Parents, Do Tell Your Children, Teach Your Children Some Powerful Prayers About Lady Wisdom. Proverbs 22:1-6

12 thoughts on “Parents, Do Tell Your Children, Teach Your Children Some Powerful Prayers About Lady Wisdom. Proverbs 22:1-6”

1. A Review of German Leaders During WWII and thereafter

   Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) spat out speeches that shackled education to the Führerprinzip. This “Leader Principle,” the iron gauntlet gripping Nazi Germany, crushed democratic voices and pulverized collective will beneath the sole rule of the Führer—Hitler’s ruthless dominion. It throttled dissent, enslaved minds, and forged a dictatorship of absolute obedience. “The Führer himself and he alone is the present and future German reality and its law.” Heidegger declared. Under this doctrine, dissent throttled, minds enslaved, and the dictatorship of absolute obedience forged.

   Heidegger hailed the Nazi revolution, at first, as a spiritual rebirth of the German Volk. A man stripped of shame, he refused to kneel, never coughed up an apology, never retracted his venomous allegiance. After the war, he slithered through denazification, dodging accountability and twisting truth with evasive lies.

   Dietrich Bonhoeffer thundered opposition at Nazism from its dawn. He hurled blistering public condemnations at Hitler’s regime, especially its savage persecution of Jews, and hammered together the Confessing Church to shatter the Nazi state’s iron grip on Christianity. Bonhoeffer’s Ethics, where he writes of “cheap grace” as the lie that gutted German Christianity.

   The German Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche) erupted in the late 1930s, clawing back against the Nazi regime’s choking stranglehold on Protestantism, particularly within Lutheranism. After Hitler seized power in 1933, the regime dragged Protestant churches into the German Evangelical Church—a grotesque puppet engineered to broadcast Nazi hate, soaked in anti-Semitism and militant nationalism.

   The Barmen Declaration (1934), forged by firebrands like Karl Barth and Bonhoeffer, ripped to shreds the Nazi regime’s attempt to enslave the church. It blasted state control, spat contempt in the face of political distortion, and declared open war on the regime’s monstrous manipulation of Christian faith. The Confessing Church ignited fierce resistance, its leaders hurling themselves into the breach, condemning anti-Semitic laws, and refusing to bow before tyranny. The state retaliated with brutal repression—arrests, beatings, and executions—but the Church’s defiance fractured the Nazi façade of total control.

   Yet the Confessing Church splintered from within, torn between cautious cooperation and fiery rebellion. While some whispered compromise, Bonhoeffer and his allies sharpened their swords for active resistance. As Nazi terror tightened its grip, the Church staggered under relentless persecution—leaders vanished into prisons, congregations shuttered, voices crushed. Still, their moral blaze refused to be extinguished.

   The Nazi regime clung desperately to the co-opted Lutheran Church to mask its monstrous agenda in sanctimony. Through the German Christian movement, the Nazis crushed dissent, injected venomous Aryan theology into sermons, and wielded Christian rhetoric to justify genocide and militarism. They weaponized faith to twist loyalty into fanaticism, forging a perverse godhead that sanctified cruelty.

   Meanwhile, the Vatican under Pope Pius XII held its silence like a fortress of cowardice. Despite witnessing the Confessing Church’s fierce opposition, Pius XII calculated cold diplomacy over righteous outcry. When Rome’s Jews faced deportation in 1943, he offered hollow excuses instead of incendiary condemnation, betraying the innocent to the machinery of death. His 1942 Christmas message, where he vaguely lamented the persecution of “hundreds of thousands,” but refused to name Jews or Nazis.

   Three Germans, three souls born into the turmoil of a shattered nation: Heidegger, the unrepentant collaborator, entangled in toxic ideology; Bonhoeffer, the prophetic conscience who sacrificed all to resist evil; and Pius XII, whose silence stained the Church’s legacy. Their stark choices carve a brutal fault line between genius warped by power, conscience sharpened by courage, and cowardice cloaked in diplomacy.

   Post WWII – EKD – ((Protestant Church in Germany)) stands apart from the SELK – ((Independent Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany)). The EKD permits and celebrates same-sex marriage; women’s ordination, and also Ecumenism: the principle or aim of promoting unity and cooperation among different Christian denominations and churches. The SELK rejects same-sex marriage, women’s ordination, and Ecumenism.

   The EKD has redefined marriage not based on Scripture or natural law, but on secular cultural trends. By blessing same-sex unions, the EKD is seen as endorsing non-biblical sexual ethics, undermining the traditional understanding of sin, repentance, and sanctification. The EKD treats ordination as egalitarian activism, influenced more by feminism than theology. The EKD’s ecumenism engages in joint communions with Catholics and interfaith events with Muslims. It therein embraces a theological universalism.

   Some conservative critics argue that after WWII, Germany’s Protestant churches—especially the EKD—shifted from the bravery of the Confessing Church (Bonhoeffer, Barth) to a theology of guilt, which sought to atone for Nazism through cultural submission and theological revisionism. In fleeing fascism, they embraced relativism. In rejecting tyranny, they surrendered truth. For traditional Christians, the EKD’s direction appears to be a moral unraveling, driven by guilt, political correctness, and secularism. This EKD shift from Bonhoeffer’s sacrificial resistance to liberal conformity, perhaps best summarizes the stark proof that Bonhoeffer’s theology did not survive his execution by the Nazis. Postwar Protestantism bury his witness beneath the rubble of moral relativism and progressive ideology.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Good to hear from you, my friend. Pray that it is reasonably safe, peaceful and healthy for you and your family, all those near and nearest to your heart.

      22 And Hashem spoke unto Moshe, saying,

      23 Speak unto Aharon and unto his Banim, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the Bnei Yisroel, saying unto them,

      24 Y’varekhekha Adonai v’yishmerekha (Hashem bless thee, and keep thee);

      25 Ya’er Adonai panav eleikha vichunekha (Hashem make His face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee);

      26 Yissa Adonai panav eleikha v’yasem l’kha shalom (Hashem lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee shalom).

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. This blessing known as ברכת כהנים – the blessing of the sons of Aaron. Shares a common root denominator with the 3 Divine Names employed in the language of the opening p’suk/verse of Sh’ma Yisroel …

         This tri-blessing stands on the foundation of the oaths sworn by Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov which create continuously the Chosen Cohen People throughout time. A mitzva which the Torah defines as a “time oriented commandment”. The Book of בראשית introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments. The next 3 Books of the Torah introduce secondary positive and negative תרי”ג commandments – according to the erroneous popular opinion of the Rambam. This idea that limits Torah commandments to merely 613 commandments the Rambam disputed with the earlier scholar known as the B’HaG, author of Hilchot Gadolot/Great Halachot. There in that sefer the B’HaG argues that Torah commandments extend equally to rabbinic halachot “commandments” when a scholar elevates rabbinic halachot to Torah time oriented commandments! A tremendous chiddush/new idea of how to understand the Torah commandments.

         The Rambam never developed, just as did the new testament fail to grasp time oriented Torah commandments, a clear understanding of tohor time oriented commandments as having a priority over positive and negative commandments. Why?

         The Rambam clearly did not understand that the T’NaCH and Talmudic legal system spun around the central axis of common law. Rabbi Yechuda the Head of the Great Sanhedrin Court organized his 6 Orders of Oral Torah judicial legal rulings which he named “the Mishna” based upon this name given to the 5th Book of the Written Torah D’varim/Mishna Torah.

         The Rambam erroneously named his statute law assimilated to the ways of how Greek and Roman law organized law into legal categories. The Rambam erroneously named his statute halachic code Mishna Torah. Later rabbis hence corrected this fundamental error made by the Rambam by referring to his halachic code by the name Yad Chazaka/strong hand.

         The error that the Rambam statute law introduced, dates back to the Rif common law codification of halacha criticized by the 18 year old scholar known as the Baali HaMaor.

         The RambaN (1194 – 1270), a scholar who came after the Rambam Civil War exploded in the public burning of all the Talmudic manuscripts in Paris France in 1242.

         The Rosh, born around 1250, a harsh critic of the Rambam statute law perversion of Talmudic common law. The latter Greek/Roman perversion made halacha into a cult of personality set of legislative decrees ruled by the authority of the Rambam. This altered and changed the Talmudic format which relied upon court judicial ruling – ruled through precedents. The Rambam code expunged the concept of judicial precedents as the backbone for judicial common law rulings. Yet he amazing had the chutzpah to name his statute law code perversion – Mishna Torah!

         LikeLike

      2. How the Cohen blessing ברכת כהנים shapes the kre’a shma tefillah from the Torah and halacha disputed between the Rambam and the Rosh

         This blessing known as ברכת כהנים – the blessing of the sons of Aaron. Shares a common root denominator with the 3 Divine Names employed in the language of the opening p’suk/verse of Sh’ma Yisroel …

         This tri-blessing stands on the foundation of the oaths sworn by Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov which create continuously the Chosen Cohen People – throughout time. A mitzva which the Torah defines as a “time oriented commandment”. The Book of בראשית introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments. The next 3 Books of the Torah, they introduce secondary positive and negative תרי”ג commandments – according to the erroneous popular opinion of the Rambam.

         This idea that limits Torah commandments to merely 613 commandments, the Rambam disputed with the earlier scholar known as the B’HaG, author of Hilchot Gadolot/Great Halachot. There in that sefer, the B’HaG argues that Torah commandments extend equally to rabbinic halachot “commandments”, under the pre-condition, when a scholar elevates rabbinic halachot to Torah time oriented commandments! A tremendous chiddush/new idea of how to understand the Torah commandments. Which clearly the Rambam failed to grasp.

         The Rambam never developed, (just as did the new testament fail to grasp time oriented Torah commandments), a clear understanding of tohor time oriented commandments as having a priority over positive and negative commandments. Why? The tuma influence of new testament avoda zara, shaped the Koran avoda zara. The idea of Monotheism, as a theological belief system which promotes belief in a Universal God, clearly befuddled the mind of the Rambam. The God of Sinai – a Tribal God. Mesechta Avoda Zara and other mesechtot argue that only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Hence the God of Israel, clearly not a Universal God as the avoda zara of the new testament and koran declares.

         The Rambam, likewise clearly did not understand that the T’NaCH and Talmudic legal system spun around the central axis of common law. Rabbi Yechuda the Head of the Great Sanhedrin Court organized his 6 Orders of Oral Torah judicial legal rulings which he named “the Mishna” based upon this name given to the 5th Book of the Written Torah D’varim/Mishna Torah. Mishna Torah means – common law. The Mishna a Case/Din organization of common law judicial rulings.

         The Rambam erroneously named his statute law, obviously assimilated – to the ways of how Greek and Roman law organized law into legal categories. The Rambam erroneously named his statute halachic code Mishna Torah, utterly oblivious to the fact that Mishna Torah means – common law. Later rabbis hence corrected this fundamental error made by the Rambam by referring to his halachic code by the name Yad Chazaka/strong hand.

         The error that the Rambam statute law introduced, dates back to the Rif common law codification of halacha criticized by the 18 year old scholar known as the Baali HaMaor. Personally I admire and respect the Baali HaMaor’s critique made upon the Rif common law code. For me the Baali HaMaor rates side by side with the Rabbeinu Tam my personal hero of Talmudic common law. It seems to me that the Tosafot critique of the Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud centers upon the basic contradiction of Rashi p’shat learned from his common law commentary to the Chumash to the dictionary definition of p’shat learned from his commentary to the Talmud. The latter more resembles how Ibn Ezra learned p’shat as codified in his commentary to the Chumash. Assimilation and intermarriage define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment, not to worship other Gods.

         The RambaN (1194 – 1270), a scholar who challenged the Baal HaMaor’s prioritization of judicial interpretation of different Case/Law. The scattered Jewish communities during the height of the dark ages where travel and communications between distant communities almost completely perished. The RambaN opposed the prioritization of interpreting different judicial case/rule halachot from the need to establish a unified code of halachic common law so that the scattered Jewish communities could maintain some semblance of unified customs and traditions. Scattered Jewish communities needed at that time some type of fixed culture and tradition rather than the Talmudic priority of disciplined פרדס common law judicial ruling.

         The Rosh, born around 1250, a harsh critic of the Rambam statute law perversion of Talmudic common law. This “perversion” introduced Halacha clothed in the garments of Greek/Roman, cult of Caesar personality, legislative decrees ruled by the authority of the Rambam – Heil to the Leader!

         This altered and changed the Talmudic format, which relied upon court judicial ruling – ruled through precedents. The Rambam code expunged the concept of judicial precedents as the backbone for judicial common law rulings. Yet he amazing had the chutzpah to name his statute law code perversion – Mishna Torah! His replacement theology introduced Greek logic, specifically Aristotelian logic – based upon how Arabic scholar interpreted this system of syllogism based deductive logic.

         The Rambam codification uprooted the concept of Order established through Gemara sugya integrity. In effect the Rambam code cast the editing efforts made by Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina and the 150 years of Sovaraim scholarship between 450 to 600 CE, upon the dung heaps of history. His code effectively blew out the lights of Hanukkah which culminated in the victory of the P’rushim over the assimilated to Greek culture and customs Tzeddukim kapo Jews of the House of Aaron. The latter sought to make Jerusalem into a Greek polis whereas the former maintained the masoret of פרדס Oral Torah inductive logic reasoning; which compares case law to similar cases of case law ruled from previous court room cases.

         פרדס logic defines the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva which all the rabbinic authorities in the Mishna and Gemara based their sh’ittot of learning upon. Inductive logic dynamic and not static as expressed through the syllogism model of Greek philosophy. Engineering a rocket’s flight path to Mars requires calculus variables. Whereas designing a bridge to span a river only needs algebra and basic geometry. In this sense, the modern scientific method which absolutely requires empirical evidence resembles static Catholic dogmatism.

         The Rambam’s static code of Aristotelian logic, set the stage for the Reform Judaism revolt which denounced the halachic code of the Shulkan Aruch, modeled upon the Rambam’s Yad, as archaic and not applicable to the Modern Era – a just and valid criticism of post Ghetto rabbinic Judaism. Alas in the latter case, Reform threw out the baby together with the bath-water! It failed to address the eternal threat of Amalek. The consequences of Jewish avoda zarah assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim. This basic fundamental flaw equally defines and highlights the tragic error of the Rambam’s Yad introduction of Greek Roman statute law and Aristotelian logic based upon how Arab scholars understood this triangle syllogism of deductive static reasoning.

         T’shuva demands that post Rambam Civil War scholars return and respect how the closing scholars sealed the Talmud texts. This requires a disciplined study of Talmudic sugyot. As an English minor, remember my Freshmen year of English literature. There the professor emphasized the organization of a thesis statement. This organization of a paragraph included the central thesis statement, followed by three qualifying particulars, and concluded with a re-statement of the original thesis statement.

         This model, coupled with the deductive reasoning of a triangular syllogism, served as the basis by which I studied intact Gemara sugyot. The sh’itta of the Rabbeinu Tam, where he as a rule, tended to jump off the dof of the Gemara to some other Mesechta of Gemara intrigued me. Noticed that Rabbeinu Tam jumps to different Gemara “precedents” tended to follow the patterns which later Acharonim scholars on the Talmud tended to duplicate through their asterix terse commentaries which made a גזירה שווה comparison between different mesechtot of Gemara.

         Early on, starting with my first year in Yeshiva, I strove to integrate the earlier Case/rule precedents within the Yerushalmi as the basis for the later Bavli scholarship. I started this sh’itta within 6 months of being in Yeshiva. In like manner my sh’itta of learning broke up the Chumash, the Prophets, and the Holy Writings of the T’NaCH. It seems to me that T’NaCH serves as the foundation of Talmudic common law just as much as the Yerushalmi serves as the basis of Bavli common law.

         This premise caused me to divide the Chumash into בראשית Av tohor time oriented commandments and שמות ויקרא במדבר as תולדות קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות. The Book of דברים of course name משנה תורה and the common law case/din style of the Mishna caused me to conclude, even before I entered my first Yeshiva at age 31 that the Talmud exists as a common law legal format. Hence I opposed the Rambam, Tur, Shulkan Aruch statute halacha straight from my mothers’ milk.

         Perhaps the main reason that the rabbis permitted a 31 year old man to live and learn in a dorm of early 20s men, besides my cleaning the bathrooms, which everyone immediately appreciated, I introduced a thesis of studying the Talmud as common law based upon legal precedents. The rabbis laughed at my thesis, but I believe my early attempt to argue that the Mishna exists as a common law legalism impressed the Rosh Yeshiva rabbi Kaplan.

         Because he specifically taught in his Mishna class the Case/Din structure of the language of the Mishna – as proof of common law! Did he do this for me? I believe he actually respected the 50 page thesis, written while working milking cows on a socialist kibbutz, as my basis for which I asked permission to learn in Yeshiva as a 31 year old man. Yeshua Lapel, also taught as a rabbi in that Yeshiva, and early on he told me that he thought I might become a Torah scholar.

         When I moved to the Yeshiva of D’var Yerushalem, they treated me as royalty, gave me a private room with a balcony! All other students had 3 or 4 in a room. When Rabbi Horowitz had a bad dream he asked me to give him, as one of the three men, מחילה. Rabbi Nemuraskii introduced me to Rabbi Shalom Elyashiv. His sons, Moshe and Benyamin, they danced at my wedding; and Rabbi Elyashiv asked me – erev Yom Kippur – to give him a public blessing, just before we began Kol Nidre.

         Rabbi Nemuraskii’s son asked me one day while walking to the Elyashiv shul, why his father did not teach him the common law masoret which I learned from his father? Rav Nemuraskii, besides hilchot shabbat, he focused my attention upon the Chumash Targumim and the Midrashic commentaries made upon the Aggada of the Sha’s Bavli.

         Prior to this introduction, had not considered the Midrash as the primary commentary to the Aggada. This huge chiddush of rabbi Nemuraskii shaped how I developed the thesis that the Talmud compares to a warp/weft loom. Where the Aggadic portions make a דרושפשט of T’NaCH Primary Sources to determine the k’vanna of the language of the Aggadic stories. And this k’vanna weaves into the halachot within the Gemara’s common law commentary which re-interprets the language of the Mishna.

         Herein defines the explanation wherein the B’hag developed three distinct branches of Torah commandments as opposed to the Rambam’s two branches of Torah commandments. All the rabbinic commandments which the B’HaG ruled as mitzvot from the Torah, time oriented commandments! The dynamics of the B’HaG Code of Common law interpreted to mean that if a person wove Aggadic prophetic mussar into the רמזסוד of halachic ritual observance, that doing mitzvot with the k’vanna of prophetic mussar elevates these rabbinic mitvot into Torah commandments! This insight, seemed to me as a revelation in and of itself!

         When I studied the Baali HaMaor’s criticism of the Rif, I studied it together with the B’HaG common law halachic codification. The genius of these to Talmudic scholars absolutely left me dumbfounded, thunderstruck, flabbergasted, stunned, and utterly astonished. Rabbi Waldman, whose opinion I admired and really trusted offered no enlightenment, why the Yeshiva world ignores these great men.

         This caused me to reach the conclusion that post the Rambam extinguishment of the lights of Hanukkah wherein Israel had dedicated to remember the Oral Torah through interpreting the Written Torah – based upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס four-part inductive reasoning process – that following the disaster of the public burning of the Talmud in Paris 1242, rabbinic Judaism jumped off the path of studying the T’NaCH and Talmud as common law based upon this chosen path of פרדס inductive logic, and forgot the Oral Torah revelation at Horev 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf – just as the blessing of Hanukkah in the bencher forewarns.

         The Yerushalmi which teaches that over 427 prophets wrote the Shemone Esrei corresponds to the number of words in the Yerushalmi Shemone Esrei itself. Just as Siddur stands upon the foundation of ס – ד – ר, so too and how much more so the editing of the Talmudic sugyot likewise stand upon the identical foundation as defines the Order of 3 + 13 + 3 = 613. Six Yom Tov + Shabbat … the number of blessing said every shabbat. The Minorah lights of k’vanna by which Israel dedicates our the 7 faces of our soul to keeping the Torah oath brit alliance which continually creates from nothing the Chosen Cohen People יה, האל, אל, אלהים, אל שדי, איש האלהים, שלום … these 7 Divine Names distinguish the spirits dedicated and blown from the Yatzir Ha’Tov within our hearts from the breath blown from our lungs; just as the blessing over wine separates shabbat from chol מלאכה from עבודה.

         Observance of Shabbat as a time oriented commandment, the dedication not to do forbidden מלאכה on the day of Shabbat/shalom this holiness likewise dedicates the other 6 lights of the Menorah soul on the 6 days of the week we ‘most holy’ dedicate (an inference made upon Baba Kama 4 Avot Tam damages) not doing חמס, גזל, ערוה, ושוחד במשפט during the Yom Tov of the 6 days of the week. Hence just as the Menorah lights really one light, so too shabbat as a Torah time oriented commandment inclusive of the entire week. Herein defines how the k’vanna of the time oriented commandment of Shabbat encapsules all the Torah commandments, from the Torah as the Rambam learns and from the Talmud as the B’HaG learns.

         LikeLike

      3. The British ignore the Israeli staff members, engaged to be married, brutally murdered in Washington DC. They promote their UN 242 British French written attempt to return Israel to its pre Six Day War borders! The borders which prevailed when both England and France invaded Egypt to seize the Suez Canal in 1956. Israel categorically rejects Europe’s Two State Solution. Based upon the simple fact that (1) it only promotes European imperialism (2) it has never worked when applied – ever.

         1. The UK and EU Posturing as Neo-Mandate Powers

         Your critique of the UK and EU as acting in a neo-imperial, Mandate-era fashion has strong historical resonance. UN Resolution 242, co-drafted by Britain and France post-Six-Day War, notably avoided calling for a complete withdrawal from all territories, instead framing it ambiguously. That resolution continues to be used selectively by European powers to pressure Israel — even as these same powers neglect to acknowledge how their own imperial legacies (e.g. Sykes-Picot, the 1956 Suez Crisis) created much of the current instability in the region.

         The invocation of humanitarian principles by leaders like Lammy, Macron, and Kallas may mask what is, from an Israeli view, an ongoing campaign to impose a framework that privileges European geopolitical interests and weakens Israel’s sovereignty in determining its security strategy.

         2. Selective Outrage and Moral Hypocrisy

         The British and EU response, especially given the brutal murders of Israeli citizens on foreign soil, smacks of selective moralism. Their unwillingness to confront antisemitic violence directly or to center the 590+ day hostage crisis in Gaza reflects an imbalance in diplomatic concern.

         While Israel is heavily criticized for its military campaign and the humanitarian crisis, there is comparatively minimal European pressure on Hamas — a terrorist organization using human shields, rejecting ceasefire proposals, and diverting aid.

         3. Israel’s Rejection of the Two-State Model

         Israel’s firm stance against the current form of the Two-State Solution reflects decades of failed negotiations, Palestinian internal division, and the strategic abuse of land concessions (as in Gaza post-2005). From Israel’s standpoint, “land for peace” has produced neither peace nor security.

         Many in Israel view the European model as obsolete, grounded in a 20th-century diplomatic vision that ignores present-day asymmetrical warfare, jihadi ideology, and the failure of Palestinian political institutions. Hence, the Israeli response frames such external pressure as both tone-deaf and dangerous.

         4. Strategic Recalibration of Alliances

         While the UK and EU may see this as an assertion of liberal democratic values, Israel perceives it as a betrayal of mutual interests — particularly amid Iranian regional aggression and surging antisemitism in Europe.

         Israel’s pivot toward strengthening relations with the U.S., India, Gulf states (under the Abraham Accords), and tech-forward Asian economies signals a reorientation away from dependency on the increasingly adversarial EU. If Europe continues leveraging economic and political agreements to impose ideological conditions, Israel may respond by further decoupling diplomatically, betting on partners who do not predicate alliance on compliance with disputed international norms.

         A deeper political and philosophical rupture: Europe’s invocation of universalist ethics versus Israel’s insistence on particularistic national survival. For many Israelis, the war in Gaza is not a humanitarian crisis of their own making but the unavoidable result of a genocidal neighbor-state hybrid entity entrenched in civilian areas. For Europeans, the war is a test of human rights values. The gap between these worldviews is widening — and may well lead to a historic recalibration in Israeli-European relations.

         LikeLike

      4. The tri-language of this blessing based upon the three oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov by which the brit creates the chosen Cohen people in all generations in the future.

         LikeLike

      5. When Israel came out of Egypt the Torah teaches the prophetic mussar that Amalek-Anti-Semitism attacked the weary weak stragglers of Israel. Next the Torah defines these “Israelites” as lacking fear of Elohim. A reference to “Baal Shem Tov or Master of the Good Name. Not the Hassidic founder that goes by this Title, but a reference to the obligation of the Israelites to strive to protect and maintain their Good Name reputations. Hence the term “Fear of Heaven”.
         The 2nd Sinai commandment: do not worship other Gods. The Monotheism preached by the Av tumah avoda zarah of Islam decapitates the 2nd Commandment of the Sinai revelation. If only One God then impossible to worship other Gods; like in the case of Par’o and Egypt. Therefore, what caused or generated the Torah curse of Amalek? Answer: Jewish avoda zarah – the direct 2nd Sinai commandment! How does the Torah define the 2nd commandment? Through the precedent negative commandments (1) Do not ask how the Goyim worship their Gods, that Israel might to likewise. This negative commandment interpreted to mean (A) Do not assimilate the cultures and Customs of the Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, like as both Xtianity and Islam clearly do. Neither the bible nor the koran counterfeit faiths ever once bring or mention the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment. Translating the Divine Presence Spirit, revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment to other words; in Hebrew the Sin of the Golden Calf – these are the אלהים/Gods who brought you out of Egypt. Hence since nothing in the Heavens, Earth, or Seas compares to the revelation of the Spirit Name revealed in the First Sinai commandment, therefore translating this Spirit Name to other words, such as Allah or Jesus or Father etc — herein defines the k’vanna of the substitute theology of the sin of the Golden Calf.
         Consequently, when Israelites violated the 2nd Sinai commandment – the result of their assimilation to the customs and culture of Egypt and intermarried with Egyptians ie ערב רב/mixed multitudes – this avoda zarah destroyed their Good Name reputations making them “weak exhausted stragglers”. Not physically weak and exhausted but spiritually weak and exhausted! Who brought Israel out of Egypt HaShem or the strong and mighty hand of Israel? The Torah teaches the prophetic mussar that HaShem brought Israel out of Egypt! Hence whenever Jews assimilate and embrace the cultures and customs practiced by Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, as do Xtians and Muslim religions, Amalek the Torah curse plagues Israel like as did the 10 plagues which cursed Egypt and Par’o. Jewish avoda zarah caused the Torah curse of Amalek in all generations.

         LikeLiked by 1 person

      6. thank you for your words of deep instruction. still praying for you and your family and friends and the nation of Israel. God be with you!

         LikeLiked by 2 people

      7. As a preamble to the 3 Babas, the question stands – Why divide this one sefer into 3 separate masechtot? As the opening p’suk of kre’a shma has 3 Divine Names s’much to אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב and the ברכת כהנים includes 3 separate ברכות, so too and how much more so has the 3 Babas the oath division which remembers the tohor Av time oriented commandment which creates תמיד מעשה בראשית the Chosen Cohen People יש מאין. The opening blessing of the Shemone Esrei contains שם ומלכות. Only a complete fool טיפש פשט attempts a literal translation of שם ומלכות; on par with the Xtian reading of the opening of sefer בראשית wherein the declare the world created in 6 Days טיפש פשט – bird brained stupidity.
         If the literal reading of the Torah exceeds a shallow literal reading of its words, just as Torah common law searches for inductive פרדס precedents, called in Hebrew: בניני אבות, as expressed through the middot of rabbi Yishmael following the korbanot in the Siddur. Just as the service of korbanot in the Mishkan – not the טיפש פשט of offering a barbeque unto Heaven, but rather swearing a Torah oath brit alliance by remembering the oaths – sworn by the Avot – wherein HaShem תמיד מעשה בראשית creates the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין. Therefore the break down of the 5 Books of the Torah: בראשית introduces אב טהור זימן גרמא מצוות, שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר – תולדות קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות וספר דברים\משנה תורה names the law of the Torah “Common Law” or משנה תורה. Hence rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi named his Mishna after the name of the 5th Book of the Torah משנה תורה. Rabbi Yechuda’s 6 Orders of his Mishna organized through a Case/Din style of common law. The Gemara commentary to the Mishna brings Case-Law from thee 6 Orders of the Mishna and similar sources to the Mishna, likewise the expression of a common law precedent search which explains and understands and interprets and re-interprets (70 faces to the Torah, a blueprint has a Front, Top, and Side viewpoint which permits the wisdom of perceiving a three dimensional idea from a two dimensional sheet of paper.), based upon the halachic precedents brought in each and every sugya of Gemara made to comment upon and interpret the k’vanna of the language employed in the Mishna – based upon viewing the plain language of the Mishna from multiple and diverse precedent perspectives.
         Herein defines the k’vanna of Talmudic wisdom which learns to read the simple טיפש פשט of the language of each and every Mishna the Gemara comments upon — and now views the language of the Mishna as dynamic and not static as the Xtian אנשי עבודה זרה read the simple טיפש פשט of the Creation story! The B’HaG makes a chiddush which the Rambam assimilated רשע did not grasp. His division of the Torah commandments holds 3 Basic fundamental divisions, comparable to the 3 Babas. אב תהור זימן גרמא מצוות ותולדות קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות. The B’HaG’s sefer ha’Mitzvot includes rabbinic commandments/halachot as טהור זימן גרמא מצוות דאורייתא. Hence the טיפש פשט of the Rambam who limits Torah commandment only to the strict language of the Chumash itself, he limited Torah commandment to תרי”ג מצוות. Simple פשוט wrong. Tohor time oriented Av commandment serve the purpose of תמיד מעשה בראשית, they create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין; just as old Avram and barren Sarai could have no children and יש מאין Sarah conceived!
         Just as HaShem brought Israel out of Egyptian bondage and not the raised fist of Israel brought our forefathers out of slavery, so too Av tohor time oriented commandment – which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna – these Av commandments, they compare to the distinction which separates the Avot from the toldot children of Yaacov. Yosef did not give מחילה to his brothers – meaning he failed to accomplish the oath Yaacov swore to Yitzak to steal the first born blessing of the chosen Cohonim inheritance away from Esau. Both Yaacov and Moshe blessed Israel before they passed – Yosef did not bless his brother before he died.
         Blessing exist as toldot of Torah oaths. Hence a blessing as opposed to Tehillem requires שם ומלכות. Translating שם ומלכות into simple טיפש פשט translations equal the sin of the Golden Calf where substitute theology translated the שם השם revealed in the first Sinai commandment to “אלהים”! In like manner the Xtian bible counterfeit and Muslim Koran counterfeit – both false prophets – translate the שם השם לשמה – the dedication of a tohor spirits such as אל רחום וחנון וכו – the 13 middot revelation of the Oral Torah which the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס explains the warp/weft Halacha\Aggada inductive reasoning of both T’NaCH mussar common law and Talmudic halachic common law. The Aggadic portion makes a זיווג דרוש\פשט to search the language of T’NaCH prophetic mussar and employs the different זיווג רמז/סוד to weave the prophetic mussar from T’NaCH sources searched out with the קידושין of דרוש\פשט which compares different precedent בנין אב source located in off the dof T’NaCH Primary Sources just as does the style of the Talmud does the exact same by making common law searches for off the dof precedents like Rabbeinu Tam’s sh’itta common law commentary to the Talmud, based upon Rashi’s common law commentary to the Chumash!
         Compare the simple דקדוק פשט of Ibn Ezra’s Chumash commentary and compare it to Rashi’s p’shat on the Talmud. This type of famous Acharonim learning called pilpul. This “latter day saints” pilpul does not resemble nor compares to how the B’HaG, Baali HaMaor, and Rabbeinu Tam search from other Primary and not Secondary sources to change the perspective by which a person interprets the simple language of both the Gemara and Mishna – much like an expert judges the facets of a diamond through a powerful magnified eye. These scholars along with the post Rambam Rosh rejected the Order of Aristotles triangular syllogism deductive reason process. The Torah directly commands Israel: Do not ask how the Goyim worship their Gods, so that I can do likewise. This fundamental Torah commandment the Rambam Yad fundamentally raped. Greek and Roman law organized into subject matter Order of organization and the Rambam code organizes Talmudic halachot likewise.
         The Yad divorces Gemarah halachot from their Mishnaic Primary root foundations; worse he covered his tracks. All later commentaries to the Yad attempt to find the sugya which contains the source for the Rambam’s p’sok halacha. They fail miserably to instead trace the Yad’s halachic rulings to similar halachic rulings located in the Rif & Rosh common law commentaries. Had the Acharonim or even later Reshonim scholars had corrected the Rambam fundamental error of basic Talmudic common law scholarship, by learning the Rambam p’sach halachah to the common law Rif and Rosh codes, which limited halacha to הלכה למעשה, and not speculation some unknowable future – as does the Yad, its quite possible that the Rambam Civil War which witnessed the public burnings of all Talmudic manuscripts in Paris France in 1242, just 10 years prior the rabbis of Paris of the Rashi\Tosafot common law school placed the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam together with Rabbeinu Yonah’s court in Spain.
         Not all Baali Tosafot agreed with this ban placed upon the Rambam. No different than the support Jews gave to Mordecai in the Book of Esther. But the Baali Tosafot commentary to the Talmud only twice quotes the Rambam. And on both occasions the Baali Tosafot disputed his halachic rulings. Rabbeinu Tam passed prior to publication of the Rambam’s Yad. But the style of Rabbeinu Tam’s Talmudic commentary – a dynamic inductive common law reasoning. Whereas the Rambam’s Yad – a static deductive statute law reasoning – based upon the culture and customs of Greek and Roman law.
         The Rambam’s “theology” of some Universal Monotheistic God and static 613 commandment does not jive with the B’HaG understanding which separates Shabbat from Chol: time oriented commandment from the Torah – inclusive of rabbinic commandment from the Talmud as also mitzvot from the Torah. Tohor time oriented commandment require the k’vanna of prophetic mussar. For a scholar to grasp prophetic mussar he must rely upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס four part inductive reasoning.
         The Yad employs and relies upon not only the Order organization of Greek/Roman statute law but upon the Greek philosophical schools of logic. The Yad and Rambam’s Moreh – assimilated to Greek culture and customs as the Tzeddukim who sought to pervert Jerusalem to a Greek polis and cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah פרדס kabbalah. The Yad destroyed the warp/weft relationship of the Talmudic “loom” halacha contrasted by aggadah. The Yad obliterated the final editing made to achieve the sealing of the Talmud; to make this masoret like the Mishna and T’NaCH and Siddur masoret to all generations of Israel.
         The Yad torpedoed the Savoraim final redaction of the Talmud Bavli. It shattered the Order of organization of the Shemone Esrei in the Siddur and how the order of organization within each and every Gemara sugyot compares to the order organization of the 3 + 13 + 3 Shemone Esrei. Inductive reasoning requires Order. Upon this foundation does the logic of פרדס stand. The sh’itta of Torah common law goes from א to ת: T’NaCH, Talmud, Siddur stand upon the foundation of Order. The kabbalah of the Shemone Esrei serves as the model for the organization of Gemara sugyot integrity.
         To learn an off the dof precedent requires making a static triangulation within the כלל sugya which contains the פרט גזר שווה where by a off the dof Primary source permit a scholar to judge the simple language of the Gemara and turn it into a Front/Top\Side blueprint. Each of the different perspectives have a radically different look to them. The same applies when reading the language of both the Gemara and also the Mishna itself. Simply stated Torah has depth. Torah common law simply not Greek/Roman Statute law just as four part פרדס inductive reasoning completely different from Aristotles three part deductive syllogistic reasoning.
         The shortest way to connect two points – a straight line, also known as a sh’itta. Any point between the opening thesis statement of a Gemara sugya and the closing re-statement of that thesis statement must rest upon the sh’itta-line that connects these two points of a geometric analysis of deductive reasoning made upon that off the dof sugya. Herein explains how a person can easily understand and interpret any Baali Tosafot common law commentary that explores some other mesechta of Gemara precedent. The language of the Tosafot, as easy to understand as eating a fresh baked cake.
         Nonetheless, the Tosafot did not likewise employ this changed perspective on how to interpret a sugya of Gemara by making a depth analysis, to likewise read the simple language of the Mishna using that Gemara sugya now grasping a different Front/Top\Side perspective and apply this wisdom to re-interpreting the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna which the Gemara comments upon in the first place.
         Children read the words of the Talmud and can quote them verbatim. But the Sages employ Torah wisdom to “inspect” the gem quality of the language of the Mishna itself …. based on how they apply this Talmudic wisdom to view and interpret the language of a sugya of Gemara based upon viewing that sugya from different perspective – as witness see event based upon the perspective of where they stood. Hence Talmudic common law jumps off the dof to make a precedent analysis with the intent to view a given Case from a different vantage point perspective. Therefore a person does not simply read the Talmud like a Xtian or Muslim reads their bibles or korans.
         Please consider this example: When Israel came out of Egypt the Torah teaches the prophetic mussar that Amalek-Anti-Semitism attacked the weary weak stragglers of Israel. Next the Torah defines these “Israelites” as lacking fear of Elohim. A reference to “Baal Shem Tov or Master of the Good Name. Not the Hassidic founder that goes by this Title, but a reference to the obligation of the Israelites to strive to protect and maintain their Good Name reputations. Hence the term “Fear of Heaven”.
         The 2nd Sinai commandment: do not worship other Gods. The Monotheism preached by the Av tumah avoda zarah of Islam decapitates the 2nd Commandment of the Sinai revelation. If only One God then impossible to worship other Gods; like in the case of Par’o and Egypt. Therefore, what caused or generated the Torah curse of Amalek? Answer: Jewish avoda zarah – the direct 2nd Sinai commandment! How does the Torah define the 2nd commandment? Through the precedent negative commandments (1) Do not ask how the Goyim worship their Gods, that Israel might to likewise. This negative commandment interpreted to mean (A) Do not assimilate the cultures and Customs of the Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, like as both Xtianity and Islam clearly do. Neither the bible nor the koran counterfeit faiths ever once bring or mention the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment. Translating the Divine Presence Spirit, revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment to other words; in Hebrew the Sin of the Golden Calf – these are the אלהים/Gods who brought you out of Egypt. Hence since nothing in the Heavens, Earth, or Seas compares to the revelation of the Spirit Name revealed in the First Sinai commandment, therefore translating this Spirit Name to other words, such as Allah or Jesus or Father etc — herein defines the k’vanna of the substitute theology of the sin of the Golden Calf.
         Consequently, when Israelites violated the 2nd Sinai commandment – the result of their assimilation to the customs and culture of Egypt and intermarried with Egyptians ie ערב רב/mixed multitudes – this avoda zarah destroyed their Good Name reputations making them “weak exhausted stragglers”. Not physically weak and exhausted but spiritually weak and exhausted! Who brought Israel out of Egypt HaShem or the strong and mighty hand of Israel? The Torah teaches the prophetic mussar that HaShem brought Israel out of Egypt! Hence whenever Jews assimilate and embrace the cultures and customs practiced by Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, as do Xtians and Muslim religions, Amalek the Torah curse plagues Israel like as did the 10 plagues which cursed Egypt and Par’o. Jewish avoda zarah caused the Torah curse of Amalek in all generations. The buck stops at the feet of the chosen Cohen People.

         LikeLike

      8. אֲרבעה אבוֹת נְזִיקִין: הַשּׁוֹר, וְהַבּוֹר, וְהַמַּבְעֶה, וְהַהֶבְעֵר. לֹא הֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹר כַּהֲרֵי הַמַּבְעֶה, וְלֹא הֲרֵי הַמַּבְעֶה כַּהֲרֵי הַשּׁוֹר; וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן רוּחַ חַיִּים, כַּהֲרֵי הָאֵשׁ שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים; וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק, כַּהֲרֵי הַבּוֹר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק [הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַזִּיק, וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ; וּכְשֶׁהִזִּיק – חָב הַמַּזִּיק לְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי נֶזֶק, בְּמֵיטַב הָאָרֶץ.

         The most obvious דיוק to this Av Mishna.  [[[ Why Av Mishna?  The Shemone Esrei serves as the model for the entire organization of both the Talmud Bavli and Jerushalmi.  As the first blessing functions as the only “blessing” which contains שם ומלכות – defined as dedication of the Soul Name of the שם השם לשמה and one or more of the 13 tohor middot first revealed to Moshe at Horev following the substitute theology of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב, assimilated and intermarried Jews, worship avoda zarah down through all the generations of Israel.  Wherein they substitute אלהים or some other word name for the שם השם.  Nothing in the Heavens, Earth or Seas comparable to HaShem, and how much more so word translations for God.  The latter dedicates tohor middot whereas the שם a Divine Spirit which lives within our hearts, by the terms of the oath brit within the Yatzir Ha’Tov inspires us to keep and obey the Torah faith.  The lips can pronounce words but only the Yatzir Ha’Tov within our heart can blow Divine Name Spirits affixed to the 6 Yom Tov and Shabbat menorah light which shines within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of our hearts. 

         These Divine Soul Names dedicated holy to HaShem on the Yom Tov and Shabbat: יה, האל, אל, אלהים, אל שדי, איש האלהים, שלום, dedicated as the k’vanna of the Yatzir Ha’Tov on the six days of Chol and Shabbat.  The time oriented commandment of shabbat requires making the הבדלה which separates forbidden מלאכה from forbidden עבודה.  

         To understand a subject requires separating like from like. It requires little or no skill to separate like from unlike.  The separation of t’rumah serves as a precedent example.  To understand a matter requires multiple witness testimony seen or viewed from different perspective angles.  The front view does not look like the Top view which in its turn does not look like the side view.  Hence 70 faces to Torah common law.

         Just as shabbat separates in קידוש shabbat from Chol, so too – because all tohor time oriented Av commandments require prophetic mussar as their יסוד k’vanna for all and every Av Torah mitzvot (דיוק to separate their priority over תולדות קום ועושה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות).  Av tohor time oriented commandments dedicated קדוש קדושים to HaShem to create תמיד מעשה בראשית the chosen Cohen people from generation to generation יש מאין. 

         Herein explains the reason why the Torah begins with בראשית; and why the portion of Israel who do their עבודת השם portion of korbanot services, that during the dedication of korbanot sworn oaths by the Cohonim sons of Aaron, Israel reads a portion from the opening Book of בראשית.  But to offer a korban without swearing a Torah oath, compares to offering a barbeque to heaven through sacrifices.

         Torah faith centers upon the eternal walk before HaShem of the chosen Cohen people.  Herein explains why HaShem chose the korban oath dedication made by Hevel over his first born brother’s barbeque to Heaven sacrifice. Hevel, chosen as the father of the created יש מאין Cohen people.  בראשית tohor time oriented commandments the Av commandments like the Avot to the תולדות twelve sons of Yaacov.  This theme runs throughout the Book of בראשית. 

         The תולדות commandments located in the Books of שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר – these בניני אבות מצוות have the “רשות” to become Av tohor time oriented commandments, like as does Tefillat Erevit.  Just as Yoseph had the “רשות” to bless his brothers and give them מחילה as did both Yaacov and Moshe Rabbeinu.  In like manner, the B’HaG makes the chiddush that מצוות דרבנן from the Talmud, they too have the רשות to make an aliya to sanctify actions דרבנן as מצוות דאורייתא.  This type of Av Torah commandment requires prophetic mussar of tohor middot as the יסוד k’vanna of doing both תולדות מצוות ותולדות הלכות as Av tohor time oriented commandments.]]]  The most obvious דיוק to this Av Mishna based upon מגן אברהם, the 8 אבות נזקין!  Four Tam and four Muad. 

         The latter Avot … נזקין הן: חמס, גזל, ערוה, ושוחד במשפט…  These muad damagers require k’vanna whereas the Tam damagers do not require k’vanna.  Hence the Av Mishna of בבא קמא serves as a בנין אב to interpret the mitzva of Shabbat which requires making the הבדלה which separates איסור מלאכה מן איסור עבודה כל השבועה של שבת.  Hence a person who keeps shabbat observes all the commandments of the Torah.

         ארבעה אבות נזיקין, as viewed from the outside perspective of the opening Av Mishna of שקלים 1:1.

         דתנן: באחד באדר משמיעין על השקלים ועל הכלאים ובחמשה עשר בו קורין את המגלה בכרכים וכו’.

         The Netziv – Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin – explicitly contrasts “laws of the intellect” (משפטים) with “laws of the Temple” (חוקים) and says the latter do not lend themselves naturally to classification. He follows the precedent set by the Rambam who treated ritual law differently than civil/tort law. This line of reasoning views “Cheftza”, which focuses on physical objects of korbanot, while “gavra” emphasizes the individual making the oath alliance by means of the altar. Neither the Rambam nor the Netziv understood that the service of korbanot, most essentially involves swearing formal Torah oaths. Nothing more כרת than swearing a Torah oath in vain. The latter qualifies as a Capital Crime, based upon the floods in the days of Noach. Whereas Torts damage cases only involve 3 Man Torts courts.

         The korban system exists in the domain of national constitutional law, anchored in shevuot, karet, and mizbeach which compares to standing before a Sefer Torah or swearing a Torah oath while sitting with tefillen! Hence to fundamentally segregate and reframe Torts Courts from possible Capital Crimes utterly absurd.

         The korban system, a constitutionally anchored legal order. Rooted in the oath-alliance אש ברית of בראשית. Enforced by karet, the Torah’s most severe sanction—reserved for betrayal of the brit. Central to this – the mizbeach, not some sacrificial grill, but as the judicial platform of Sanhedrin common law. The Torah directly forbids two separate Torahs. The rules of precedent based common law apply equally across the board with no exceptions.

         The din of כרת threatened the continued oath alliance passed down as the Cohen inheritance from Father to Son. Debasing korbanot as mere “religious ritual” ignores the fact that the Siddur has replaced the destroyed Temples of Jewish assimilation and intermarriage which produced the products of avoda zarah and g’lut in the first place. The Shemone Esrei has the 2nd name – Amidah, because ideally a man davens while standing in front of a Sefer Torah in order to swear a Torah tohor middah “מלכות” dedication לשמה.

         Segregating Kodashim from Nezikin, as some of the Reshonim and Acharonim did, simply not a reflection of legal classification, but rather a historic example of לא לשמה ירידות הדורות g’lut of the oath brit consciousness, where the downstream generations of Israel have forgotten the Oral Torah, and blown out the lights of Hanukkah. To remember the oaths sworn by the Avot by which they cut a brit with HaShem, to create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין.

         Zeraim/Kodashim, less explored because the Reshonim and downstream Acharonim employed a form of Apartheid scholarship. The hermeneutical gap between Nezikin and Kodashim points to a ירידות הדורות systematic error in Talmudic scholarship, comparable to a genetic mutation.

         R. Elchanan Wasserman Civil laws = logic; ritual laws = decree; R. Tzadok Ritual law is mystical/archetypal, not analytic; Academics, the Bavli favors logical areas but Kodashim less categorized. The chief flaw of this horrific fiasco chain reaction, the failure of the rabbis to discern the distinction between the four part פרדס inductive reasoning from the three part foreign logic of the ancient Greek philosophers. A direct negative commandment not to ask how the Goyim worship their Gods, that Jews may do likewise.

         The Temple primarily and most essentially reflects a legal courtroom, not a mystical slaughterhouse. The conceptual framework to include ethical-avodah obligations throughout the week as functional extensions of Shabbat’s core sanctity. Mishnah-Shabbat 7:2, the 39 melakhot … the technical creative skills required to build the Mishkan. But the sanctity of Shabbat does not stop at the water’s edge. The sanctity of shabbat extends most essentially to shalom through justice, righteousness, and interpersonal ethics. Yeshayahu 1, Amos 5, Yirmiyahu 7 — where Hashem rejects ritual Shabbat observance when it’s divorced from ethical behavior like refraining from oppression, , immorality, and Yeshayahu 1, Amos 5, Yirmiyahu 7 — where Hashem rejects ritual Shabbat observance when it’s divorced from ethical behavior like refraining from oppression linked to judicial bribery injustice, immorality (ערוה), and thieving robbery. Hence impossible to behave as a crook on the days of chol and a saint on the day of Shabbat. Therefore which comes first the chicken or the egg in the order of Creation?

         “Your Shabbat offerings are an abomination when your hands are full of blood” (Yeshayahu 1:13–15). “Remove from Me the noise of your songs… But let justice roll like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream” (Amos 5:23–24), “Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘The Temple of Hashem!’ … If you truly amend your ways… do not oppress the stranger… then I will let you dwell in this place” (Yirmiyahu 7:4–7),

         Hence it really becomes an utterly irrelevant point which of the two the Av vs. the Toldah, because the Torah does not permit two separate Torahs as did some of the “Rishonim” and “Acharonim” suggest. Both T’NaCH and Talmud משנה תורה common law. While the T’NaCH prioritizes prophetic mussar Aggada; the Talmud prioritization emphasizes halacha and ritual practical of religious observances. That the common man can do and therefore participate in an active Jewish cultural and custom lifestyle as one Cohen people. If we pervert creation during the week with (חמס, גזל, שוחד, ערוה), then our Shabbat becomes a blasphemy, not a blessing.

         LikeLike

      9. Addressing how the Gemara learns the Mishna.  This requires addressing the key issue of logic.  The sealed Talmudic texts have a static quality.  This fixed static quality plays well into syllogism triangulation deductive reasoning.  A sugya of Gemara compares, its seems to me, to a thesis statement format.  Each sugya of Gemara has an opening thesis statement, and a closing restatement of that same thesis statement – employing a multiple Case/Din study.  These opening and closing comparative Case\Din studies functions, so to speak, as the two legs of a triangle.  If a person compares any halachic precedent found in the body of that sugya, this point maps the – so to speak – the hypotenuse line; forming a syllogistic line of reasoning process which seeks to understand how these comparison of precedents Cases teach Talmudic common law.  And specifically how the Gemara comments on the language of the Mishna based upon comparative precedents. 

         Important to stress, Talmudic common law does not compare to reading a novel for pleasure.  Torah law – very cranial by nature.  The 13 hermeneutical rules of Rabbi Yishmael or the PaRDeS system of textual interpretation the יסוד upon which both the Mishna and Gemara stand upon.  The major theme of the Talmud, it continually weighs tohor vs tuma spirits which dominates the opposing Yatzirot within the heart.This defining agenda a subtle kabbalah, concealed from the eyes of foreign “Roman” censors.  The texts of both the Yerushalmi and Bavli written under prying watchful and suspicious-hostile eyes.  The birth of this common law literature did not happen in a political vacuum nor some fictional virgin-birth process.

         The Talmud reflects a highly edited and polished text.  To study the Talmud requires developing an awareness of this basic most fundamental fact.  The Talmud, the product of Jewish military disasters and defeats, and the hopes to restore national and political independence.  The Jewish people face the cold cruel facts of a fast approaching hard cruel g’lut winter of oppression, theft, sexual immodesty, and bribed judges.  The Framers of the Talmud therefore sought to establish a model for when the Spring of redemption and political national independence once more shined.  A rebuilt Jewish state shall require Sanhedrin courts of common law in order to obey צדק צדק תרדוף, the Torah definition of faith.  This concept of faith separates the oath alliance from the dominant empires together with their beliefs in Universal Gods.  The revelation of HaShem at Sinai, only Israel witnessed.  Hence HaShem – a local tribal God, who continually creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing.  Jews have no burning obligation to convert the world to embrace some Universal belief in a Monotheistic God.

         Jewish courts, based upon the primary Talmudic Sanhedrin model, do not remotely resemble the vertical Goyim courtrooms where the State bribes the Judges and the Prosecuting Attorneys by paying their public salaries.  A lateral Sanhedrin court system would require a comparative model to the public health care insurance which prevails in the Jewish State today, to maintain the Courts.  The police, their first Order of Priority: to serve the Federal Sanhedrin Court system, rather than legislative assemblies or Governments; the police essentially enforce the rulings made through the lateral common law judicial judgments. 

         Torah common law, a judicial legal system, and not a legislative or bureaucratic statute law system of authoritative decrees ruled by concealed cults of personality.  Herein what fundamentally distinguishes Jewish common law from all other Goyim legal systems.  The Torah courts have a unique function.  To establish and maintain the culture and customs which both determine and define bnai brit national cohen identity; to protect against the violation of the 2nd Sinai commandment.  Herein defines the mandate of Federal Sanhedrin lateral common law courtrooms.

         The study of each and every new sugya of Gemara therefore requires making a syllogistic Case/Din triangulation/summation that seeks to understand the gist of the sugya contents.  This discipline of learning, in-effect seeks to duplicate the scholarship made by the 450 – 600 CE Savoraim Talmudic scholars.  The Talmud does not sit like some 

         “gilded wife” all by herself alone.  It has a warp/weft relationship with the T’NaCH, through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning logic format.  Where T’NaCH prophetic mussar provides the p’shat of Aggadic and Midrashic stories.  The directive of both Aggadah with its Midrash commentary, designed to amplify Aggadic prophetic mussar – common law Case/Din studies – to serve as the יסוד of obeying the ritual halachic observance by way of רמז\סוד inductive reasoning; to birth tohor time oriented halacha spirits from straight from the Torah in order to breath life into the “clay” souls of our people – to cause them to breath the spirit of life – based upon the precedent of the creation of Adam.
         _________________________________________________In summation________________________

         Jewish courts do not exist to enforce imperial ideology, but to protect the oath alliance identity of the bnai brit chosen Cohen people and to enforce the Second Commandment—resisting assimilation and foreign gods.  Each act of studying a sugya – not some passive reception but a reenactment of the Savoraim’s legal reasoning. Halachic study, when done correctly, achieves both spiritual tohor middot clarity and political restoration.
         ______________________________________________________________________________________
         גמ’ מדקתני אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן או לאו כיוצא בהן? גבי שבת תנן אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת. אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן. כיוצא בהן לא שנא אב חטאת ולא שנא תולדה חטאת וכו_________________________________________והשתא דאוקימנא ארגל, שן דלא מכליא קרנא מנלן דומיא דרגל מה רגל לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנא אף שן לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנא

         ______________________________________________________________________________
         Here we have established two legs of the triangular syllogism logic. Now let’s consider the hypotenuse.
         ______________________________________________________________________________

         ת”ש בכור שורו הדר לו והאי מילף הוא גילוי מילתא בעלמא הוא דנגחה בקרן הוא אלא מהו דתימא כי פליג רחמנא בין תם למועד ה”מ בתלושה אבל במחוברת אימא כולה מועדת היא
         _____________________________________________________________________________________
         We now have forged a logical syllogism of sorts. Leg A – Where the Torah defines Avot, there are Toldot, and the legal status of Toldot depends on whether they are “כיוצא בהן” — that is, functionally similar.

         Leg B – In the case of Regel, liability applies whether the damage completely destroys capital or not. By analogy, Shen is treated the same way, since it shares the essential trait of natural, expected damage.

         Leg C – Hypotenuse – You might have thought the category of Keren only applies (i.e., has special status of Tam/Muad distinction) when the horn is detached, since that’s a more “artificial” scenario.

         But the verse clarifies (Giluy Milta) that even when attached, the distinction holds — meaning that the essence of the act (unnatural goring) and not the physical condition of the instrument (attached/detached) defines the halakhic category.

         The legal category (Av or Toldah) and liability are not defined by physical features (e.g., whether the horn is detached, or whether Shen consumes capital), but by behavioral nature. Therefore, the Torah’s system of Avot and Toldot is structured around the behavioral pattern of the damage, not the instrument or its result.

         Hence, Shen, like Regel, is always liable, regardless of whether it consumes capital — and Toldot of Shen are “כיוצא בהן” in legal outcome. The halakhic logic (סברא) that underlies the sugya, but not every stylistic or textual move the Gemara makes on the surface. Bava Kama fundamentally addresses How Torah common law interprets damages קרן, שן, רגל, and what qualifies as Av vs. Toldah. When liability applies, whether a distinction made between the instrument of damage or nature of the act itself (natural vs. unnatural). And whether toldot carry the legal obligations identical to Avot in matters of liability for damages inflicted upon others goods, property or persons.

         The categories of damage, defined by the nature of the act and not by its physical instrument such has horned or dehorned. This logic aligns the sugya with the larger conceptual framework of Avot/Toldot. Especially based upon the similar precedent of Shabbat. Where toldot like avot bear full responsibility.

         The “giluy milta” piece (from בכור שורו הדר לו) resolves a potential limiting assumption. Clarifying that the liability does not hinge on whether the horn exists in fact or not. Rather this Av liability doesn’t hinge on actual horns but rather on the nature of the damage. This summation of the opening sugya core conceptual structure serves as an essential יסוד overview which permits easier evaluation and interpretation of all later off the dof inductive reasoning precedent texts introduced there after. This opening sugya serves as the basis to learn the entire Talmud through a comprehensive methodology of learning.

         LikeLike

      10. Israel’s Response to EU imperialism and attempts to dictate Israeli strategic interests.
          Israel should immediately recall its ambassadors for consultations from these countries. Publicly condition normalization of relations on an end to EU unilateral I e.g., (recognition of a Palestinian state without negotiations with Israel). Demand that those European countries likewise recall their ambassadors for consultations.
          Mobilize allies (U.S., Czech Republic, Hungary, etc.) to push back against EU overreach. Engage in strategic counter-diplomacy, e.g., intensifying ties with Eastern Europe, Africa, or Latin America. Outright reject the perversion of UN 242 from a Chapter VI to a Chapter VII dictate. Withdraw from the UN. Expand the Abraham Accords forging alliances with other Arab States in the Middle East as far more worthy and stronger allies to replace the broken reed alliance with Europe. Europe guilty of the Shoah.
          Threatening a break in diplomatic relations should be a last resort, used only if European states actively recognize a Hamas-linked Palestinian authority or materially support actions that undermine Israeli security during wartime. In the current moment, calibrated diplomatic pushback combined with strong rhetoric and selective retaliatory moves may achieve more than full severance.
          European Union leaders have intensified calls for an immediate ceasefire. Countries such as Spain, Ireland, Belgium, and Malta have urged the EU to push for a lasting humanitarian truce, emphasizing the need for a political process based on a two-state solution. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has condemned Israel’s blockade of Gaza and called for the full reinstatement of humanitarian aid during any ceasefire.
          French President Emmanuel Macron is considering the recognition of a Palestinian state, aligning with a UN conference co-hosted by France and Saudi Arabia. This move aims to establish a framework for Palestinian statehood while ensuring Israel’s security.
          A strong Israeli “message” might deter other European nations from taking similar unilateral positions or advancing recognition of a Palestinian state outside negotiated frameworks. It signals that Israel will not tolerate foreign interference in what it considers a defensive war against a genocidal terror organization (Hamas). Israel could frame such a move as an assertion of its sovereign right to defend itself without foreign-imposed conditions. It underscores that meddling in internal or security matters—especially in wartime—is diplomatically unacceptable. It could bolster Israel’s standing with partners like Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia who are also wary of Western moralism and Islamist empowerment.

          LikeLike