The Vatican, The Freemasons And The Kabbalah of Ba’al

16 thoughts on “The Vatican, The Freemasons And The Kabbalah of Ba’al”

1. Halacha does not stand upon its own two feet any more than positive and negative Torah commandments

   Halacha does not stand upon its own two feet, as the assimilated to Greek/Roman cultures which dominated Arab society in Spain following the Muslim re-discovery of the concealed ancient Greek philosophies and mathematic books by the foolish church – in the 5th Century CE.

   Halacha compares to positive and negative commandments in the Written Torah! Both this and that serve & function as precedents to understand the k’vanna of the prophetic mussar, as expressed through observance of יסוד יסודי time oriented Torah commandments; precedents to understand the k’vanna of the depth (front, top, side view) of the language also of the Mishna.

   The assimilated halachic codifications, made famous during the dark ages of Xtian barbarism in Europe, they addressed the crushing-issue of the g’lut catastrophe of Jews living as specks of Humanity scattered across the face of the Earth who continually contended with Goyim hatred and demands that Jews convert to the Xtian or Muslim religions! The son of Ibn Ezra converted to Islam. Medieval Europe witness the total collapse of the ancient Roman road system. People rarely travelled to distant lands due to the violent anarchy and chaos of those dark ages of barbarism. Robin Hood bandits murdered and plundered as did pirates on the High Seas.

   Therefore, the assimilated Jews of the Spanish ‘Golden Age’ attempted to address the growing crisis which Jewish communities, besieged by armed Priests, Monks, and Sheiks – by writing codes of halachot which completely abandoned the פרדס logic system/kabbala which learned both T’NaCH & Talmud as a common law legalism. Common law stands upon the יסוד of learning/interpreting the multifaceted language of Av tohor time oriented Commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna; the depth of the Mishna language – whose terms likewise multifaceted – both this and that, engaged Torah scholarship through בנין אב/precedents.

   By stark contrast assimilated Jewish “scholars” of this chaotic period disgrace of Human history, they abandoned T’NaCH Talmud common law. The relationship between the warp/weft loom of T’NaCH and Mishnaic opposing threads weaves the fabric of Talmudic common law scholarship. G’lut Jewry did not have the luxury to invest in deep, subtle interpretations of intent/k’vanna of time oriented Av מלך Torah commandments!

   All the codifications of Torah commandments, other than that written by the B’HaG, ignored the elephant in the China Closet completely! Torah commandment codifications such as the Sefer Ha’Mitzvot, Sefer HaChinukh, or even the Smag’s halachic codification which orbited the organization of a statute law halachic religious-code around Torah commandments all these major works took medieval Jewry down the road of assimilation to Goyim statue law practices and cultures. They attempted to dress up a pig by clothing it with tzitzit and a kippa.

   The B’Hag code of קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות rejected this Jewish false choice of copying the culture and customs of Goyim societies which reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev – another warp/weft loom fabric relationship. Hence the Talmud constructed by the Framers with a Halacha/Aggada warp/weft loom fabric relationship! The B’HaG writes a slew of מצוות דרבנן as מצוות דאורייתא. Rav Saadia ben Yosef Gaon (c. 892 – 942), one of the earliest Jewish scholars who struggled and contended with the dramatic re-discovery of ancient Greek philosophies which seduced the assimilated Tzeddukim — a millennium earlier triggered the Hanukkah Civil War.

   The Rambam marvelled at how the B’HaG could make such an obvious error. Alas the dunce cap of טיפש פשט rests squarely on the Rambam head. Forced to sit in the corner of the school room wearing such a hat for all eternity! All the rabbinic “Torah” commandments as expressed through the B’HaG’s introduction to his common law code of halachic interpretations. He based his posok halacha upon precedents/בנין אב\ — tohor time oriented Av מלך Torah commandments!

   The B’HaG rejected the assimilated perversion of the שב ולא תעשה מצוה of do not pursue or copy the ways practiced by the Goyim as did the טיפש פשט egg-crate simplification of Torah commandments into ice trays of positive and negative commandments! The Av tumah avoda zarah to pursue and copy the culture and customs developed by the rediscovered ancient Greek dead civilization enticed scholars starting with Saadia ben Yosef Gaon and most definitely not limited to the man sitting in the corner wearing the Dunce cap.

   In similar vein, the B’HaG common law codification of halacha accepted the Jewish needs and requirements for a simplified codification of halachic common law – based upon the rebuke received by the RambaN’s מלחמת השם. Despite the fact that the RambaN’s rebuke written after the B’HaG had already passed from this Earth. The B’HaG, also known as Rabbi Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil, lived in the 11th century. He authored the Sefer Mitzvot Katan (ספר מצוות קטן), a concise work that categorizes the mitzvot into 3 distinct sets of categories: Av time oriented, and positive & negative toldot commandments. The RambaN lived in the 13th Century.

   The RambaN famously challenged the Rambam ruling, tefillah – the 5th positive commandment of Sefer Ha’Mitzvot. Alas the RambaN critique failed to address that tefillah-kre’a shma, a mitva from the Torah! The language of the Rambam equally vague, he failed to differentiate between a ודוי דרבנן מן הודוי דאורייתא. The language of the Shemone Esrei סלח לנו does not qualify as a ודוי because its permissible to bring the rabbinic ודוי added to the blessing of שמע קולינו.

   The the Maharsha (Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer Edels) attempted to scratch his ear with his elbow in mesechta Yoma, the famous debate between Rabbi Meir vs. the Sages; Rabbi Meir rejected the idea that NaCh sources and how much more so Tannaim scholars could dispute the ודוי made by Moshe Rabbeinu. But the dispute really quite simple: the ודוי made by Moshe, a rabbinic ודוי.
   Hence the כלל, יחיד ורבים – הלכה כרבים; this general rule applies only in cases of mitzvot דרבנן. The oversimplifications made by Reshonim sticklers to learn the simple p’shat has made a tremendous erosion of downstream generations Torah learning.

   The tohor 7th Oral Torah middah of רב חסד stands upon the k’vanna of making the required מאי נפקא מינא\תמיד מעשה בראשית time oriented Av מלך Torah יסוד יסודי commandments, differentiated from rabbinic mitzvot which do not require k’vanna,, any more than do positive and negative Torah commandments! Time oriented Av מלך Torah commandments, they continually create from nothing the chosen Cohen people in all generations that the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov walks upon the face of the Earth. This oath brit shares no common ground with the notion of some Universal non oath new covenant God for all Humanity.

   To swear a Torah blessing requires sanctification of some Torah defined tohor יסוד יסודי midda. As the previous paragraph, troubled myself, to define the יסוד יסודי seventh tohor midda of רב חסד. Hence a Torah blessing/oath requires שם ומלכות. Translating this complex abstract term to “Name and Kingship”, wears the Rambam Mishna Torah dunce cap! Mishna Torah means “common law”, not the Rambam’s statute halachic codification, based upon Greek & Roman cultural and legal-logical practices.

   The former dedicates a defined יסוד יסודי tohor Torah midda in the Spirit Name blown from within the heart NOT through the lungs – another מאי נפקא מינא fundamental distinction of הבדלה. Blowing hot air of religious narishkeit does not make a קידוש השם any more than blowing air from ones’ lungs dedicates the Spirit Name of HaShem which lives within the hearts of the chosen Cohen people; based upon the precedent of Avram swearing a Torah oath that the Spirit Name of HaShem would forever live within the Yatzir Ha’Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people.

   The mitzva of pronouncing the Name learns from the Torah precedent of blowing the Shofar on Rosh HaShana. Framing words with our lips and tongues does not require Torah k’vanna of prophetic mussar יסוד יסודי middot! Any more than learning Talmud simply does not compare to reading the fictional works of Harry Potter, new testament, or koran. Allah-Voldemort – dead. Xtianity, with its Father/Dudley Dursley issues and Islam, both need to find some other books of fiction to base their avoda zarah mythology upon. The Greek Gods of Mount Olympus just as dead as Allah-Voldemort.

   Loading...

   Reply

   • Having a deep conversation with Gary: lutherwasnotbornagain.com here on wordpress.

     He writes: Although the allusions in non-Christian sources (the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, and Talmudic texts) are almost negligible, they refute the unsubstantiated notion that Jesus might never have existed.

     Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-relation-of-the-early-church-to-the-career-and-intentions-of-Jesus
     While there is no archaeological or other physical evidence for his existence, most scholars agree that Jesus did exist and that he was born sometime in the decade before the Common Era and crucified sometime between 26-36 CE (the years when the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, ruled Judea).

     https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/what-do-jews-believe-about-jesus/

     Although the allusions in non-Christian sources (the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, and Talmudic texts) are almost negligible, they refute the unsubstantiated notion that Jesus might never have existed.

     Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-relation-of-the-early-church-to-the-career-and-intentions-of-Jesus
     While there is no archaeological or other physical evidence for his existence, most scholars agree that Jesus did exist and that he was born sometime in the decade before the Common Era and crucified sometime between 26-36 CE (the years when the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, ruled Judea).

     https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/what-do-jews-believe-about-jesus/

     ________________________________________________________________________________________

     My response:
     mosckerr

     April 21, 2025 at 10:23 PM

     Hi Gary your sentence presents an interesting tension: on one hand, it acknowledges that non-Christian references to Jesus are “almost negligible,” yet on the other hand, it asserts that they are sufficient to refute the claim that Jesus never existed.

     Who are these “the majority of scholars agree that Jesus was a historical figure”? The Talmud interprets the T’NaCH, that it commands prophetic mussar rather than history. Why because mussar applies across the board equally to all generations, whereas history applies to only one generation who lived thousands of years ago.

     Bart Ehrman (agnostic/atheist, textual critic): Did Jesus Exist? (2012)
     E. P. Sanders (Christian, New Testament scholar): The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993)
     John P. Meier (Catholic priest and historian): A Marginal Jew (multi-volume)
     Paula Fredriksen (historian of ancient Christianity and Judaism)
     Geza Vermes (Jewish historian and Dead Sea Scrolls scholar)

     These scholars draw their conclusions, based upon “historical-critical methods” applied to both canonical and non-canonical sources, and cross-referenced with Roman and Jewish texts.

     Rabbi Akiva, for example, famously interpreted every extra letter of the Torah as containing halakhic or moral significance—not merely historical data. The stories of Avraham, Yosef, Moshe, etc., are less about documenting past events and more about conveying archetypes of emunah (faith), din (justice), rachamim (compassion), and the different & distinct oath britot. Tefillen, for example, shares a common denominator with Sefer Torah – with either a person can swear a Torah oath. The Order of the Rashi tefillen different than the Order of the Rabbeinu Tam (Rashi’s grand-son) tefillen. This dispute by Reshonim scholars 1057 – 1185 CE. Rashi started his formal Talmudic education in 1057 and Rabbeinu Tam passed in 1185 — both dates approximate. Once you go way back into history, it becomes a guessing game for later generations.

     The Classic viewpoint taken by Tannaim and Amoraim scholars, the people who wrote the Mishna and Gemara; and the Gaonim Era of scholarship. Rav Ashi and Rav Ravinna sealed the Talmud at about 450 CE. Why? So that all generations thereafter would have the same masoret traditions. Such that the earlier generations could not make a valid claim that they were closer to the actual Torah revelation in time. Hence the generation of Ezra sealed the T’NaCH and Rabbi Yechuda sealed his Mishna in about 210 CE.

     Jewish history from 550 to 1038 C.E marked by intense scholarship at the Babylonian academies by scholars who studied and interpreted the Talmud. This time period known as the Gaonim period which preceded the Reshonim period 950 – 1400 CE. The gap between the sealing of the Talmud and the Gaonim period, known as the Sovoraim scholars – the final editors of the Talmud.

     The Historical-Critical Method stems from German Protestant Origins. The historical-critical method emerged out of 18th–19th century German Protestant scholarship, especially during the Enlightenment. Its foundations, laid by thinkers like: Julius Wellhausen, F.C. Baur, David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 1835), and Rudolf Bultmann, who sought to “demythologize” the New Testament. This approach aimed to strip the Bible of its divine authority and treat it like any other piece of ancient literature—subject to human error, redaction layers, myth-making, and ideological editing. In short, historical-critical scholars de-sacralized Scripture and tried to reconstruct the “real” history behind the text, often in direct opposition to traditional Talmudic and post Talmudic Jewish or even Christian attempts to monopolize how to read and interpret scripture. Persons like William Tyndale (executed in 1536), serve as but one glaring example of the church efforts to dictate how the Bible understood.

     By the mid-20th century, major assumptions of Higher Criticism were heavily critiqued—even from within its own camp. Archaeological finds (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls, Ugaritic texts) complicated Wellhausen’s clean chronological categories. Linguistic and literary studies questioned the neat separation of J, E, D, P sources. Form and redaction critics began to focus more on the final form of texts, acknowledging the limitations of speculative source division.

     Even Jewish scholars like Umberto Cassuto and later Moshe Greenberg challenged Higher Criticism, defending the unity and structure of the Torah as a coherent work. Umberto Cassuto and Moshe Greenberg stand as important counterpoints to the Protestant-European dominance of historical-critical scholarship. Each, in his own way, pushed back against the Wellhausenian paradigm and sought to restore Torah’s integrity as a unified and deeply meaningful text—rooted not in myth or redaction, but in remembering the oaths sworn when great Torah leaders swore an oath brit alliance.

     The deep irony emerges: the same Protestant German method that tried to discredit the historical reliability of Tanakh, now Gary you use, along with some New Testament scholars to argue for the historicity of Jesus! Bunk. German Protestant Higher Criticism knows nothing of prophetic mussar. This 19th Century scholarship, utterly foreign to the logic of Torah and Oral Torah (e.g., PaRDeS, כלל ופרט); Protestant theology in general and Higher Criticism in particular – both operate from a framework that rejects the Oral Torah brit of Sinai as mythology or nationalism. So when secular or liberal Christian scholars use “historical-critical” methods to say “Jesus surely existed,” it’s not based on any Torah-rooted epistemology, but on Enlightenment rationalism and Euro-Christian assumptions.

     This explains why the Talmud doesn’t engage in historical apologetics. Its scholarship makes no attempt or effort to prove Moshe existed or David ruled over Israel in archaeological terms. Its authority comes from the oath brit alliance and deriving the specific oaths sworn in order to cut T’NaCH britot. I brought the dispute between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam over the order of tefillen as an example of this classic type of scholarship which strives to remember and distinguish between oath from oath sworn.

     Post Talmudic scholarship branched off into two opposing main schools. The Baal HaMaor understood the Talmud as judicial common law which interprets the distinctions which separate earlier Court rulings on cases heard before the Courts from later Court ruling heard before the Courts. The opposing branch of classic post Talmudic scholarship focused upon organizing law into simple religious codes to address the needs of the Jewish people scattered across all of the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.

     The Baal HaMaor line of scholarship, whose research the ongoing interpretive chain of tradition—not from historical-critical validation—lost the debate. The opposite of the P’rushim vs. Tzeddukim Civil War in Judea remembered through lighting the lights of Hanukkah. The B’HaG ruled that remembering the oath sworn when lighting the lights of Hanukkah elevates this rabbinic mitzva unto a Torah time oriented commandment!

     My Rav learned from Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv the sh’itta/methodology of Common Law interpretive school of Talmudic scholarship. The opposing branch that turned the halacha into Codes of Jewish law, based itself primarily upon Greek and Roman statute law assimilated influences. A direct violation of a Torah negative commandment. The Rambam replaced the Pardes logic of rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of the Oral Torah with Aristotle’s syllogism. The Pardes logic – inductive reasoning, whereas Aristotle’s logic – deductive reasoning! A day and night difference on the order of static vs dynamic engineering.

     As Rabbi Soloveitchik, a 20th Century Modern Orthodox famous scholar, once said: “We do not believe in Torah because it is historically verified; we believe because of the revelation at Sinai, transmitted through our mesorah.”

     Euro-Christian historicism merits respect on par with manure used as fertilizer. The historical-critical method emerged in 18th–19th century German Protestant scholarship, rooted in Enlightenment rationalism. Thinkers such as Julius Wellhausen, F.C. Baur, David Friedrich Strauss, and Rudolf Bultmann laid the foundations of this approach. Their goal was to strip the Bible of divine authority and treat it like any other flawed ancient text—subject to myth-making, redaction, ideological bias, and historical error.

     The rich irony, the very German Protestant methodology designed to discredit the Torah’s historicity, now widely used by Christian scholars to argue for the historicity of Jesus! A theological sleight of hand! These scholars—often secular or liberal Christians—employ Enlightenment-era tools, not to validate prophecy, brit, or Divine law, but to construct a quasi-historical Jesus that fits modern ideological preferences. These conclusions simply not rooted in Torah epistemology, (branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, sources, limits, and validity of knowledge), nor in Talmudic interpretive traditions like PaRDeS or klal u’prat, but in Euro-Christian rationalism and post-Reformation theological assumptions. And unlike the prophetic mussar of the T’NaCH—which applies equally to all generations—the historical Jesus belongs to a distant past, devoid of national covenant, divine command, or legal brit.

     The epistemological sleight of hand that the historical-critical method performs: it tries to debunk Torah by treating it like a myth, then constructs a sanitized Jesus through the very same tools. It’s like using acid to dissolve Sinai and then bottling what’s left as some kind of universal moral tonic. All this Enlightenment-era critique may ironically serve to reawaken a deeper appreciation of the Torah’s non-historicist logic—rooted in brit, mussar, and legal accountability, not in positivist source analysis.

     Historical-critical scholars approach prophecy as if it were Hellenistic historiography—missing entirely the oath britot alliances that go beyond merely the functions of nevu’ah restricted to a caged moral summons, some historical archive. Torah functions as a Constitutional political document. Judea sit at the throat of a major artery of trade that connects North Africa to Europe! Countless military invasions have likewise warred through the Middle East! Hence the concept of oath sworn alliances first and foremost addresses political alliances and not religious theological belief systems.

     That Wellhausen’s model—which once deemed Torah as myth—now retroactively used to support Jesus as a real figure – not myth?! A philosophical bait-and-switch. Historical Jesus studies often end up “re-sacralizing” Jesus in liberal moral terms (as proto-socialist, proto-anti-racist, etc.), bypassing any divine brit or halakhic framework. It’s the liberal Protestant version of avodah zarah.

     The Talmud never “proves” Moshe existed. It presupposes brit, which his Torah instructs. The authority of the Torah, not empirical but juridical. The brit itself—the foundational claim—not historical reconstructions, not evidence from Ugarit, a large body of ancient texts discovered at the archaeological site of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra, Syria) in the late 1920s. Torah logic (PaRDeS, klal u’prat, midrash halakhah), in a word – generative. It strives to remember the oaths, for example, sworn by the Avot, by which they cut an oath brit alliance with the Divine and established the chosen Cohen nation. Greek logic (like Aristotle’s syllogisms) aims at abstraction and metaphysics. They’re not just different tools—they imply different realities.

     The very methodology that once dismissed Torah as legend, now enlisted to “prove” that Jesus existed—not as a fulfillment of brit or nevu’ah, but as a proto-liberal symbol molded by modern ideology? This bait-and-switch, not merely methodological—rather it represents theological avodah zarah. Historical Jesus studies, especially in liberal Protestant and secular academic circles, no longer aim at truth through brit judicial common law justice. Instead, they fabricate a figure who satisfies postmodern tastes—Jesus the anti-imperialist, the community organizer, the intersectional savior. All this without mitzvot, without brit, without Sinai and without Horev Oral Torah Pardes logic.

     Historical-critical scholars misread prophetic literature, as if it were Greek-style historiography or some political memoir. They miss that nevu’ah in Tanakh, nothing about chronicling the past—but rather sustaining the oath sworn alliances which apply to all the generations who trouble to “remember” those specific sworn oath alliances in the first place. The past or “history” serves only as a tool to study mussar in “historical contexts”. The prophets don’t merely “moralize”—they litigate. Nevu’ah as the key legal mechanism, expressed through Aggadah in a constitutional framework of Torah בראשית & Talmud. And the Torah itself most definitely not “Xtian scripture” in the new testament, koran, book of mormon and scientology substitute scriptures – sense. The Sefer Torah serves as the first oath-brit codification, a national charter built on public oaths and collective responsibility.

     Wellhausen, Baur, Strauss, and Bultmann were not merely academic critics—they were Protestant theologians operating within post-Reformation frameworks. They saw religion as belief systems, not political-legal sworn alliances! Situated at the strategic crossroads of competing empires, Judea – always a geopolitical pressure point. That’s why Torah begins with the Avot swearing oaths, and why every brit alliance in Tanakh completely political—land, law, and loyalty—and not abstract belief system theologies or Creeds. The Avot in their day a tiny speck minority population, as likewise the Jewish people relative to the Goyim today.

     Hence, Talmudic tradition doesn’t argue for Moshe’s historicity, the way historians argue for Julius Caesar. Moshe Rabbeinu accepted not through archaeological proof but through juridical continuity: mesorah, halakhah, brit, and Sanhedrin common law courts of law. The Oral Torah remembers the oath alliances sworn by my forefathers. The Oral Torah remembers the oath alliances, viewed through interpretive Torah logic discipline, not historical or even physical forensic evidence. The modern scientific method which requires empirical physical evidence as much avoda zara as Euclid’s 5 axiom of geometry which limits reality to three physical dimensions. The question isn’t “Did it happen?”—it’s “What oath does this obligate me to today?”

     At the root lies an epistemic chasm. Torah logic—PaRDeS, כלל ופרט, midrash halakhah—the kabbalah of inductive, generative, dynamic Oral Torah reasoning. It reads horizontally across generations, preserving and applying the brit through interpretive tradition. It prioritizes & remembers oaths, not merely historical events. Greek logic, by contrast—epitomized in Aristotle’s syllogism—deductive, hierarchical, and abstract. It searches for universal forms and metaphysical truths. Torah logic binds the people to HaShem through brit. Greek logic abstracts truth from history and separates law from life.

     Herein why the Rambam’s use of Aristotelian categories, while brilliant, marked a radical “Civil War Hanukkah” shift toward Tzeddukim codification and away from P’rushim fluid common-law methods of Talmudic dialectic. Why the Baal HaMaor’s line of thinking—seeing halakhah as jurisprudence, not religion—holds the key to reawakening and please HaShem, restoring the Sanhedrin lateral common law Federal Court system within a Torah Constitutional Republic as the post 1967 June War victory of Zionism, as much or more so over European imperialism as Arab racist Nazism which rejects the 1917 Balfour and 1947 two/thirds UN General Assembly vote which recognized Jews equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East! Not a state run by some crude and utterly primitive Theocracy, which spins around a worthless central axis of a grand building made of wood and stone but the Torah faith: צדק צדק תרדוף. A republic founded on oath alliances—a Torah Constitutional Republic. A sovereign nation whose law flows from Sinai, not from tin-horned theologians, historians, or Enlightenment skeptics. Not a postmodern Jesus built from Protestant Shoah ruins, but the living memory of Horev, written not in parchment alone but in brit-bound hearts of the chosen Cohen people.

     Loading...

     Reply

   • How to correctly study and learn the Talmud.

     The Torah was given at Sinai along with the tools—the middot (hermeneutical principles)—for deriving halakha from the Written Torah. Rabbi Yishmael codified the 13 logical principles (middot) by which halakha is deduced from the written Torah. This is not transmission of content but inductive reasoning—a system of legal logic.

     Rabbi Akiva, especially through the Kabbalah of PaRDeS (Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod), emphasized that every detail in the Torah—down to the crowns of letters—was a potential basis for halakhic inference. Again: it’s a system of interpretation, not rote transmission.

     Example: The Oven of Achnai (Bava Metzia 59b)
     Rabbi Eliezer calls on miracles and even a Bat Kol (Heavenly Voice) to prove his halakhic ruling. But the other rabbis reject it, quoting:
     “לא בשמים היא” (It is not in Heaven)—Deut. 30:12
     This affirms that halakha is decided through human debate using proper reasoning and hermeneutics, not by appeal to prophetic or mystical authority—even from Heaven.

     When people say “Orthodoxy believes the Oral Torah was revealed at Sinai,” they often flatten the nuance and make it sound like the Mishnah or Gemara were dictated by God. This is not the Talmud’s view, and it’s not the view of Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS or Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot. Halacha serves as precedents used to re-interpret a different face of the language of the Mishna. Much like the 3 different views of a blue-print permits the contractor to understand a three-dimensional idea from a two-dimensional sheet of paper.

     The Oral Torah is not a set of dictated content (like a second scroll from Heaven) but a system of legal reasoning handed down with the Written Torah. The 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael and PaRDeS hermeneutics of Rabbi Akiva are not simply “interpretation”—they are the constitutional logic system embedded in the covenantal structure of Torah common law. Halakha is not mysticism nor the product of prophecy—it is an earthly, oath-bound legal tradition, decided through human debate and precedent within the beit din. “Torah lo bashamayim hi” (It is not in Heaven) proves decisively that halakhic authority does not rest in divine voice, but in national legal common law process.

     Liberal Judaism “rejects the traditional Orthodox doctrine of Torah mi-Sinai,” this means that Liberal Reform Judaism rejected the statute law of the Shulkan Aruch as archaic and not relevant to the modern Era. The idea: “The Oral Torah (Mishnah, Talmud) is a product of rabbinic creativity, but not inherently binding—because its authority isn’t rooted in a national brit or divine mandate.” Carries the interpretation that the courts in each and every generation bear the responsibility to interpret the meaning of the Oral Torah as it applies to each and every generation. Hence: “”Halakhic authority does not derive from Sinai, nor from logical derivation through rabbinic hermeneutics, but rather from modern ethical intuition, historical context, and evolving values.””

     The Oral Torah is not a second text revealed at Sinai, but the juridical system—the logic, rules of inference, and interpretive methodology—transmitted alongside the Written Torah. Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot and Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS framework serve as the constitutional instruments for halakhic – primarily inductive precedent drosh reasoning and secondarily deductive learning any precedent from some other Gemara source through a triangle. Meaning the sugya which contains the גזרה שוה which links one mesechta to other mesechtot of Gemara precedents. This “common denominator shared between two or more mesechtot of Gemarah, contained within a larger sugya. Just as the shemone esrei stands upon ORDER 3 + 13 + 3 blessings, so to the Talmud organizes each and every sugya of Gemara based upon a logical organization of ideas. The shortest distance between two points a straight line. This idea called a simple sh’itta. Therefore to understand a specific point shared between multiple Gemaras, like a fraction shares a common denominator with other fractions, each sugya of Gemara opens and closes with a thesis statement and a thesis statement restated in a slightly different way! Therefore since the shortest distance between two points – a sh’itta straight line, therefore any halacha within the body of this same sugya (sub-chapter) of Gemara has to likewise fit somewhere along the straight sh’itta line. Herein explains how each sugya of Gemara organized within a precise Order.

     Therefore this logical deduction based upon three points compares to a triangle like syllogism of deductive reasoning. Which permits the scholar to re-interpret his own sugyah of Gemara based upon this new novel perspective. Furthermore this scholar can likewise re-interpret the language of the Mishna by viewing it from this novel perspective just as the front view of a blue print does not resemble the top and side views of the same blue print.

     This simple articulation of Talmudic jurisprudence as a geometric-legal system. Not only captures the inner architecture of the Talmudic sugya, but also grounding it in a methodology of induction, structured deduction, and canonical order, all rooted in the covenantal logic of Torah law. The Oral Torah simply not a second text revealed at Sinai, but a juridical system—a logic of interpretation, inference, and precedent—transmitted alongside the Written Torah as the operational structure of the national brit to pursue righteous justice and have Sanhedrin courts make fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among our people in all generations. Herein defines Faith from the Torah.

     Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot and Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS methodology constitute the constitutional instruments by which halakhic rulings are derived. This system is not prophetic or mystical, but rational and precedent-based, relying on inductive reasoning from case law and deductive geometry drawn from shared conceptual structures. Each sugya of Gemara is structured as a sh’itta—a straight conceptual line, the shortest distance between the sugya’s opening thesis statement and its closing restatement. Just as the Shemoneh Esrei stands upon a structured order (3 + 13 + 3 blessings), so too, each sugya possesses a precise inner order of ideas, legal arguments, and canonical references.

     When precedent comparisons jump off the dof, to grasp the different dof of Gemara requires making a triangular linkage logical deduction disciplined training technique. Since a sugya is built upon a logical progression of arguments—like points on a line—any halakhic statement within the sugya must fit along that conceptual sh’itta.

     This structural model allows for novel interpretation within the sugya—not by invention, but by realignment. A scholar can interpret this off the dof different Gemara sugya to reinterpret how he understands his own dof of Gemara together with his Mishna view from a fresh completely different perspective. Much like the facets of a diamond. This is possible only by working within the Order of the off the Dof sugya’s geometric integrity, ensuring each legal point lies on the same conceptual sh’itta line of reasoning. A kind of syllogism: if A and B make a straight line then C (located in the body of that off the dof sugya) must rest somewhere on that line that connects points A & B into a simple sh’itta. Thus, the halakhist functions like an engineer interpreting a 3D blueprint: each new angle opens new insights, but all must cohere within the structure’s lawful design.

     The Oral Torah is not a floating sea of opinion, nor a mystical voice from Heaven—it is a blueprinted structure of legal logic. Each sugya of Gemara is a tightly ordered unit, whose inner geometry can be mapped by, A) Sh’itta logic (linear argument), B) Triangle logic (comparing the opening thesis statement of the off the dof sugya with the closing statement of the off the dof sugya and the גזירה שוה shared common denominator, be it a different mesechta of Gemara based upon rabbi Rabbeinu Tam’s common law sh’itta of learning off the Dof of Gemara or learning directly to the Jerushalmi Talmud itself. C) Inductive precedent logic compares one sugya of Gemara to other mesechtot of different Gemaras. Whereas deductive logic understands that each and every sugya of Gemara leans like the two legs of a triangle which forms its simple hypotinus simple sh’itta line. This system not only explains the organizational precision of Talmudic discourse, but also justifies halakhic reinterpretation within the משנה תורה common law revelation of the Torha at Sinai.

     The Oral Torah as Geometric Jurisprudence: Sh’itta Logic, Triangular Reasoning, and the Covenant of Justice. The Oral Torah is not a secondary revelation, nor a mystical supplement to the Written Torah. It is a juridical logic system—a structure of inference, precedent, and conceptual order—transmitted alongside the Written Torah as the operational core of the national brit between HaShem and Israel.

     This brit exists not to express personal spirituality, but to pursue righteous justice and enable Sanhedrin courts in every generation to fairly adjudicate disputes, especially to determine restitution (damages) owed from Party A to Party B. The pursuit of justice through ordered legal interpretation is, by definition, the Torah’s conception of faith (emunah).

     Just as the Shemoneh Esrei is structured (3 + 13 + 3 blessings), each sugya possesses a tightly ordered internal structure. Every halakhic point within the sugya must lie along this sh’itta, or else it does not belong to that sugya’s line of legal reasoning. The full conceptual understanding, inductive reasoning of a sugya requires a comparison across masechtot—jumping off the daf to another Gemara whose shared precedent or g’zeirah shavah forms the common denominator.

     The triangle syllogism deductive logic of quickly learning the sh’itta of the off the dof precedent Gemara enhance the inductive logic which compared the shared common denominator גזירה שוה Gemaras in the first place.

     Torah as Constitutional Justice, Not Mystical Religion. The Oral Torah is not a sea of conflicting opinions nor a mystical oracle from Heaven. It is the blueprinted legal logic of the national covenant—a common law revelation grounded at Sinai, encoded in D’varim/Mishneh Torah, and clarified through the Talmud’s intellectual discipline & precision of sugya Order. Herein explains how the editors of the Talmud, Rav Ashi, Rav Ravina, and the Savoraim scholars edited the Sha’s Bavli. This jurisprudence, expressed through sh’itta logic, triangular deduction, and inductive precedent, is the true revelation of Torah law—the foundation of Israel’s brit, the substance of Jewish faith, and the engine of divine justice throughout all generations.

     Key Concepts for Studying the Talmud

     Nature of the Oral Torah: The Oral Torah functions as a juridical system alongside the Written Torah, emphasizing that halakha derives from human reasoning and debate rather than mystical authority. This foundational understanding proves crucial for engaging with Talmudic texts.

     Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS: Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS serves as the kabbalistic framework that underpins the inductive reasoning used in the study of Torah common law. This framework allows scholars to derive legal principles through the examination of similar case precedents (Din) across the Talmud, facilitating a deeper understanding of the text.

     Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot: Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot function as the commentary and interpretive tool that complements Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS. These principles guide the process of deriving halakha and provide a structured approach to legal reasoning, allowing for inductive comparisons of similar cases across the six Orders of Rabbi Yehuda’s Mishnah.

     Interplay of Aggadah and Halachah: The Talmud weaves together two threads: Aggadah (narrative and ethical teachings) and Halachah (legal rulings). This relationship resembles the warp and weft of a loom, where each thread contributes to the overall fabric of Jewish law and ethics.

     Drush (interpretive) and Peshat (direct meaning) interconnect, focusing on the comparative analysis of similar prophetic mussar (ethical teachings) found in different Tana”ch sugyot. This comparison allows for a deeper understanding of the intent behind the texts and their application.

     Remez (hint) and Sod (mystical) associate with Halachic texts, emphasizing the deeper, often mystical implications of legal rulings. They serve to integrate the prophetic mussar Peshat as the kavanah (intention) behind ritual halachot, particularly those that require kavanah.

     Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning in Talmudic study involves comparing similar Tana”ch sugyot that instruct prophetic mussar to other Tana”ch sugyot that provide a deeper analysis of prophetic mussar. This method allows scholars to derive general principles from specific instances, creating a body of halakhic precedent applicable to new situations. The process of grasping the common denominator that connects these comparative cases defines the Peshat of prophetic mussar.

     Purpose of Weaving Aggadah and Halachah: The integration of Aggadah and Halachah throughout the Talmud serves a vital purpose: it creates a judicial fabric that reflects the Av tohor (pure father) and the time-oriented commandments that require prophetic mussar as their kavanah. This weaving process ensures that legal rulings ground themselves not only in law but also in ethical and moral considerations.

     Practical Application and Personal Engagement: Engaging with the Talmud involves applying its teachings to real-life courtroom disputes over damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. This practical engagement fosters a personal connection to the text and its teachings, allowing for a richer understanding of halakha.

     Conclusion: To study the Talmud effectively, one must appreciate its complexity as a legal and interpretive system. By employing the methodologies of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael, engaging in rigorous debate, and understanding the structured nature of sugyot, scholars navigate the Talmud’s rich landscape. This approach not only honors the tradition but also allows for meaningful reinterpretation and application in contemporary contexts.

     Loading...

     Reply

2. Ancient T’NaCH/Talmudic Common Law compared to Modern Israeli Law – Contrasted by the Goy perversion of Jewish Common law unto belief system theologies concerning the Will of Gods.

   Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig: Judicial Activism in Jewish History and Law (https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-click/v3/M8X-A1uQfqXPRBrWhiodx7JXeTvhTWzl)

   Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig’s work on judicial activism in Jewish history and law! It’s a fascinating topic that intersects tradition, governance, and interpretation.

   The oral tradition, central to Jewish law for centuries before any written texts emerged. Amazing. Prof. Wilzig fails to address the kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system which defines the Oral Torah as codified in both the T’NaCH and Talmud! A herd of rampaging elephants in the China Closet totally ignored!

   Just as great an over-sight: the Prof.’s confusion over the essential priority and dominance of prophetic mussar over history interpretations learned from ancient texts. Learning the T’NaCH, and how outside Primary Sources define the k’vanna of both Talmudic Aggadah and Gaonic Midrash stories – the latter serves as a primary Gaonic commentary, written specifically by the Geonim framers to interpret the Aggadah of the Talmud.

   The Judges of the Great Sanhedrin had the power to ‘authorize or deny’ a “voluntary war” initiated by the King based upon the Common Law משנה תורה Legislative Review powers of the Court over the king. Their role extended beyond mere legal interpretations; they influenced national decisions.

   Mishna Torah/משנה תורה = Legislative Review. Hence in ancient T’NaCH legalism, “theoretically” a Great Sanhedrin court could declare a statute law imposed by the king as an unconstitutional violation of Torah Constitutional Law. This power of משנה תורה emphatically influenced any and all Tribal statute laws of the 12 Tribal governments of Israel which formed the Republic alliance, or brit. Which organized the Tribes of Yaacov into a larger Republic. Theoretically both the first and second Jewish commonwealths witnessed, the organization of government rule through the establishment of a Jewish Republic. Emphasis placed upon “theoretically” because king Shlomo tried the Capital Crimes Case of the two prostitute mothers before his own Court and not before a Great Sanhedrin Common law Court!

   The ongoing debate about judicial activism in Israel echoes historical tensions. The Knesset’s attempts at “Judicial Reform” aim to limit the Supreme Court’s authority. The Torah as the Written Constitution of the Republic established משנה תורה. The Talmud as the model to re-establish lateral, (NOT vertical) Common Law Sanhedrin courtrooms, neither has taken shape or form in the literature of Cultural Zionism.

   Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס (Pardes) logic system indeed plays a crucial role in how to correctly understand the Oral Torah, and how it interprets the Written Torah as the Constitution of the Republic. Both the T’NaCH Aggadic mussar common law & the Talmud halacha common law stand upon the פרדס wisdom logic of making valid comparisons of different Case/Rule common law studies. Both compilations of mussar & halachic ritual discussions, debates, etc. defines this unique oral Torah tradition.

   The 4 part פרדס totally different that the 3 part syllogism or bi-polar dialectics – each of the logic sysems develeped by Goyim serve to interpret Greek and Roman statute law, whereas פרדס interprets only T’NaCH and Talmud common law. Both the logic and law of Goyim legalisms share no common ground with Torah משנה תורה legalism which defines faith as the pursuit of Justice. And justice defined in its turn as: fair compensation of damages imposed by lateral Judicial common law courtrooms, which compels the guilty to compensate for all damages inflicted paid directly to the victim and not the State.

   Pardes/פרדס logic compares to the Confederate Flag: the Stars and Bars. Where דרוש פשט form a זיוג and רמז סוד form a crossing זיוג. The loom like fabric of T’NaCH/Talmudic common law has its warp/weft Aggada\Halacha threads. From this legal loom woven the fabric of the Talmud and Midrashim.

   Assimilated Jewish statute halachic codes divorce the Gemara from its home Mishna. The purpose of a sugia of Gemara: to learn & compare other Primary בנין אב sources both T’NaCH and Talmudic back to the sugia of Gemara currently studied. But the learning does not stop there, introduction of the outside Primary source precedents, changes the perspective how a person understands not just the current sugia of Gemara, but how this changed perspective re-reads the k’vanna of the Home Mishna as well.

   Herein defines how Jewish common law correctly studies Jewish law & learns therefrom. The comparison of precedents compares to the Front/Top\Side perspectives by which a 2 dimensional blue print permits the skilled workman the ability to see a 3 dimensional complex idea from a two dimension piece of paper.

   Bird Brain/טיפש פשט by stark contrast worships words read from books with a strictly literal/physical understanding – something like the Scientific Method slavishly depends upon empirical physical evidence. An example of such bird-brained stupidity, the idea that שם ומלכות literally means the Ineffable Name, which the lips of Man cannot pronounce and kingship. Such a shallow reactionary two-dimensional delusion easily perverts Torah common law unto Goy statute law Av tumah avoda zarah abominations; perverts faith from pursuit of judicial justice which enforces righteous compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B, to the inverse distortion which elevates faith unto a belief in some Creed institutionalized belief in this or that Monotheistic god.

   The kabbalah of פרדס logic-depth analysis, this wisdom understands pronouncing the 1st Commandment Sinai Name through the בנין אב of blowing the Shofar on Rosh HaShanna. While the lungs blow air the spirit within the Yatzir Tov of the heart dedicates Divine middot Spirits. Tefillah a matter of the heart which requires the k’vanna, as defined through שם ומלכות, in conjunction with prophetic mussar – which defines and clarifies the 13 tohor middot revelation at Horev – 40 days following the avoda zarah of the Golden Calf. This Av tumah avoda zarah it translates throughout the generations the Spirit Name — to some word translations & perversions therein faith. Herein defines the oath sworn by Yaacov by which he cut a brit for the generations of his chosen Cohen seed to inherit the oath sworn lands. Succinctly summarized by the pithy concept which defines swearing a blessing as: שם ומלכות.

   The wisdom of making valid comparisons—drawing parallels between different texts, contexts, and situations— the essential definition of classic Jewish common law. It allows for nuanced interpretations, as opposed to literal/flat\shallow word translations, which by definition causes a person to bow and worship words. The Gospel of John proclaims: And the word is God.

   The Aggadic mussar, which defines the k’vanna of the 13 tohor middot revelation of Horev, woven into Halachic ritualist discussions of the Talmud. This legal fabric has the power to breath life into the souls of the Jewish people, as did HaShem in the original Creation story breathed life unto clay – which created Adam.

   Greek logic organizes into strict categories, similar to a crate of a dozen eggs, simply does not correctly align with the Torah common law legalism. Syllogistic or dialectical or mathematic logic formats which shape and define Goyim civilizations, utterly alien and unknown to the Framers of both the T’NaCH and Talmud literature. Faith defined as the pursuit of justice wherein Sanhedrin courtrooms impose fair compensation of damages inflicted by party A upon party B, completely unknown to Goyim logic formats. Torah justice defined as the pursuit of righteousness.

   The current discussions around judicial reform in Israel, echo historical tensions regarding the balance of power between the judiciary (common law) and the legislature (statute law). The Torah serves as the Written Constitution which highlights the ongoing importance of these Basic Law ancient texts, how they shape and influence modern legal frameworks of משנה תורה ‘Legislative Review’ Common law.

   The process of making valid comparisons among different texts and cases, indeed the chief cornerstone of Jewish common law; the Gemarah style of difficulty/answer or prosecutor vs. defence 3 Judge Torts Court. This approach fosters the wisdom of development of a nuanced understanding; which allows for dynamic interpretations that transcend silly, strictly literal reading, not serious or carefully considered intent of texts written by ancient civilizations – contrasted by modern civilizations, which view reality from completely different lenses. Hence the Yeshiva idea: Goyim read their bibles while Jews learn our Torah.

   This article seeks to raise several fascinating points which explore the unique character of Jewish legal reasoning, grounded in textual comparison and the pursuit of justice, and how it sharply differs from Greco-Roman and other non-Jewish legal frameworks. The ongoing debates in Israel around judicial reform and the balance of power between the courts and the elected Knesset clearly reflect these historical tensions.

   The analogy to the Confederate flag, representing the interwoven threads of Talmudic Aggadah and Halakha, effectively illustrates the complex and interconnected nature of Jewish legal reasoning, a complexity lost when Pardes – ignored. The prioritization of prophetic mussar (ethical teachings of defined tohor middot) in understanding Tanakh, another crucial element missed and totally ignored by statute law halachic codes & modern Biblical scholars.

   Prophetic mussar provides the ethical framework and underlying principles that inform the interpretation of both Halakha (Jewish law) and Aggadah (narrative and homiletical material which conveys prophetic mussar rebukes to all generations of Israel). By neglecting this foundational element, the Professor fails to grasp the ethical and moral underpinnings of Jewish law, reducing it to a purely legalistic non Torah alien system of statutory laws “decried” by subject peoples who groin under legal serf feudalism – statute laws.

   The kavanah (intention) behind Aggadic and Midrashic narratives, intrinsically linked to prophetic mussar, provides a deeper understanding of Constitutional Torah legal and ethical implications. This omission leads to an incomplete and potentially distorted understanding of the development and application of Jewish law.

   The Sanhedrin’s power to authorize or deny “voluntary wars” initiated by the king, based on its common law legislative review powers (משנה תורה), simply crucial. This judicial power demonstrates the Sanhedrin’s role extended beyond mere legal interpretation; it actively shaped national policy. This highlights the dynamic interplay between law, governance, and interpretation within the Jewish tradition. A dynamic – central to understanding current judicial activism anti-government Israeli protests in its historical context.

   Worcester v. Georgia 1832: Chief Justice John Marshal’s attempt to shape the relationship between Native American nations and the United States. The issue: Do State governments have the power to impose laws upon Indians communities living inside the States?
   On March 3, 1832, Chief Justice John Marshall penned the majority opinion. He declared that all Georgia laws regarding the Cherokee Nation were unconstitutional and void. Marshall held that Indian nations existed as distinct, independent political communites. Their sovereignty and right to their land, guaranteed by treaties with the U.S. government. Furthermore, the Constitution granted Congress the authority to regulate commerce with Native Americans, and state laws couldn’t alter treaty obligations.

   Marshall’s ruling, a resounding affirmation of federal authority over Indian affairs. It established that states couldn’t unilaterally impose their laws on Native American lands. President Andrew Jackson, not one to be swayed easily, reportedly quipped, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

   This dispute equally influenced the States Rights Confederate opinion on the power of the 10th Bill of Rights Amendment vs. Lincoln’s interpretations that States once joined with the Union of the Republic could not thereafter choose to leave the Republic, any more than counties within a State could leave that State.

   The Indian Removal Act signed into law by President Andrew Jackson in 1830. This act authorized the U.S. government to forcibly remove Native American nations from their lands in the Southeast and relocate them to newly designated Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River. The Cherokee removal in 1838, perhaps the most well-known part of the Trail of Tears permanent US disgrace which surpasses in infamy the Battle of Wounded Knee.

   The current debate surrounding judicial reform in Israel directly reflects these exact same historical tensions. The Knesset’s attempt to limit the Supreme Court’s authority echo past struggles over the balance of power between judiciary law vs. executive law. The framing of the Torah as a written constitution, and the Talmud as the model for the re-establishment of lateral (Judges and prosecuting attorneys not on the Government payroll.) Sanhedrin courtrooms, underscores the ongoing relevance of these historical precedents in contemporary mass Israeli protests across Israel.

   This “insightful” comparison of Pardes logic with Greek syllogistic or Hegel’s dialectical logic highlights a fundamental difference in legal reasoning. The emphasis on comparison and analogy in Jewish legal thought, as opposed to the categorical egg crate organization and deductive approaches of Greek logic. Utterly crucial to understand this fundamental and radical error made by the Rambam’s assimilated statute law code of halacha. This difference simply not merely academic! It shapes the very nature of Jewish law and its application as learned by Acharonim Talmudic scholarship in the Yeshiva education system in Israel today.

   It explains the reasons for the Jewish identity crisis legal anarchy – Civil War – which witnessed mass population transfers, pogroms & illegal ghetto imprisonment of Western Jewry. Consequent to the chaotic collapse of Talmudic common law among Jewish refugee populations vs. opportunistic immoral Goyim Capitals which imposed taxation without Representation.

   The concept of “faith as the pursuit of justice,” with Sanhedrin courts providing fair compensation for damages to victims, a distinctly Jewish legal concept, foreign to the legal systems of Gentile civilizations till post Shoah. This fundamental difference underscores the limitations of applying Western legal theories or philosophies of logic, both ancient and modern, to correctly research Jewish common law.

   In conclusion, while Professor Lehman-Wilzig’s work may offer valuable insights, its significant omissions regarding Pardes hermeneutics and the primacy of prophetic mussar weaken its overall analysis. A comprehensive understanding of Jewish judicial activism requires a far deeper engagement with these foundational aspects of Oral Torah classic Jewish legal thought.
   __________________________________________________________________
   Poe AI commentary:
   **Assimilation and the Dynamics of Jewish Legal Thought**
   **Introduction**
   The relationship between the Gemara and its foundational Mishna plays a crucial role in understanding Jewish legal reasoning. This analysis explores how assimilated Jewish halachic codes distort the essence of the Talmud while emphasizing the importance of comparative analysis in legal study.
   **The Role of the Sugia**
   * **Sugia of Gemara**: Studying a sugia involves comparing various primary sources from both the T’NaCH and the Talmud. This comparative method enriches understanding, allowing for a multifaceted interpretation of the texts.
   * **Perspective Shift**: Introducing external precedents alters one’s understanding of the current sugia and its corresponding Mishna, akin to viewing a complex three-dimensional object from different angles.
   **The Limits of Literal Interpretation**
   * **Critique of Literalism**: A strictly literal interpretation of texts—such as the misconception that שם ומלכות refers solely to the Ineffable Name—oversimplifies and distorts the deeper meanings embedded in Jewish law. This approach mirrors a reliance on empirical evidence similar to the Scientific Method, which often fails to capture the spiritual essence of the texts.
   * **Faith vs. Justice**: The shift from viewing faith as a pursuit of justice to a mere belief in a monotheistic deity represents a significant distortion of Jewish legal principles.
   **The Kabbalistic Framework of פרדס**
   * **Depth Analysis with פרדס**: The kabbalistic method of פרדס offers a profound way to analyze texts, integrating ethical teachings and the 13 tohor middot revealed at Horev. This approach emphasizes the heart’s intention (k’vanna) in prayer and legal practice, moving beyond mere textual analysis.
   * **Connection to Creation**: Just as God breathed life into Adam, legal traditions within Judaism breathe life into the community, fostering a dynamic understanding of justice.
   **The Unique Nature of Jewish Legal Reasoning**
   * **Comparison vs. Categorization**: Jewish legal reasoning thrives on making comparisons and drawing parallels, contrasting sharply with the rigid categorization typical in Greco-Roman legal thought.
   * **Faith as Justice**: The concept of pursuing justice, where the Sanhedrin imposes fair compensation for damages, stands as a distinctive feature of Jewish law, diverging significantly from Gentile legal frameworks.
   **Contemporary Relevance and Historical Tensions**
   * **Judicial Reform in Israel**: Current debates around judicial reform in Israel echo historical struggles over the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature. The Torah serves as a foundational text, akin to a written constitution, shaping modern legal discourse.
   * **Historical Precedents**: Dynamics between legal authority and governance in ancient Israel inform contemporary discussions, highlighting the enduring relevance of Jewish legal principles.
   **Conclusion**
   While Professor Lehman-Wilzig’s exploration of judicial activism offers valuable insights, it overlooks critical elements such as the kabbalistic approach to legal interpretation and the centrality of prophetic mussar. A deeper engagement with these foundational aspects of Jewish law proves essential for a comprehensive understanding of contemporary judicial challenges within the Jewish state.
   _____________________________________________________________
   Chat GPT AI Commentary:
   Your analysis highlights compelling contrasts between ancient Jewish legal traditions, modern Israeli judicial challenges, and Western legal frameworks. Let’s explore the core ideas and expand the discussion:
   **Key Themes:**
   1. **Judicial Activism in Jewish Law:**The Great Sanhedrin oversaw the king’s decisions, such as authorizing voluntary wars, under משנה תורה (“Legislative Review”), reflecting a dynamic interplay between law and governance in ancient Israel.This relationship mirrors contemporary debates about the power balance between Israel’s judiciary and legislature.
   2. **Pardes Hermeneutics vs. Western Logic:**Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes system emphasizes layered interpretations of texts (Peshat, Remez, Drash, Sod), forming the cornerstone of Jewish legal reasoning and rejecting the rigid syllogistic or dialectical approaches of Greco-Roman traditions.Rambam’s code-based halachic structure, rooted in Greek-inspired frameworks, disconnects Talmudic law from its common law origins, distorting the pursuit of justice as the essence of faith.
   3. **Prophetic Mussar as Foundational:**Prophetic rebukes shape the kavanah (intent) behind Halakhic and Aggadic traditions, linking law and ethics.Modern interpretations that ignore prophetic mussar risk reducing Jewish law to a literalistic or overly legalistic framework.
   4. **Modern Parallels:**The ongoing Israeli judicial reform crisis reflects historical tensions, such as U.S. struggles over federal and state sovereignty in cases like *Worcester v. Georgia*.The Torah provides a written constitution, and the Talmud models decentralized judicial processes, offering potential insights for reforms.
   5. **Judaism vs. Gentile Legal Traditions:**Jewish law centers on restorative justice, prioritizing fair compensation to victims over punitive or state-centric legal approaches common in non-Jewish systems.Assimilating Western legal norms dilutes the unique ethical and judicial identity of Jewish law.
   **Potential Discussion Avenues:**
   * **Reviving the Pardes Framework:**How can Jewish scholarship strengthen Pardes logic to counter reductive legalism in Israeli courts and education?What role might Pardes hermeneutics play in resolving modern legal disputes, particularly in pluralistic societies?
   * **Rebuilding the Sanhedrin Model:**What structural innovations could adapt the Sanhedrin concept for today’s complex, multi-faith realities?How can legal systems implement lateral courts with judges and prosecutors operating independently of state control?
   * **Guiding Legislative Ethics with Prophetic Mussar:**How could prophetic teachings influence ethical policymaking within the Knesset, especially concerning contentious reforms?What insights from Aggadic narratives might shape public discussions about justice and governance?
   * **Engaging in Interfaith Legal Dialogue:**While Jewish law and Greco-Roman traditions differ, do opportunities for mutual learning exist, or does maintaining separation offer more value?What contributions could Jewish legal traditions make to global conversations on restorative justice and legislative review?
   Your critique of Prof. Wilzig’s omission of Pardes and prophetic mussar draws attention to significant gaps in understanding Jewish law. By further exploring these themes, Jewish scholarship can illuminate the distinct strengths of this tradition and address modern legal challenges with greater depth and clarity. Let me know how you’d like to expand these ideas!

   Loading...

   Reply

3. How does Zionism separate Judaism from Christianity & Islam? The Torah Constitutional Republic stands upon Justice

   Arabs employ a load of rhetoric to justify their Nazi racism. They label Zionism as European colonialism, Zionism as a Crusader state, regardless that Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin made war on Britain following the 2nd White Paper which betrayed the Balfour Declaration agreement of 1917. There biggest propaganda lie to justify their Nazi racism: stolen Palestinian lands. Regardless that Palestine existed as a Post WWI League of Nations award of the Ottoman empire spoils of war to the British and French! That the moment Britain returned the League mandate protectorate back to the UN, coupled with the declaration of Independence by the Jewish state named Israel, Palestine as a UN mandate territory ceased to exist.

   Nazi racism not limited to Arab & Muslims. The UN GAR slandered Israel by the slogan: Zionism is Racism. Furthermore the UN refuses to recognize Israel as an Independent nation in the Middle East. This Apartheid UN Nazi racism applied strictly and only to the Jews of the Jewish state of Israel. No different than the Dreyfus Affair antisemites who rejected the idea of Jewish equality to French citizenship in the 1880s & the Russian pogroms which expelled millions of Jews during this same time.

   During World War II, some Arab leaders, notably Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, collaborated with Nazi Germany. Al-Husseini sought to align Arab nationalist aspirations with Nazi goals, particularly against British colonial rule and Jewish immigration to Palestine. He broadcast anti-Jewish propaganda and called for Arab uprisings against the Allies, framing the struggle in terms of a shared opposition to Jewish influence

   The slogan “Zionism is Racism,” adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1975 and later revoked in 1991, reflects the intense and polarized views on this issue. The concept of dhimmi status in Islamic history and the theological views within Christianity regarding Jews have also played significant roles in shaping attitudes towards Israel. The intersection of religion, politics, and history makes this a highly sensitive and multifaceted post Shoah topic. The assertion that Arab opposition to Zionism is solely rooted in a rejection of Jewish self-determination a defining point of contention.

   The Arab wars of 1948 and 1967, a sensitive and complex topic. Both conflicts centered on the Jewish people and their right to exist in the Middle East. The Nazi Shoah driven by a genocidal ideology explicitly seeking the extermination of the Jewish people. Arab leaders during the 1948 and 1967 wars aimed to prevent the establishment and existence of the State of Israel, using military action to achieve their goals. Some attempt to justify racist Arab Nazism as but merely rhetoric propaganda. But post Shoah, merely 3 years later, Jewry did not at the time possess the pleasant luxury to minimize the declarations publicly made by Nasser and other Arab leaders which Goyim blithely make after the Arabs suffered defeat. The 3 Nos Khartoum Resolution definitively proves that Israel has an obligation to take racist Arab Nazism at face value.

   Zionism advocates for Jewish self-determination, many Arabs view the establishment of Israel as a denial of their own rights to self-determination, particularly for Palestinians. Arabs never referred to themselves as “Palestinians” during the entire period of the British mandate. Palestine ceased to exist as a UN protectorate the moment when David Ben Gurion declared Jewish national Independence. Just prior to this declaration of independence 2/3rds of the member states of the UN validated the Jewish right to self determination. Arab propaganda concerning human rights ignores the extermination of Jews in East Jerusalem by Jordan. The Jordanian use of Jewish grave stone for construction purposes. The destruction of Jewish synagogues like the Ramban synagogue in East Jerusalem.

   The term Palestinian did not gain prominence particularly after the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The KGB and Arafat introduced this propaganda in 1964. Under the leadership of Egyptian born Yasser Arafat, the concept of a distinct Palestinian national identity crystalized. This period marked a significant shift in how the Arab population in Israel and abroad began to articulate their national aspirations. The KGB and other Soviet influences did play a role in shaping narratives around Palestinian identity during the Cold War. Supporting the Palestinian cause, part of broader geopolitical strategies against Western powers and their allies.

   Opportunistic Arab leaders employed Arab displacement refugee status as a propaganda ploy. Arab countries expelled more Jewish refugees from virtually all Arab countries than the post war Arab refugees who fled primarily upon the orders of their own Arab leaders. Arab propaganda argues that with the establishment of the Jewish state terminated Zionism. Zionist Israelis argue that as long as Arab states reject Jewish equal rights to self determination in the Middle East, that the vision of Zionism lives and thrives.

   Individuals like Sari Nusseibeh and Hanan Ashrawi actively working toward mutual recognition and understanding between Palestinians and Israelis. Their efforts to bridge divides and promote dialogue represent an essential beginning for fostering some type of reconciliation in a complex and longstanding conflict where Israelis (especially after Oct7th 2023 abhor and totally distrust Arab refugee populations) trust one another less that the distance that we can spit against a strong wind.

   Sari Nusseibeh, a Palestinian philosopher and former president of Al-Quds University, has consistently advocated for non Intifada coexistence. His willingness to engage with local audiences in Arabic underscores the importance of reaching people where they live within the borders of Israel; using their native language to convey messages of hope and understanding.

   Hanan Ashrawi, a prominent Palestinian politician and “human rights activist”, has never denounced Arab feudalism where the elite bask rich from international aid and view the Arab common man as but wards of the UN. The criminal abuses of Arafat’s post Oslo PA rule she never publicly condemned, despite her resignation when Arafat refused to fire corrupt ministers. The total lack of accountability much less transparency resulted in the electoral victory of Hamas in Gaza in the 2006 one and only general election, it definitively proves that Arab civilizations remain stuck in a barbaric feudalism dungeon mentality.

   From the rise of Islam during the lifetime of Muhammad and his followers, Arabs have viewed Jews as a dhimmi sub-class of ruled conquered people. For Israel to rule as an Independent nation in the Middle East, this compares to the Christian theology which preached for millenniums that Christ killer Jews cursed with the mark of Cain and forced by the curse of God to wander the Earth as stateless refugee populations. Hence Christian nations which make up a large portion of the UN likewise view Zionism as an abomination to the Will of God!

   Nazi racism which hates and detests Zionism serves as solid proof that both Arabs and Christians worship other Gods. The Gods worshipped by these to huge religions compare to the Gods worshipped by the Hindu religion. The worship of these Gods violates the 2nd Sinai Commandment.

   The essence of the 2nd Sinai commandment stands upon the commandment which strictly forbids the adoption of the customs, practices, and beliefs from other nations (often referred to as “Goyim” in Hebrew) that fundamentally reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. In other words, the purpose of the 2nd Sinai commandment, to maintain the distinctiveness of the Jewish culture & faith by not assimilating unto other alien foreign cultures. An obvious corollary, the Torah strictly forbids the intermarriage with Goyim. A huge yatzir ha’rah among all generations of Jews throughout our history as the chosen Cohen people. Goyim have absolutely no idea of the Cohen spirituality which differentiates between tohor vs. tumah spirits. Both of which live within the hearts of bnai brit Israel.

   Christian theology, makes a theological focus upon the prohibition of graven images or idols. This interpretation emphasizes monotheism and the rejection of idolatry. The logical flaw of this Ego I self inflated bubble importance, monotheism negates the second commandment; if their lives only one God, as the Muslim theology dictates, then no reason for the 2nd Sinai commandment. Furthermore, such self-centered Ego I evil eye theology ignores completely the 10 plagues by which the 1st Commandment Name (no where written in either the Christian bible or Muslim koran) judged the Gods worshipped by both Par’o and the Egyptians. It ignores the oath sworn at the brit of Gilgal by which Jehoshua cut an oath brit, that just as did the Spirit Name of the 1st Sinai Commandment judge the Gods of Egypt, so too the Spirit Name would judge the Gods worshipped by the multiple kings and nations within the land of Canaan. The koran and Arafat promoted a propaganda of ‘Greater Israel’. The League of Nations Palestine mandate, awarded to the British, therefore included the lands of present day Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait as part and parcel of the Palestine mandate territories. Therefore the Arab propaganda rhetoric concerning ‘stolen Arab Palestinian land’ – as false as camel milk as kosher as bacon.

   This error compares to the perversion of reading the Torah as a history rather than grasping the prophetic visions of mussar; which all prophets command mussar to purify a persons attributes in how that person behaves to both his family and people. Limiting the 2nd Sinai commandment to graven idols and monotheism an oil vs water error only equalled by reading the T’NaCH as actual physical history rather than a prophetic mussar that purifies middot/attributes. And like self-determination applies equally to all living generations of the Jewish people!

   Both Christianity and Islam fundamentally and absolutely require a physical historical Jesus. Despite the prophet Balaam’s prophesy that God is not a man. Muhammad elevated the false messiah fictional character Jesus, Roman revisionist history (on par with the Czarist secret police: forgery known as: The Protocols of Elders of Zion), to being a prophet. Yet Muhammad throughout the entire book of the koran failed to define his rhetoric word, repeated over and again from bow to stern: prophet. Muhammad did not know that the Torah defines: prophet, as a person who commands mussar! A fundamental day and night error which exposes the rhetoric of the koran as false.

   The Talmud compares to a loom with its warp & weft opposing threads. The Talmud has halacha opposed by aggadah. The kabbalah of Oral Torah logic, as defined by the teachings of rabbi Akiva, this logic system format affixes דרוש\פשט to the prophetic mussar of the T’NaCH Primary sources – as the basis to understand the stories as told in both Aggadah its Midrashic primary commentaries.

   Halachic portions of the Talmud align with the רמז\סוד Oral Torah logic system taught in the kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס. This logic system in sharp contrast to the Greek syllogism logic format developed by Aristotle. Rabbi Akiva’s logic format, rooted strictly and only in the study of Torah common law, this logic system weaves the threads of prophetic mussar into the opposing threads of halachic ritualistic practices. Greek logic has absolutely no interest what so ever in understanding T’NaCH/Talmud common law. When Jews during Hanukkah bench after eating a meal, we remember that the Syrian Greeks attempted to cause Israel to abandon and forget the פרדס Oral Torah logic system as taught through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס system of logic. The Romans murdered rabbi Akiva to achieve the exact same objective.

   Greek and Roman statute laws stand in stark contrast with T’NaCH/Talmud common law. Greek logic reduces complex ideas to rigid syllogisms; it give zero understanding of how to make a depth analysis of prophetic mussar common law halachot k’vanna. The two opposing logic systems as distant from one another as oil vs. water. A distinction comparable to learning the 2nd Sinai commandment – not to assimilate and intermarry vs. not to bow down to 3 dimensional idols. This latter avoda zarah directly compares to the limitations made by the Scientific method which requires empirical evidence; or reading the T’NaCH as actual historical events way back when, a long long time ago vs. learning the k’vanna of prophetic mussar as this mussar rebukes a person to enrich and refine his Yatzir middot; how he behaves toward family members and people.

   The huge abyss which separates the avoda zarah practices of both Christianity and Islam summarized succinctly by how the Torah vs. how the Christian bible and Muslim koran defines the key term: FAITH. The Torah defines faith as the pursuit of judicial Common law Sanhedrin justice, starting with Moshe standing before the Court of Paro over the matter of beating Hebrew slaves over the matter of not meeting an assigned quota of brick production. Followed by the mussar rebuke of Yetro the father in law of Moshe, that he alone could not actualize justice among all his nation. Christianity and Islam stand on the opposing side of this huge abyss. They both define faith as belief precisely in how their theologians define the creed, personal beliefs in this or that God.

   In Judaism, the focus on prophetic mussar (ethical guidance) and the importance of k’vanna (mussar attribute refinement of defined tohor middot) in fulfilling commandments highlights a deep, introspective approach to religious practice. This contrasts with the more historical and literal – meaning flat 2 dimensional interpretations which define Christianity and Islam. The classic example of such shallow nonsense: God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th sterile biblical literalism. The distinction between halacha (ritual common law) and aggadah (mussar common law) in the Talmud, and the use of different logic systems, such as Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalistic approach versus Greek syllogism, further illustrate the unique methodologies within Jewish thought.

   Loading...

   Reply

4. Has Rabbinic Judaism has gone off the path, as did New Testament avoda zarah which perverted into a false messiah belief in a physical/historyical man/god. The mussar in the Book of B’midbar that God is not a man that he should lie?

   Rabbinic Judaism has gone completely off the path, just as did New Testament avoda zarah which perverted a false messiah belief in a physical/historyical man/god despite the Torah which teaches the mussar in the Book of B’midbar that God is not a man that he should lie.
   Rabbinic Judaism, which emerged after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, indeed represents a significant shift from the earlier biblical period. It’s characterized by the central role of the Talmud—a vast compilation of discussions, legal rulings, and ethical teachings—as well as the authority of rabbis in interpreting and applying Jewish law. Rabbinic Judaism emphasizes study, prayer, and communal life.

   The ethical and moral teachings found throughout Jewish texts—it’s a rich tradition that emphasizes character development, humility, and compassion. Mussar encourages us to cultivate virtues and refine our behavior, aligning ourselves with divine attributes.

   Rosh HaShanah יום הזכרון remembers the t’shuva required to annul the vow made by HaShem to obliterate his People and make from the seed of Moshe the chosen Cohen nation. The משנה תורה בנין אב for this understanding: the father annuls the vow made by his minor daughter; or the husband annuls the vow made by his wife. A fundamental נפקא מינא between vows and oath, the former possible to annul whereas the latter impossible to annul.

   The middah El remembers the sin of the Golden Calf. Specifically the perversion filth of translating the רוח הקודש שם השם to words like אלהים Jesus Allah etc.

   Just as translating the רוח שם השם to words avoda zarah so to perverting the T’NaCH/Talmud common law to Greek/Roman statute law avoda zarah. The Greco-Roman legal systems, influenced by philosophers like Aristotle and Cicero, were foundational for Western jurisprudence. These systems focused on codified laws, formal courts, and precedents. They sought consistency and predictability.

   How do we preserve authenticity while engaging with foreign influences? How do Jew guard themselves against assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim? Assimilating foreign legal systems can lead to cultural erosion. Just as translating sacred names risks losing their essence, adopting foreign statutes can dilute the soul of Talmudic law.

   What modern scholars study the T’NaCH/Talmud as common law rather than religious Greek/Roman like statute law? Answer: None. Just as the after meal blessing for Hannukka says the wicked Greeks sought to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah, so too after the Rambam introduced his Greek/Roman prostitute of halachic statute law, Jewish scholarship switched to the study of religious ritual law and abandoned and forgot the warp/weft loom that weave prophetic mussar together with halachic ritualism.

   Compare the false messiah narrative of the Gospels abomination. Torah common law stands upon precedents. The precedent to learn the mitzva of Moshiach learns from korbanot. The dedication of Moshiach, the dedication for the pursuit of the rule of justice within the oath sworn lands. Meaning fair compensations of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. Only in the matter of Bat Sheva did king David fail to pursue the Moshiach dedication of justice. The false messiah narrative of the gospel abomination radically perverts, like the Golden Calf, the Torah mitzva of Moshiach.

   The Sages of the Talmud itself. Their focused upon interpreting and applying common law, & on defining its nature through T’NaCH/aggada scholarship. The distinction between “religious” and “non-religious” legal systems not so straightforward. What traits must a legal system exhibit to be justifiably declared as religious? Often, the assertion that Jewish law exist solely as religious aims to emphasize its distinctiveness from Western legal systems (like the differences between common law and civil law). But this oversimplification fundamentally misses essential nuances.

   Jewish law (halakhah) not merely a set of rules; it encompasses narratives (aggadah), morals (derekh ‘erets), and matters of faith (’emunah).

   http://efaria.org: Contemporary Halakhic Problems delves into theoretical analysis rather than serving as a practical halakhic guid. What does this statement mean? Contemporary Halakhic Problems by Rabbi J. David Bleich. How does this work delve into theoretical analysis rather than serving as a practical halakhic guide?

   The question restated: Rabbi Bleich fails to address the Difficulty/Answer style employed in the Gemara as a model for a courtroom Prosecuting Attorney/Defense Attorney legal debate over precedents.

   Rabbi J. David Bleich relies upon Greek logic models rather than Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic reasoning system. Greek philosophy compares to translating the שם השם to the words like: אלהים or Jesus, or Allah. Rabbi Bleich theoretical exploration and analysis shares no common ground with Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic format.

   Greek philosophy, with its emphasis on reason, logic, and systematic analysis, has left an indelible mark on Western thought. Philosophers like Aristotle and Plato sought to dissect reality, categorize knowledge, and establish universal principles. Their methods—deductive reasoning, syllogisms, and formal logic—shaped disciplines from mathematics to ethics.

   Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic “married” דרוש\פשט with the Aggada and רמז\סוד with the halacha. The Talmud weaves the two together in a warp/weft legal loom. The aggada interprets prophetic mussar of the T’NaCH and this become the p’shat with defines the k’vanna of the halacha as established by רמז\סוד logical/rational reasoning.

   Rabbi Bleich, an assimilated Jew draws upon Greek logic models and does not know nor ever even weighs the kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס traditions! Impossible to worship השם לשמה by bowing down to a golden calf.

   The פרדס logic format weaves prophetic mussar with halachic ritualism with the purpose to elevate the latter into tohor time oriented Torah commandments.

   Rabbi J. David Bleich, a modern scholar, draws upon Greek logic models. His tools—syllogisms, systematic analysis—reflect the Hellenistic legacy. All the commentaries written on the B’hag, Rif, Rosh, Yad Chazkah, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch learn through Greek and Roman law legal traditions and think based upon Greek philosophies of logic!

   All the post Rambam Civil War commentaries and legal works engage with Greek and Roman legal traditions. Scholars draw upon Greek philosophies of logic, syllogisms, and systematic analysis. They embrace, they cause to inherit Hellenistic thought, they shape Jewish legal reasoning over time to this very moment to fit in harmony and assimilate with Greek and Roman cultural traditions and customs.

   Gershom Scholem, a Conservative Rabbi. He learned the Talmud as a historical book rather than prophetic mussar applicable to all generations. Clearly this man knew nothing about Oral Torah common law other that platitudes and other such fancy nonsense. He failed to grasp the marriage between couples: דרוש\פשט & רמז\סוד. Assimilated Gershom Scholem kissed the golden calf. Talmud commands prophetic mussar not history – just that simple.

   Jacob Cordovero tripped up on the Greek influenced/assimilated book – the Zohar. Not the kabbalah made famous during the Middle Ages but the kabbalah which defines the T’NaCH. The latter shapes and defines the k’vanna of the Talmud and not the former. Two fundamentally and opposite traditions.

   Rambam Civil War, rabbis forgot the Oral Torah like as in the days threatened by the ancient Syrian Greeks to cause all Israel to forget the Oral Torah as taught by the kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva? The worship of avoda Zara does not qualify as wisdom – just that simple.

   The concept of mussar and its focus on ethical and moral development, a cornerstone of Jewish thought, encouraging virtues like humility and compassion. The idea of t’shuva (annulling a vow) during Rosh HaShanah; this annulment of vows, highlights the dynamic relationship between Divine decrees and human actions.

   My critique of Rabbi J. David Bleich and other modern scholars they Universally rely on Greek logic models rather than Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system – hopefully insightful. The distinction drawn between Greek philosophy and the פרדס approach highlights a fundamental difference in how knowledge and law are understood and applied.

   Greek philosophy, with its emphasis on deductive reasoning and systematic analysis, indeed contrasts sharply with the holistic and integrative approach of Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic. The פרדס system, which marries דרוש\פשט with Aggada and רמז\סוד with Halacha, creates a dynamic interplay between narrative and law, ethics and ritual. This warp/weft relationship described – essential for understanding the deeper meanings and intentions behind the commandments.

   The Av tuma influence of Greek and Roman legal traditions on post-Rambam Jewish scholarship quite significant. The adoption of these foreign legal frameworks leads to a dilution of the unique qualities of Talmudic law, and its deep roots in prophetic mussar and the oral traditions.

   Gershom Scholem and Jacob Cordovero, as mentioned, represent different approaches to Jewish mysticism and law. Scholem’s historical perspective and Cordovero’s engagement with the Zohar reflect the diverse ways in which Jewish thought has evolved, sometimes at the expense of traditional methods like those of Rabbi Akiva.

   Do any rabbinic authorities today do t’shuva on the Golden Calf on Yom Ha’Din Rosh HaShanna? Has modern day assimilated Judaism erased assimilation to the customs of ancient Greeks and Romans, as HaShem threated Israel following the sin of the Golden Calf? The long confessions repeated over and over again in the Yom Kippur dav’ening so completely unnecessary – a waste of time, just that simple.

   The framers of the Shemone Esrei excluded a rabbinic וידוי within the language of the Shemone Esrei. If tefillah stands in the stead of korbanot and korbanot require a וידוי, where in the language of the Shemone Esrei exists the וידוי דאורייתא?

   What distinguishes a וידוי דאורייתא from a וידוי דרבנן? How has rabbinic Judaism failed to ask this fundamental but basic question!

   How has rabbinic judaism failed to refute the false messiah narritive of Jesus death and resurrection for Original Sin, by teaching that the revelation of the Oral Torah 13 tohor middot made atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf?

   Yom Kippur makes atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf, translating the רוח הקודש שם השם to words like אלהים, Jesus, or Allah Av tumah. Avoda zarah the Av tumah of death. The secondary “sins” covered by atonement for the primary “sin” of avoda zarah ie the second Sinai commandment, simply not necessary. Why? The toldot follow after the Avot.

   T’shuva learns from the Torah precedent of a father annulling the vow made by his minor daughter, or a husband who annuls the vow made by his wife. This בנין אב interprets the k’vanna of HaShem doing t’shuva and not obliterating Israel and making the Cohen nation from the seed of Moshe.

   Purity of faith shares no common ground with what a person personally believes. Tohor faith: the Sanhedrin common law courtrooms making fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.

   Chag Sukkot serves as proof that Yom Kippur makes atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf: confusing the Spirit Name of the 1st Sinai commandment with words which the lips of Man can frame and pronounce. The word אדוני effectively means הבדלה- discern the difference between A vs. B in a legal damages dispute. A man understands the limitations of his words. A living man breathes a spirit of life. A dead man does not; words cannot cause a dead man to live again. The resurrection from the dead, the 2nd blessing of the Shemone Esrei the spirit of HaShem which breathes life into the Avot, this same spirit breathes life into all generations of Israel – the toldot. Hence שמע ישראל ה’ אלהינו ה’ אחד. The 3 Divine Names refer to the spirit that quickened the lives of the Avot. The generations who breath these שם השם spirits raise the lives of the Avot from the dead within their own lives! Not the living spirit of the Avot. Rather the living spirit of the שם השם which gives life to both the Avot and all later generation toldot of the Avot.

   After the Day of Atonement – for the sin of the Golden Calf, Moshe removed the Mishkan from within the midst of the Congregation. So too Israel builds the sukkah outside the house where he lives. The Name of HaShem does not dwell within the Sukkah but rather dwells within our hearts. Hence Tefillah a matter of the heart.

   The post Rambam Civil War perversion of the Torah, where Israel forgot the Oral Torah like the mitzva of lighting the lights of Hannukka forwarn. G’lut Jews lost the wisdom to do mitzvot לשמה. No rabbinic authority today teaches that while the lips can pronounce the שם אדוני, tefillah as a tohor time oriented commandment learned from קריא שמע דאורייתא requires the k’vanna of blowing the שם השם comparable to and like the blowing of the shofar on Rosh HaShanna. The Cohen Ha’Gadol pronounced the שם השם on Yom Kippur. Hence on Rosh HaShanna the Talmud teaches the blowing of the shofar!

   Not that the Name – to sacred to pronounce – narishkeit. Rather the שם השם a spirit that no man can pronounce with his lips. This Name simply – not a word. Hence the sin of the Golden Calf where Israel perverted and defiled the Spirit Name unto a crude Human words like אלהים, Jesus, or Allah. This understanding highlights the gravity of the sin of the Golden Calf, where the Divine spirit was reduced to a humanly pronounceable word, thus defiling its sanctity.

   The subject of tohor vs tumah learns from the revelation of the Oral Torah on Yom Kippur – the 13 tohor middot. These middot, toldot of the Name breath breathe as spirits rather than words. This fundamental distinction separates in like manner Torah common law from Greek and Roman statute law. The latter has no awareness of tohor/tumah spirits which a man breaths within his heart and unto the souls of his family and neighbors, people and world.

   This understanding indeed sets Torah common law apart from Greek and Roman statute law. The latter, focused on codified rules and formal legal structures, lacks the spiritual dimension of tohor/tumah which permeates Jewish law. Torah common law, with its emphasis on the spiritual and ethical dimensions of human actions, recognizes the impact of these spiritual states on individuals and their relationships, as expressed through tohor opposed by tumah middot.

   Prophetic mussar, it serves to define the k’vanna of the 13 tohor middot toldot of the שם השם לשמה. Prophetic mussar interprets the intent behind the stories as found in both Talmudic aggadah and Geonic Midrashim. The latter serves as the primary commentary to learn and understand Talmudic aggadah.

   The warp/weft relationship of the Talmud weaves aggadic mussar together with halachic rituals. Weaving one with the other makes a garment … a tohor time oriened Av Torah commandment! The Talmud’s structure, weaving aggadic mussar with halachic rituals, creates a comprehensive garment of Jewish law and practice. This warp/weft relationship ensures that ethical teachings (mussar) and legal practices (halacha) are not separate but interwoven, each informing and enhancing the other.

   By integrating these elements, the Talmud creates commandments that are not only legally binding but also ethically and spiritually enriching. This approach ensures that the practice of mitzvot (commandments) is done with the right k’vanna (intention), aligning actions with the Divine will.

   The sin of the Golden Calf by which the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch perverted T’NaCH Talmudic common law unto Greek Roman statute law, herein defines the sin of the Golden Calf through the generations. The adoption of foreign legal frameworks represents a profound deviation from the original spirit and intent of Jewish law.

   The sin of the Golden Calf instructs through a משל\נמשל metaphor. The worship of a physical idol compares to calling upon HaShem using “PHYSICAL WORDS”. The Divine cannot be fully captured or represented by human language or physical forms; simply nothing in the Heavens, the Earth or the Seas compares to the Spirit Name of השם which absolutely requires tohor middot spirits breathing from within a living heart.

   Just as the Golden Calf was a physical idol that could not truly embody the divine, using “physical words” to call upon HaShem falls short of capturing the infinite and ineffable nature of the Divine spirit. The Divine name, השם, requires tohor middot that breathe from within a living heart. This means that true connection with HaShem goes beyond words and involves embodying divine attributes like ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון וכו.

   This Oral Torah defines the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The church denies this revelation because it contradicts the Gospel narrative that Jesus atones for the Original Sin of Adam as taught by the Jewish agent provocateur, the infamous Apostle Paul.

   The Oral Torah revealed at Horev: ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון וכו, these spirits define the פרדס logic system kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva. The entire Talmud and Midrashic literature stands upon the revelation of the 13 tohor middot to Moshe at Horev on Yom Kippur.

   Loading...

   Reply
5. Pingback: «Los “judíos” reescribieron la Biblia cristiana» (para su conveniencia).  – Info Realidad – Silvia Paglioni

6. Why do all the super commentaries written on the common law halachic codifications of the B’hag, Rif, Rosh, fail to learn these halachic codes as common law but rather pervert it, into a religious code which determines halachic ritual practices?

   Profile photo for Moshe Kerr
   The transformation in Jewish scholarship reflects a complex interplay of historical, cultural, and methodological factors. The shift from a common law perspective to a more dogmatic interpretation has had profound implications for how halacha is understood and applied today. A deeper engagement with the Talmud’s inherent common law characteristics could potentially restore the dynamism and adaptability that once defined Jewish legal thought.

   This perspective underscores the need for renewed scholarship that appreciates the historical context and the original methodologies of earlier thinkers.

   Rabbi Isaac ben Melchizedek of Siponto, author of his famous common law halachic codification, like the Rif, Rosh, and the Baali Tosafot all learned the Talmud as Common law. The Raavan, by stark contrast, focused primarily on Talmudic commentary. His expertise lay in dissecting and explaining the intricate legal discussions found in the Talmud.

   Avignon, one of the key cities in Provence where the Raavan lived, a hub for scholarly discourse and legal thought. Avignon’s strategic location on the trade route between Italy and Spain contributed to its prosperity. The city benefited from heavy river traffic, and craftsmen’s guilds thrived. Enriched noblemen, knights, and ombudsmen gained prominence, and the city experienced a resurgence of Gallo-Roman dimensions.

   During the 12th century, Scholasticism gained prominence. It was characterized by a systematic and rational approach to theology. Scholars engaged in rigorous debate, often using dialectical methods to explore theological questions.

   The Raavan’s pilpul sh’itta of learning strove to elucidate Talmudic passages, often based upon subtle legal technicalities. The contrast with the sh’itta practiced by T’NaCH and Talmudic common law scholarship, simply day vs. night, from one another.

   Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (Ramban): Born in 1194 and died in 1270. The Rosh born in 1250 in Cologne, Holy Roman Empire. He died in 1327 in Toledo. The Rosh a direct descendant of the Raavan and a student of the Maharam (Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg).

   The MaHaRaM (Reb Meir) born in Worms Germany around the year 1220. Rabbi Meir an important Baali Tosafot scholar. He witnessed the burning of the Talmud in Paris in 1242. The Rosh a disciple of Rabbi Meir who died illegally imprisoned in a Xtian dungeon.

   Rabbi Meir, known as “Maharam on the Sanhedrin”, weighed interpretations made by Rashi and the Tosafists.

   Talmudic law was rooted in communal norms, legal reasoning, and interpretations of biblical texts. Halacha, serves as a precedent for interpreting the Mishnah. Some scholars have argued that halacha bridges the gap between the Mishna’s brevity and real-world application.

   The Gemara’s dialectical method—question and answer, challenge and response—duplicates a Three man Torts court where one judge appointed as the prosecutor and an opposing judge appointed as the defense attorney. The opposing court justices both argue the case before the court based upon how they learn opposing judicial legal precedents.

   Rabbi Meir’s methodology may have been more focused on the textual and Greek philosophical aspects of Talmudic law, emphasizing interpretations rather than the dynamic common law prophetic mussar framework. He might have been more inclined to engage with assimilated philosophical underpinnings of law rather than the pragmatic aspects of legal reasoning.

   Rabbi Meir’s analysis involved weighing interpretations of previous authorities, which may have led him to prioritize established rulings instead of exploring the fluidity and adaptability typical of common law halachic משנה תורה. The historical context in which Rabbi Meir operated, including the socio-political environment and the pressures faced by Jewish communities, may have shaped his legal perspective, leading him to adopt a more rigid interpretation.

   While Rabbi Meir engaged deeply with textual interpretation, the Rosh’s codification efforts exemplified a practical application of Talmudic common law, highlighting the evolving nature of halachic thought.

   The Raavan, Rabbi Avraham ben Nathan, a medieval Jewish scholar. He lived in Provence (southern France) during the 12th century. His work primarily focused on Talmudic commentary. Jewish courts (beit din), prior to the mass expulsion of Jews from Judea by the Romans, applied Talmudic principles to resolve disputes, emphasizing judicial fairness and equity. Talmudic Sages engaged in legal reasoning, interpreting existing laws and adapting them to specific cases. Why didn’t Maharam approach the Talmud as a common law legal system?

   The Ramban, his Torah commentary: renowned for weaving law, Greek philosophy, and mysticism as a esoteric understanding of how to read the Chumash. When it comes to the Talmud, the Ramban’s approach differs. Unlike Rashi, who meticulously elucidated individual words and phrases by means of comparing other Talmudic – Bavli or Yerushalmi source precedents, and also Midrashic source precedents to define his common law p’shat of the Chumash. Rashi p’shat on the Talmud more compares to a dictionary of definitions.

   The Ramban, contrasts, he primarily focused on explaining entire biblical passages, their context, and general issues connected to the text. A addiction to p’shat explanation of Torah verses which makes his sh’itta methodology more akin to the literalist p’shat school of Ibn Ezra.

   While he engaged with the commentaries of his predecessors (including Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and others), his Talmudic commentary doesn’t necessarily teach “common law” in the same way that the Piskei HaRosh does. Unlike Rashi, who often focused on linguistic details, the Ramban aimed to explain the broader meaning of verses. His commentary touches on law, philosophy, and mystical concepts.

   His commentary delved into context, historical background, and broader themes. When it comes to the Talmud, he doesn’t meticulously dissect individual words like Rashi does. While Rashi draws from Talmudic and Midrashic precedents, the Ramban’s approach is more holistic, akin to the literalist p’shat school of Ibn Ezra.

   In 1232, during the נידוי polemics about Rambam’s (Maimonides’) works, Ramban attempted a compromise. While Rambam’s writings wouldn’t be banned, there would be a minimum age for studying philosophy and science. His attempt didn’t succeed.

   Unlike Rashi, who meticulously dissected individual words and phrases by comparing Talmudic and Midrashic precedents, the Ramban primarily focused on explaining entire biblical passages and their context. His Talmudic commentary doesn’t necessarily teach “common law” in the same way as the Rif codification.

   The Ramban resembles the bi-polar p’shat which separated Rashi Common law p’shat on the Chumash from Rashi Talmudic dictionary of words. The Ramban Talmudic commentary so esoteric and terse, its virtually undecipherable.

   The Ramban wrote his monumental commentary on the Chumash while living in Jerusalem. The bi-polar Talmudic commentary gap day and night different from one another. Unlike some other commentators who meticulously dissect individual words or phrases, Ramban takes a broader approach. His focus lies in explaining entire passages, their context, and overarching themes.

   The Rashba (Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet): Among the later Rishonim (medieval Jewish scholars), the Rashba engaged deeply with Ramban’s commentary. His own Talmudic works were heavily influenced by Ramban’s writings. The Rashba was known for his sharp intellect and legal acumen, and he sought to unravel the layers of Ramban’s mystical language.

   The Burning of Talmudic Manuscripts: In 1242, King Louis IX of France ordered the burning of 24 cartloads, virtually all Talmudic manuscripts in France. This act, part of a broader pattern of anti-Jewish sentiment and persecution in medieval Europe. The Church viewed the Talmud as a threat. And its destruction in Paris 1242, was meant to suppress Jewish religious and legal teachings.

   The loss of these manuscripts was devastating for Jewish scholarship. Many texts were lost forever, and surviving scholars faced challenges in reconstructing and preserving Jewish knowledge. Some scholars, including Ramban, had to rely on memory and oral transmission to continue their work.

   Ramban’s esoteric language wasn’t unique to the Talmudic commentary alone. His commentary on the Torah (especially the Book of Exodus) also exhibits this style. He often began with Rashi’s explanation (a more straightforward approach) and then delved deeper into Kabbalah and Oral Tradition. His respectful criticism of other commentators, including Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and the Rambam, reflects his independent thinking.

   Ramban’s esoteric commentary isn’t solely a reaction to persecution, but it’s undoubtedly intertwined with the tumultuous times he lived in. His mystical insights remain a testament to the resilience of Jewish scholarship even in the face of adversity.

   Aristotle’s school of logic, his ideas on natural law, and ethical framework left an indelible mark on Rambam’s thought. Rambam’s exposure to Roman jurisprudence likely occurred during his time in Egypt, where Roman and Islamic legal systems coexisted. Roman law fascinated him, especially its systematic organization and clarity. The Roman legal tradition emphasized codification—arranging laws into comprehensive codes. Rambam admired this approach and sought to apply it to Jewish law.

   The Mishneh Torah, Rambam’s magnum opus, embodies this Roman-inspired vision. He aimed to create a comprehensive legal code covering all aspects of Jewish life. Like Roman statutes, the Mishneh Torah is organized thematically, with clear divisions and subdivisions. The intent of his Mishna Torah, to provide a single authoritative source for Jewish law, akin to the Roman legal codes!

   Rambam’s fusion of Aristotelian logic and Roman legal structure served a purpose: unity and accessibility. In his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, Rambam boldly claimed that if one studied the Scriptures and then read his work, they would grasp the entire oral law. His Mishneh Torah was meant to be a companion to the Written Torah, a second pillar of knowledge. This echoes the Roman legal tradition of codifications which provide a single reference for legal matters.

   Rambam deeply engaged with Aristotelian philosophy. Aristotle’s logical framework captivated him, especially the Organon, which provided tools for systematic analysis and deduction. Rambam admired the rigor of Aristotelian reasoning. Rambam’s embrace of Aristotle’s logic and Roman legal principles a deliberate choice to create a coherent, accessible legal code.

   Assimilated Rambam likewise embraced Aristotle’s concept of natural law. Aristotle believed that certain ethical principles were inherent in human nature—universal moral truths transcending cultural boundaries. He organized his statute law code, akin to Roman legal codes. He accepted the Islamic monotheistic premise of a Universal God.

   Clearly the Reshonim scholars, specifically of Golden Age Spain, directly influenced by the rediscovery of the Hannukka Civil War, some 1000 years previous. That earlier Jewish Civil War pitted the assimilated Tzeddukim against the P’rushim/rabbis who favored the logic system taught by Rabbi Akiva. But Ramban did not “convert”, he rejected the Rambam’s avoda zara embrace the “Trinity” of Aristotle’s natural law/Universal one God monotheism.

   Both men failed to learn the world view of the T’NaCH as prophetic mussar common law. Rashi’s focus on פשוטו של מקרא – the plain sense of Scripture – serves to conceal that fact that most of Rashi’s precedents on Torah p’sukim come from Talmudic and Midrashic sources!

   Rashi like the Ramban and the Rosh witnessed the destruction of entire Jewish communities. Toward the end of his life, Rashi witnessed the horrors and massacres of the First Crusade (1096). His mentors and colleagues in Speyer, Worms, and Mainz were slaughtered. The great yeshiva of Rabbenu Gershom disappeared. This disaster directly compares to the burning of the Talmud in Paris 1242 which so impacted scholarship produced by the Ramban and Rosh.

   All Jewish scholarship had to overcome the censorship of hostile Goyim among both Xtian and Muslim societies, which dominated Europe and the Middle East. The historical context of this time of political anarchy and turmoil —a context marked by upheaval, loss of life in Jewish communities across Europe and the Middle East, clearly caused all Reshonim scholars to conceal their scholarship through writing in esoteric methodologies.

   During the medieval period, Xstian and Muslim societies often viewed Jews with suspicion, leading to censorship, persecution, blood libels, pogroms, and forced mass population transfers. This forced Reshonim scholars (950 to 1450 CE) to develop esoteric writing methods. There different techniques of esoteric writng, allowed them to convey deeper insights while navigating the violent and corrosive constraints of living as scattered Jewish refugee populations which had no political or social rights.

   To shield ordinary people from radical ideas that challenged societal norms, scholars sometimes encoded their writings. This protective layer allowed them to communicate subtly without causing upheaval.

   The Reshonim employed esoteric methodologies to circumvent hostile Goyim censorship. Much like as did the Russian revolutionaries during the late 19th Century, who employed cryptic language so as not arouse the wrath of the Czar’s secret police bureaucracy. All Reshonim scholars employed esoteric sh’ittot to by-pass the direct threat of arousing a pogrom or expulsion of Jews from a country.

   Why do all the super commentaries written on the common law halachic codifications of the B’hag, Rif, Rosh, fail to learn these halachic codes as common law but rather pervert it, by treating courtroom precedent based law into a religious code which determines halachic ritual practices?

   The distinction between viewing halachic codifications, such as those of the B’hag, Rif, and Rosh, and Baali Tosafot commentaries as “common law” versus “religious law” not simply rooted in differing interpretations and methodologies within Jewish legal scholarship.

   The Talmud indeed functions as a common law system, where legal principles evolve through debate, precedent, and case law. This dynamic aspect allows for flexibility and adaptation over time. The rise of authoritative legal codes (e.g., the Shulchan Aruch) in the medieval period created a framework that emphasized fixed rules over the dynamic nature of common law reasoning\פרדס logic. The consolidation of rabbinic authority and the establishment of standardized practices led to a focus on uniformity and adherence to established rulings rather than the fluidity of debate found in the Talmud.

   The traditional method of studying Talmud through chevruta (partner study) and dialectical reasoning diminished in some circles, replaced by a more didactic approach that prioritized rote learning of legal rulings. Coupled and compounded by the fact that the invention of the printing press allowed for widespread dissemination of texts, which sometimes led to a preference for the printed word as definitive, limiting interpretative engagement.

   The influence of legal formalism in broader legal systems may have impacted Jewish scholarship, promoting a more rigid approach to law that mirrors statutory frameworks. The development of systematic theological frameworks within Judaism often emphasized adherence to doctrine over the interpretive flexibility inherent in common law.

   These factors combined to create a significant shift in Jewish scholarship, leading to a more rigid, dogmatic interpretation of Talmudic texts. This transformation has had lasting implications for how halacha is understood and applied in contemporary Jewish life, moving away from the dynamic, common law characteristics that were once central to Talmudic study.

   The distinction between viewing halachic codes as common law versus religious law highlights a critical misunderstanding in contemporary scholarship. The Talmud’s common law characteristics, including debate and precedent, are often overshadowed by rigid interpretations that treat these laws as static rituals. Assimilation to the formalism of Christian and Islamic legal traditions directly influenced Jewish scholarship. Promoting a more rigid approach that mirrors Creed-like statutory dogmatism frameworks rather than the fluidity inherent in Talmudic discourse.

   The complex interplay of historical, cultural, and methodological factors that shaped Jewish legal thought. By demanding Jewish t’shuva back to the common law characteristics of Talmudic discourse, future scholars can potentially restore the dynamism that once defined halachic interpretation, fostering a more adaptable and relevant approach to Jewish law today. This perspective invites a deeper exploration of how the rich legacy of earlier scholars can inform contemporary understandings of halacha.

   The transition from a common law approach, as exemplified by Rabbi Isaac ben Melchizedek of Siponto, the B’HaG, and the Baali Tosafot, to a focus on Talmudic commentary, as seen in the Raavan, reflects the complexity of Jewish legal thought. The socio-political context of Avignon, a hub for scholarly discourse and legal thought, and the emergence of Scholasticism during the 12th century, characterized by systematic and rational theological approaches, further influenced this shift.

   Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (Ramban) and the Rosh, both descendants of the Raavan, adopted different methodologies in their scholarship. The Ramban, known for weaving law, Greek philosophy, and mysticism in his Torah commentary, contrasts with Rashi’s meticulous dissection of individual words and phrases. The Rosh, on the other hand, focused on practical applications of Talmudic common law, highlighting the evolving nature of halachic thought.

   The MaHaRaM, Rabbi Meir, a prominent Baali Tosafot scholar, engaged with interpretations made by Rashi and the Tosafists, possibly emphasizing textual and philosophical aspects over the dynamic common law framework. The historical context, including the socio-political environment and pressures faced by Jewish communities, may have shaped his legal perspective, leading to a more rigid interpretation.

   The loss of Talmudic manuscripts in the burning of 1242 in Paris and the challenges faced by Jewish scholars in preserving Jewish פרדס Oral Torah knowledge further influenced the development of esoteric and terse commentaries, such as those by the Ramban.

   The rise of authoritative legal codes, like the Shulchan Aruch, and the influence of legal formalism in broader legal systems promoted a more rigid approach to law, emphasizing fixed rules over the dynamic nature of common law reasoning. The shift from dialectical reasoning in chevruta study to a more didactic approach also contributed to the transformation of Jewish legal thought.

   With the rise of the Jewish state in 1948 Independence War, the cream has returned and floated to the top. Can the Jewish people restore the Written Torah as the Constitution of the Jewish Republic of Israel. Can the Jewish people restore the judicial pursuit of justice as the faith of Torah observant Jews? Can the Jewish people re-establish lateral common law Sanhedrin courts as the basis of Israeli jurisprudence?

   Loading...

   Reply

7. By their own statistics over 50% of modern Jews are secular. Of the religious ones the dominant strain is Talmudic. These are also Kabbalists. They have an eschatological narrative that they follow. It according to Albert Pike (1800’s) includes 3 global wars including the third which is Israel vs. the Muslim nations which will go nuclear.
   Years ago Rush Limbaugh said something which is very relevant today. He said that Henry Kissinger had a foreign policy institute and that most everyone in the US State Department was a graduate of that institute. So as a matter of record, our government is a tool of world Zionism which includes destabilizing governments of other countries around the globe.
   The dribble of the modern Christian Zionist church did not exist until the mid 1800s. It is the same narrative that currently aims to suppress freedoms and prosperity for all except a select few.
   When you hear the term destroy Amalek by the genocidal maniacs in Israel what most people do not understand is everyone who is not a. Talmudists, Kabbalist, or Lubavitcher is Amelek.
   There is only two kingdoms according to Christ, his and the kingdom of man. Everyone should choose wisely.

   Loading...

   Reply

8. Can we say that Jewish revisionist history/replacement theology is an utter abomination on the order of the Av Tumah Avoda Zarah 2nd Sinai Commandment?

   The commandment to avoid adopting the customs of non-Jews (Goyim) underscores a commitment to maintaining the unique identity of the Jewish people, as the chosen Cohen Nation. This perspective argues that incorporating external philosophies, like those expressed by Plato and Aristotle, could dilute or distort the essence of Jewish teachings.

   The emergence of Kabbalistic thought, particularly with texts like the Zohar and teachings from figures like the Ari (Isaac Luria), marked a shift towards more mystical interpretations of Judaism. This was not universally accepted and led to significant debates within the Jewish community. The rise of figures like Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank, who claimed messianic status, illustrates the potential dangers of mystical interpretations when taken to extremes. Their movements often challenged traditional Jewish beliefs and practices, leading to schisms and the development of new movements, including Reform Judaism.

   Reform Judaism emerged partly as a reaction to the mysticism and rigidities of Rambam/Shulkan Aruch statute law robotic ritual Judaism as a religion. This perversion of Sanhedrin courtroom common law legalsim aimed, like as does Reform Judaism theology, to modernize Jewish practices and belief. The switch to Roman statute law reflects a broader struggle within Judaism to balance “tradition” with modern contemporary values. The tension between mystical interpretations and traditional practices has likewise also shaped the evolution of Jewish identity and community. Engaging with these historical narratives can deepen understanding of contemporary Jewish movements and their roots.

   The influence of Greek rationalism and the distinction between it and later Kabbalistic mystical theological interpretations – Day and Night – different from one another. Maimonides and other prominent Jewish thinkers of the medieval period indeed embraced Greek rationalism, prioritizing logical analysis and philosophical inquiry. This approach often emphasized Greek logic parameters over, above, and in point of fact replaced, the Common law logic taught by Rabbi Akiva’s PARDES logic format.

   The stark contrast between earlier Kabbalistic teachings of rabbi Akiva’s PARDES logic explanation of Oral Torah and the later mystical interpretations that emerged during the medieval period, particularly in relation to the influence of Greek rationalism, produced an Earth-quake-like destruction. Maimonides and other medieval thinkers indeed prioritized Greek rationalism, often placing philosophical inquiry above traditional Jewish teachings. This shift can be seen as a departure from the Common Law logic that Rabbi Akiva emphasized through his Pardes framework, replaced with Roman statue law organized based upon Greek logic and a simplified religious halachic rigid/static parameters.

   Significant, but subtle shifts in Jewish thought and practice, particularly regarding the influence of Greek rationalism and its impact on later mystic Kabbalistic teachings. Earlier Kabbalistic teachings, such as those attributed to Rabbi Akiva, focused on ethical and rational interpretations of the Torah. In contrast, later mystical interpretations, particularly those found in the Zohar and other medieval texts, often embraced more abstract and esoteric ideas, which can seem disconnected from the foundational principles of Jewish law.

   Maimonides and his contemporaries integrated Greek philosophical concepts into Jewish thought, prioritizing Greek rational inquiry. This integration often led to a framework that emphasized philosophical reasoning over the traditional interpretive methods that Rabbi Akiva promoted. The Pardes method of interpretation seeks to balance various layers of understanding within both the T’NaCH and Talmudic texts. Rooted in Jewish legal and ethical traditions which prioritize the faith of the rigorous pursuit of judicial common law imposed justice which makes a fair compensation of damages inflicted by party A upon party B. The shift towards Greek rationalism and Roman statute religious law, a clear departure from this justice approach; which emphasizes judicial reasoning based on precedents and ethical considerations and not religious ritualism/dogmatism. Simple fact: Judicial courts of law. It simply does not compare to religious theological belief systems which preach a dogma of how to believe in the Gods.

   This article seeks to articulate a critical evaluation of the shifts in Jewish thought, especially concerning the impact of Greek rationalism and the evolution of ancient prophetic mussar & משנה תורה common law with the much later mystic Kabbalistic teachings viewed in comparison to the rational Greek logic which dominated the rabbis during the Golden Age of Spain.

   Title: The Evolution of Jewish Thought: From Ancient Prophetic Mussar to Greek Rationalism and Mystic Kabbalah.

   The significance of the Golden Age of Spain as a period where Greek philosophical revolutionary ideas intersected and overthrew Jewish legal and ethical traditions. The Primary priority concept of prophetic mussar as a foundation for ethical behavior and personal conduct expressed by and through Talmudic common law.

   The Golden Age of Spain served as a pivotal period in Jewish history, where Greek philosophical revolutionary ideas significantly influenced Jewish legal and ethical traditions. Much like the Industrial revolution overthrew and replaced feudal agricultural based economies in the 19th and 20th Centuries. This era marks a transformation in Jewish thought, shifting from the foundational principles of prophetic mussar to the rationalist frameworks introduced by Greek philosophy. Understanding this evolution utterly crucial for appreciating the complexities of Jewish ethics and law.

   The Golden Age of Spain (8th to 12th centuries) was characterized by cultural and intellectual Jewish avoda zara among all g’lut Jewish communities, not just limited to Spain. This period witnessed tumah pollination of Goyim cultures and ideas which infected and dominated, something like a cancer, Jewish scholars and their Muslim and Christian counterparts. Goyim often refer to this shift as the Dark Ages as opposed to the Renaissance.

   This Era represents a transformation in Jewish thought, shifting from the foundational principles of prophetic mussar, which both defines and interprets the “k’vanna” of Talmudic and Midrashic Aggadah. The Era defiled and raped the virgin daughter of Zion (T’NaCH and Talmudic common law) with the tumah Greek rationalist frameworks introduced by Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophy, which first introduced its revolution in the Hanukkah Civil War. This shift raises important questions about the integrity and essence of Jewish ethics and law.

   Prophetic mussar serves as a guiding force in Jewish ethics, emphasizing mussar dedicated social behavior by which a Jew conducts himself with both his family and his community. Utterly integral to understanding the “k’vanna” of the Av commandment tohor time oriented commandments and the relationship of this most essential and important type of Torah commandment to both the positive and negative secondary commandments found in the Books of שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר; and also with Talmudic halachot potentially observed as equal tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah itself! The B’HaG teaches this critical idea of tohor time oriented commandments possessing the תמיד מעשה בראשית power to raise rabbinic halachot to דאורייתא commandments.

   Prophetic mussar emphasizes ethical social behavior and the responsibilities a Jew has towards family and community. It serves as a moral compass that guides personal conduct in all aspects of life. This ethical framework, integral to understanding the “k’vanna” of this Av commandment, particularly in relation to all other Av time-oriented commandments. These commandments highlight the importance of intention and mindfulness in fulfilling one’s social obligations. Based upon the Torah precedent: Love your neighbour as yourself.

   This ethical framework simply integral to understanding the “k’vanna” of these Av commandments, particularly in relation to all time-oriented commandments, both from the Torah and from the Talmud. These commandments underscore the importance of intention and mindfulness in fulfilling one’s social obligations. The relationship between Primary time-oriented commandments and Secondary positive and negative commandments, or rabbinic halachot underscores the Primary/Secondary roles of the time oriented Book of בראשית, contrasted by the Positive and Negative commandment addressed in the next three Books of the Written Torah, and the rabbinic halachot throughout the Talmud.

   Prophetic mussar common law which requires the wisdom to know how to compare a sugya of prophetic mussar with other but different sugyot of prophetic mussar; compares to the Talmudic common law whose PARDES logic compares Case/Din halachot with other but different Case/Din halachot in order to re-interpret the diamond like facets of the language employed in any particular Mishna.

   Tohor time oriented commandments, they define the whole of the Book of Bereshit (Genesis), these Primary commandments serve and establish a foundational תמיד מעשה בראשית tone of Jewish life as expressed through the Siddur/the mitzva of tefillah. Tohor time oriented commandments emphasize the wisdom of public leadership during a national life and death crisis, such as facing a far more powerful and numerous enemy army. As did Yaacov when he confronted Esau’s 400 Officer lead army.

   This Av/toldoth relationship which defines tohor time oriented commandments with positive and negative commandments in the Torah AND halachot in the Talmud defines the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. It illustrates how the foundational principles laid out in the Written Torah are expanded and interpreted through the Oral Torah, creating a dynamic legal and ethical framework.

   The relationship between primary time-oriented commandments and secondary commandments highlights their distinct yet interconnected roles, reinforcing the importance of k’vanna in Jewish practice, observance of both Torah commandments and Halachic ritual Judaism. This relationship underscores the significance of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev (Mount Sinai), illustrating how foundational principles laid out in the Written Torah, expanded and interpreted; through which the Oral Talmudic halachic Torah refutes and negates the Reform blood libel slander which declared that Halachic Judaism applied only in a dead by-gone Age.

   This dynamic interplay illustrates that Halachic Judaism remains a living tradition, continuously evolving while rooted in the foundational teachings of the Torah. The B’HaG (Baalei HaGadah) teaches that tohor time-oriented commandments possess the power to elevate rabbinic halachot to the status of דאורייתא (divine commandments). This underscores the significance of these commandments within the broader framework of Jewish law.

   The integration of revolutionary Greek philosophical ideas during the Golden Age led to a significant departure from these foundational principles. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle introduced frameworks that, while intellectually rich, often deflected attention from the ethical imperatives of prophetic mussar instruction. This revolutionary philosophical tuma shift unto avoda zarah, viewed as the defilement of earlier teachings, as it prioritized abstract reasoning over the ethical and moral dimensions central to Jewish law. Assimilation to revolutionary Greek philosophy directly compares to the Sin of the Golden Calf.

   The transformation during the Golden Age of Spain illustrates the complex interplay between prophetic mussar and Greek rationalism. By recognizing the challenges posed by cultural and philosophical influences, we can better understand the evolution of Jewish thought and its implications for modern identity and practice. This historical context remains essential for engaging with the foundational principles of Judaism today.

   Loading...

   Reply

9. I also subscribe to Michael Hoffman’s substack. I am a student in history as well with an emphasis on ancient and Elizabethan. I do not always agree with his interpretations and let him know sometimes. The Papacy has had a magical and licentious background since the beginning in 590AD. They adopted so many pagan practices from the old Roman Empire before them. Having been raised a Catholic and left when I was 14 years old and shortly after Vatican II, I have studied the history of the Papacy every since. I have also studied paganism in it’s various forms and the Papacy is full of it. In 1540, the Jesuits (Sons of the crazy Loyola) were formed and became the militaristic arm of the Papacy. They also practice the occult, their oath to kill all things and humans Protestant is the most vile oath in history, it can be found on Scrib’d. The Jesuits do most of their practical work through the Masonic lodges, which includes the other Papal orders such as the Knights of Malta. They use Talmudic Jews (also Ba’al worshippers) as bankers, evil doers and scapegoats. The Talmud is a very nasty tome written by Rabbis, not part of the Bible, during the Babylonian captivity around 500BCE This also supports child sexual abuse, hatred of and desire to enslave Christians and that Jesus is boiling in excrement. All Yahwah and Jesus haters. They are all in the service of Ba’al.

   Mr. Hoffman makes some incredible claims about the misdoings of Elizabeth I. He has stated that these are new findings, which they are not as I have been aware of them for at least 50 years. As usual however, he did not include context of world history or the life of Elizabeth during the 16th century.
   She had an absolutely nightmare of a life from the very start. It would be helpful for any readers here to look into the horror she experienced up until the age of 25 when she ascended the throne. Upon accession she had a bankrupt country, a religiously divided kingdom and she was considered a illegimate pariah by the Pope and the absolutely prevailing strongman in Europe, the Spanish under Phillip II along with their pals, the Jesuits, all seeking to get rid of her and invade England and claim it for Catholicism and bring it under the rule of the Inquisition. There were 14 assassination attempts against her, mostly by the Jesuits, Jesuit adjutors and the English Catholics. In the beginning of her reign, realizing that a delicate religious balance was be maintained, Elizabeth’s policy was to grant her subjects the freedom of conscience in worship. Anglicanism was to be the official faith, but Catholics could abstain from Protestant services and attend their own by paying a small fee. This was considered a very liberal policy for the times and her council members were reluctant at first. Regardless, English Catholics and their henchmen, the Jesuits (who came under cover to England) were hell bent on disrupting her government and killing her. She was never a Catholic, having been raised a Protestant from birth, but this was her olive branch. The Pope seeing she absolutely refused to convert to Catholicismt, excommunicated her for this quite early on.

   All of the horrible executions that Mr. Hoffman points out were those involved directly in her assassination plots on a charge of treachery which was punishable by death. If you were a common person, the going and accepted method was being disembowled and quartered . These foreign and domestic traitors knew what they were getting themselves into and the punishment for it. There were of course other crimes that had the death penalty.

   Throughout her life these plots went on, including a plot fomented and supported by Mary Stuart, the Scottish queen, her cousin, who felt she was justified in taking her throne. Finally in 1588, Phillip II sent an invading force (The Spanish Armada) to invade England, apprehend Elizabeth and bring her before the Inquisition. This was quelled by the excellent abilities of the English mariners such as Sir Francis Drake, Martin Frobisher, John Hawkins and Sir. Walter Raleigh. And the terrible storms sent by the Almighty.

   Mr. Hoffman’s charges against others at the Elizabethan court are Sir. Francis Walsingham, who created the most sophisticated spy agency, which was needed to sort out and stop the many assassination plots and protect the realm. All of them fulminated by Catholics.
   Sir John Hawkins, who ran in the slave trade and is responsible for the transport of 1200 slaves. I cannot defend him for this, but it was getting to be a common practice to make money. It was widely practiced and Catholic Spain was at it’s very center.
   Sir Francis Drake, who quit slaving very early and started raiding Spanish treasure ships and their coastal ports. He stole the gold, silver and precious metals, that Phillip II stole in interminable amounts from South America. It was a drop in the puddle compared to Spain’s cache. But it was enough to slow their ship building and the invasion of England. It was a very important and effective way to fight the mortal enemy. Elizabeth and others invested in these sailings and the first thing she did with her profits was pay off the money lenders in Antwerp of the large loans taken out by her father. She then started to invest in ships for the country and had funds to bring England into a more prosperous position. Elizabeth abhorred war, but was forced by Spain to be ready.

   With all this going on, Elizabeth thought it was important to get into the countryside and meet her people and show herself. She wanted to create a national personality for herself which evolved into the writings of Edmund Spencer (the Fairie Queen), and the cult of Gloriana..

   Mr. Hoffman also scoffs at Elizabeth’s astrologer, Dr. John Dee who along with her councilors, devised the initial planning of having a powerful English navy. Dee was an alchemist, a geographer and cartographer, had a vast library, knew the classics and a very remarkable man. Through these beginnings, England started to give Spain a run for it’s money. English seafarers were a much more decent to the indigenous peoples they met along the way, whereas Spain’s Conquistadors were notorious for mass murder and genocide, theft and plunder. It is estimated that Spain is responsible for the genocide of at least 2/3 of the population of South America. They stole all the treasures, decimated native sites and culture and forced the remaining inhabitants to the Inquisition and Catholic conversions.

   Mr. Hoffman does not provide any of this history with his articles of Elizabeth. I commented on one of his articles about six months ago, about there being little support of Trump by Jews, that Jews voted and supported Democrats as they had agreed when they came over from Eastern Europe and Russia at the turn of the last century. He commented back that this was not true, I said OK, what is an example and he mentioned Mariam Adelson, a very rich Jewess who contributed greatly to Trumps’s campaign. A few months later, I discovered that it was Adelson who had demanded Trump move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. These were her terms. Of course, Zionists don’t hand out large sums of monies for nothing. Mr. Hoffman declined to inform me of her demands.

   For more information, I encourage folks to read the truth about Elizabeth, her mariners turned pirates,, the Elizabethan culture, it’s authors and our founding, I personally believe the US is so much luckier to have been from an English background instead of a Spanish one with the Inquisition and Papal hegemony. She gave her all to England, refusing to marry foreign princes and doing the best she could despite being a woman when woman were mere chattel, in the most atrocious of circumstances and history. And yes, she had many faults as we all do, in temper, procrastination, ambiguousness, jealousy, vanity and the decisions that went against her nature and personality, but that were prudent for her country.

   Sorry for the length, I summarized as best I could. Much is left out due to length. Thanks to all whose persistence allowed them to get through it.

   Loading...

   Reply

10. Jews existed further back, at least into the 12th and 13th centuries. They were not permitted by Portugal and Spain to participate in the African slave trade unless they converted to Catholicism, whereafter they were labeled “conversos”.

    Loading...

    Reply

11. The elites had much power back then when history was fictionalized, with no semblance of human rights. But things happened slowly. Now with global transportation, communication, weaponry, fake medicine and commerce, they have much more power to do much more damage much more quickly, with a semblance of human rights.

    I think you have identified useful things to know.

    Regarding the altered Bibles, many people are so devoted to the content that they will reject anyone thinking otherwise. This has to involve self brainwashing, a selfish belief that one will get an advantage by believing each word. In a way, these people are ultimate conformists. So they can read the awful things stated about “Jews” in the good book but also think they are the “chosen ones”, believing there is a tier between God and Christians. That is preposterous, that in the Christian Bible, people who are not Christian are above them.

    I had a grandfather who was a mason. It was kept a secret from us. At his funeral, there was no visit to a Catholic church, or any religious activities. That was the first time we noticed anything. Later we were told he reached a high position in the local chapter. I was shown 2 rings. He worked at a furniture store, his boss was Jewish. He was a normal grandfather.

    Loading...

    Reply

12. History is the lie commonly agreed upon. Voltaire

    Loading...

    Reply

13. Helena,
    This is interesting but nobody has proven Satan.
    We do think the the Pfizer CEO is not a human.
    Look at his neck in most interviews !
    Focus only on his neck when he is talking.
    you can see the neck moving up and down when he is talking.
    My doctor said that no medical condition causes this !!

    View his interviews !
    Also LISTEN to the voices of Peter Theil and Larry Fink !
    Those are NOT human voices !!!

    thanks and keep up the good work !!

    Loading...

    Reply

14. Here is a beautiful meditation by St. Theresa of Ávila. Peace. ✝️

    https://youtu.be/izhliJIZ2ms?si=PyJOJnYT43BplvP0

    Loading...

    Reply