืืืืืืข ืืืื ืกื ืืื ื ืฉืืฉื ืขืฉืจ, ืืจื ืขืฉืจืื ืืืจืืขื
We learn from the BโHaG that Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Chiyya expand the list of damage categories from the four in the Mishnah to 13 and 24, respectively.
The Seder night is filled with this same middah shel ribui โ the rabbinic instinct to take a core Torah statement and expand its meaning in light of broader oath brit themes. Hence by simply going up-stream we learn an aliya haโdorot rather than an error that plagues the later generations unto this day!
ืื ืฉื ื ืื ืืืืช ืืื ืฉื ื ืชืืืื ืืืืช ืื ืฉื ื ืื ืกืงืืื ืืื ืฉื ื ืชืืืื ืกืงืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืื ืืชืืืื ื ืคืงื ืืื ื ืืืืื ืขืืื ืฉืชื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืื ืื ื ืื ืฉืชื ืชืืืืืช ืืืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืขืืื ืื ืืชืืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืืืืืื ืืชืืืื ืืืงืื ืื ืืืื ืงืจื ืืื ืื ืืืืื ืงืจื ืื ืชืืืื ืื ืืืื ืืืฉืื ืืฉืืื ืงืจื ืืื ืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืืฉืื ืืฉืืื ืงืจื ืื ืชืืืื ืืื ืืืืืืช ืชื ื ืืืืช ืืืืืืืช ืืฉืจืฅ ืืืฉืืืช ืืจืข ืืืื ืืช ืชืืืืืชืืื ืืื ืืืฆื ืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืืืื ืชืืืืืช ืืืืืื
ืืืฉืงืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืืื ืื ืืืื โฆโฆโฆ ืืชื ื: ืืืื ืื ืกืฉืืืื ืืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืฆื ืืื ืขืืฉื ื ืืื ืืช ืืืกืื ืืื ื ืืคืืืช
Shall return to the previous precedent earlier first introduced in the fourth chapter of shabbat. But this time, intend to make a triangulation which connects the opening and closing thesis statement with its hypotenuse third leg. Then shall show how sugya integrity equally applies unto the Yerushalmi. My theory contends that the ืกืืืจืืื scholars edited both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. Very little scholarship ever made upon the scholarship made by the ืกืืืจืืื scholars. Most rabbinic authorities limit the influence of this critical time period to editing only the Bavli, based on the fact that they generally qualify as Babylonian scholars.
Just as Bar Kochba failed to unify Judean and Alexandrian Jewish power to fight Rome, the Babylonian scholars (Savoraim/Geonim) later failed to preserve or reintegrate the wisdom and redactional traditions of the Judean Talmud (Yerushalmi)? This conclusion reflects a long arc of Jewish fragmentation โ military, political, and intellectual โ rooted in regional parochialism and short-sighted leadership. Such a repugnant idea simply causes my soul to retch.
To reduce the rich, living tradition of Eretz Yisraelโs Torah โ the Yerushalmi, the Land-based halakhic voice, the embodied oath alliance to do mitzvot ืืฉืื, which forever binds our people as the chosen Cohen people โ to a marginal footnote, while canonizing the Bavli as if it stood alone, represents a kind of exile. An exile of method, of memory, and of oath brit vision. Itโs not just โa repugnant ideaโ โ itโs a betrayal of the subservient relationship between the Gemara to the Mishna. Yes even my hero, Rabbeinu Tam fell into this cursed way of thinking when he failed to read the language of the Mishna from a different โperspective-viewpointโ like his precedent based off the dof research did with the sugyot of the Gemara. But that this ืืจืืืืช ืืืืจืืช equally infected the minds of the Savoraim Era of scholarship โ absolutely not. The curse of gโlut had yet to impact our leaders that they had already forgotten the wisdom of doing mitzvot ืืฉืื.
This chiddush strives to forge a powerful ideological and interpretive vision โ one that challenges the foundations of how rabbinic history and Talmudic authority have been narrated for over a millennium. The strength of this shโitta, it expresses its own form of historical revisionism, but restoring the remembered oath brit alliance, originally sworn by the Avot themselves, which creates through Av time oriented commandments the chosen Cohen people in all generations ืืฉ ืืืื. It re-integrates the Mishnah, Bavli, and Yerushalmi as co-dependent axes of one oath-bound system.
An idea that my parents implanted into my brain: โIts easier to be a critic than a play-writeโ. This learning throws down the gauntlet of revolt against the statute law assimilated Yad, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch which casts the Jewish people off the chosen path of pursuing Av tohor time oriented commandments as the essence of our brit alliance ืืฉืื. Torah holds depth, ืืฉื ื ืชืืจื simply not read comparable to how the Xtians and Muslims read their bible and koran abominations of Av tuma avoda zarah. To reduce Torah to statute desecrates the architecture of brit, betrays the Gemaraโs subservience to the Mishnah, and exiles the national soul from its sacred rhythm in time._____________________________________________________________________
ืืืืจ ืืชืื ืืืงืืืืขืื ืืื ืื ืืชื ื ืืืืช ืืืืืืช ืืจืืขืื ืืกืจ ืืืช ืื ืื ืื? โฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆ ืื โฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆ.ืืืชื ืื ืชืื ืืกื ืืจืโืจ ืืจืโื ืื ืืืจืืื ืืช ืืงืจืฉืื ืืขืืื ืืงืจืงืข ืืืชื ืื ืชืืฆืืื ืืจืโื ืืจืโืจ ืื ืืืฆืืื ืืขืืื ืืขืืื ืืืชื ืื ืชืืฆืืื ืืจืโื ืืจืโื ืืจืโื ืืจืฉืืช ืืืืื ืืื ืงื ืขืืื ืืืื ืืจืื ืืืืจื ืชืจืืืืืื ืืืืชืืื ืจื ืืื ืืจ ืืืื ืืจืฉืืช ืืืืื ืืจืโื ืืจื ืจืฉืืช ืืจืืื โฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆ. ืืืืจ ืืขืฉืืช ืฆืจืืื ื ืื ืก ืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืืชื ืืขืฉืืช ืืืืืชื ืืื ืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืืื ืืื ืงืืืจ
ืืฉืืื ืืื ืขืืืืชื ืชืืงื
The Mishna of this mesechta shabbat addresses moving moist vegetables, that its permissible to move them with tufts of wool. The Mishnah models a mode of discernment: ืื ืื, ืืืฆื โ asking how and why certain acts qualify as melacha versus non-melacha (mere handling, movement, utility, convenience). This distinction is not procedural, but cognitive-intentional, grounded in purpose, skill, and constructive transformation.
So the language of ืืื ืืโฆ ืืืฆืโฆ is not just rhetorical โ it is methodological. It marks a halakhic contrast between skilled avodah and unskilled common labor, like sweeping the floor after a shabbos meal. The contrast between mesechta shabbatโs focus upon ืืืืื as opposed and contrasted by baba kamaโs focus upon ืขืืืื, qualifies as a classic compare and contrast style of the study of literature throughout the Ages as practiced by all cultures and societies which instruct Higher Education to the younger generations.
Using Mishkan transport examples (ืงืจืฉืื, ืขืืื, ืจืฉืืืืช) to reverse-engineer the skill level and intention involved in transferring items โ constructive, purposeful, and skilled movement versus passive or utilitarian shlepping.
Tilting a Jar qualifies as an act of ืขืืืื, not a forbidden ืืืืื. Such common labor does not compare to the skill required to construct the Mishkan. Yosef, not freed from his prison cell simply because he could sweep the floor as a common slave. Josef kept his masterโs accounts and other skilled labor. The sugya reconstructs through its three-legged structure: not just halakhic outcomes, but the architecture of skilled avodah.
The repeated โืื ืืโฆ ืืืฆืโฆโ language signals an invitation not to memorize rulings, but to penetrate the legal logic beneath the surface: intention, transformation, and Mishkan precedent. ืืื ืื โ From where do we know? โ This demands source awareness, invoking precedent (ืืืืืช ืืืฉืื) to justify legal structures. ืืืฆื โ How is this so? โ This demands operational clarity, not in procedural terms but qualitative ones: skill, purpose, transformation.
Thus, even a minor act โ like moving moist vegetables with tufts of wool โ becomes a site of deep Torah understanding which discerns between like from like. Not every act of moving constitutes melachah. What matters is skilled construction, not mere movement. Sweeping the floor after a Shabbat meal is avodah โ common, unskilled maintenance, not the creative labor of Mishkan-building.
The movement of beams (ืงืจืฉืื) from wagon to ground versus from domain to domain shows the role of intentional skill โ not just what moves, but how and why. Does Yosef entering to do his melachto count as proof concerning the 39 labors? Is the action constructive and purposeful, or merely routine movement?
The final teiku โ conclusive. The style of the difficulty vs response of the Gemara, this models a Torts courtsโ Prosecutor vs Defense attorneys. The teiku implies that the precedents brought by the one did not convince the other and visa versa. Therefore the 3rd judge of the court had to make a final ruling. The language teiku means that the precedents brought by the opposing justices of the court โ that both sets of precedents which they brought to argue the case both pro and con had equal merit!
Hence the concept of how the Yerushalmi understands the term ืืืกืืจ ืืืืื merits deep respect โ based upon the teiku as codified within the Bavli. The recurring Mishnah formula โืืื ืืโฆ ืืืฆืโฆโ should not be read as mere rhetorical flourish. Rather, it functions as a methodological signal, inviting the learner to uncover the legal architecture beneath each halakhic assertion.
ืืื ืื โ From where do we know? This demands source consciousness, particularly invoking Mishkan precedent to validate categories of melachah. ืืืฆื โ How is this so? This demands not rote procedural description, but qualitative analysis: Is the act constructive? Purposeful? Skilled? The emphasis is on intention and transformation, not mere utility. Thus, even seemingly minor rulings โ such as moving moist vegetables with tufts of wool โ become points of legal discernment. They are opportunities to distinguish melachah from avodah.
The sugya in Shabbat uses Mishkan transport scenarios to dissect the boundaries of melachah. Moving beams (ืงืจืฉืื) from wagon to ground, or from one domain to another, is not about raw movement. It is about intentionality and skill: is this an act of creative, constructive labor, like that which built the Mishkan?
The question raised in the Gemara about Yosef โentering to do his melachtoโ adds a narrative precedent. Is Yosefโs labor melachah or avodah? Was his action one of wisdom on par with interpreting dreams or simple slave labor? This biblical echo tests the cognitive weight of melachah.
Teiku = ืชืฉืื ืืชืจืฅ ืงืืฉืืืช ืืืขืืืช. The logic is not inconclusive; itโs balanced. Each set of precedents โ pro and con โ carries equal legal and interpretive weight. The disagreement is not over evidence, but over legal interpretation and qualitative frameworks. Statute law rulings as represented in the assimilated codes which defiled Jewry in the Middle Ages cannot resolve a Teiku. Only a court which weights the pro/con precedents itself can definitively rule on the teiku case.
This structural insight carries powerful consequences for how we view the Yerushalmi. If the Bavliโs use of teiku models judicial equilibrium โ not indecision โ then the Yerushalmiโs approach to ืืืกืืจ ืืืืื must be read with equal gravitas. The Yerushalmiโs framing is not โunderdevelopedโ or โincompleteโ โ as later scholars (especially post-Geonic) have unfairly claimed. Rather, its halakhic method may differ, but its interpretive weight โ especially in distinguishing melachah from avodah โ is no less sophisticated.
Treating ืื ืืโฆืืืฆืโฆ as a literary-methodological engine. Reading movement scenarios (ืงืจืฉืื, ืจืฉืืืืช) not literally, but as tests of skilled intentionality. Interpreting teiku as judicial respect for the need of a third justice hearing the case before the court, and not indecision which must wait for Eliyahu the prophet. The future of Torah learning depends on restoring halakhic unity and method across Bavli and Yerushalmi.
ืคืจืง ืจืืืขื ืฉืืช ืืืื ื ืืชื ืโ ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืื ืืื ืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืฆื ืขืืฉื ื ืืื ืืช ืืืืกืื ืื ืืื ืฉืื ืืืื ืืืื ื ืืืื ืืืืืืจ. ืืืืืื ืืืจืืื ื ืืื ืืืืืืจ.
Consider the logical syllogism: ืื ืืื ืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืืืืืื ืืืชื: ืจืื ืืืื ืืจโ ืืืื ื ืืื ืืชืืืจ ืื ืชืื ืื ืืืคืืชืืงื. ืืื ืื ืชืื ืื ืืฆื ืืขื ืืืืช ืื ืืื. ืจืื ืืจืืื ืืฉื ืจื ืคืืจืฉืื ืืืฆืืช ืขื ืืื ืฉืืืคืืช ืฉื ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืช. ืืืจ ืจโืฉ ืโืจ ืื ื ืื ืฉืืขืชื ืืืื ืืืืชื ืืืจื ืื ืืฉืื ืืืฆื ืฉื ืืืื ืืโื ืกืืืืื ืื ืืื ืืฉืืื ืฉืื ืชืชืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืคืื ืขืืื ืืช ืืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืจ ืืืคืื ืขืืื ืืื โฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆ. ืืืจ ืจโ ืื ืื ื ืขืืืื ืืืื ื ืขื ืืจืื ืืืืช ื ืืจ ืืืื ืืืืจ ืื ื ืืืจื ืืื ืืืงื ืืื ืื ืืืชื ืืืจืื ืืืืืื ืืืืจ โฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆโฆ.. ืโื ืื ืืฉืืชื ืขืืืื ืืืชืืื ืืืชืจ ืืืืืื ืโื ืื ืืฉืืชื ืขืืืื ืืืชืืื ืืืชืจ ืืืืืื How does this syllogism clarify ืืืืื from ืขืืืื thatโs distinctly different from the way that the Bavli learns this same Mishna?
The Yerushalmiโs logical progression in this sugya โ centered around ืืืื ืฆืืจ (tufts of wool) and related ืืืื ืื scenarios โ develops a legal logic that implicitly distinguishes ืืืืื from ืขืืืื in a way fundamentally different from the Bavliโs approach.
How does this syllogism clarify ืืืืื from ืขืืืื thatโs distinctly different from the way that the Bavli learns this same Mishna?
The Yerushalmiโs logical progression in this sugya โ centered around ืืืื ืฆืืจ (tufts of wool) and related ืืืื ืื scenarios โ develops a legal logic that implicitly distinguishes ืืืืื from ืขืืืื in a way fundamentally different from the Bavliโs approach.
ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืืืืืื ืืืชื ืืืฆื ืขืืฉื ื ืืื ืืช ืืืืกืื ืืื ื ืืคืืืช
You may insulate (food) with moist produce, and you may move it with tufts of wool (gizzei tzemar), but you may not move the wool itself. Yerushalmi: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yochanan qualify this: They say this applies only when the tufts of wool are set aside for commercial storage (ื ืชืื ืื ืืืคืืชืืงื). But if theyโre set aside by the homeowner for insulation use, then the prohibition does not apply.
R. Yirmiyah quoting Rav:
ืคืืจืฉืื ืืืฆืืช ืขื ืืื ืฉืืืคืืช ืฉื ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืช
โ You may spread a mat over piles of bricks on Shabbat.
This further shows that covering or handling utilitarian items is not necessarily melachah, so long as itโs done without construction intent โ that is, unskilled avodah, not constructive melachah. The classic example of setting stones aside to clean oneself after having a bowel movement on shabbat.
Logical Inference: When a material is set aside for non-melachic, household use, then its status does not render its movement a melachah โ this is ืขืืืื, not ืืืืื. R. Yirmiyah quoting Rav:
ืคืืจืฉืื ืืืฆืืช ืขื ืืื ืฉืืืคืืช ืฉื ืืืื ืื ืืฉืืช
โ You may spread a mat over piles of bricks on Shabbat. R. Shimon b. Rabbi (quoting his sister):
ืืืฆื ืฉื ืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืกืืืืื ืื ืืืโฆ ืืื ืืืคืื ืขืืื
โ You may support it with a vessel, but you may not overturn one over it.
Shmuel disagrees: You may cover it. Again, the argument is about purposeful intent: are you preventing a mess or protecting something of value? Neither is constructive melachah โ this is routine maintenance, i.e., avodah.
This further shows that covering or handling utilitarian items is not necessarily melachah, so long as itโs done without construction intent โ that is, unskilled avodah, not constructive melachah.
R. Chaninaโs story with R. Yehudah HaNasi:
ืืืจื ืืื ืืืงื ืืื ืื ืืืชื ืืืจืื ืืืืืื ืืืืจ
โ โDesignate your stones today so you can move them tomorrow.โ
Punchline: If you think about (set aside) the stones beforehand, they are not muktzeh and may be moved. Again, intention (preparation, designation) is what distinguishes the act. Movement alone is not melachah; constructive, skilled transformation is required.
The Yerushalmiโs reasoning builds a syllogism:
A: An object prepared for non-skilled use does not become forbidden to move.
B: Movement is not melachah unless itโs for constructive, skilled, purpose-driven labor.
C: Therefore: Mere movement, covering, handling โ even if intentional โ qualifies as avodah, not melachah. Thus, melachah requires intention plus skilled transformation, much like in the building of the Mishkan.
In all my years sitting in Yeshiva, never once did any Rabbi address the distinction between ืืืืื from ืขืืืื. Therefore to my way of thinking, have these rabbis ever observed the mitzva of shabbat one single day of their lives?
Understanding, based upon the precedent of Baba Kama, that shabbat observance does not limit itself to not doing ืืืืื one day of the week but rather not doing ืืืกืืจ ืขืืืื all the days of Chol/shabbat! The chiddush of learning the Bavli in conjunction with the Yerushalmi, ignites an indictment of a system that divorced legal obedience from legal consciousness.