💠W Poszukiwaniu Ukrytej Prawdy: Starożytne Ścieżki Wiedzy Mistycznej

14 uwag do wpisu “💠W Poszukiwaniu Ukrytej Prawdy: Starożytne Ścieżki Wiedzy Mistycznej”

1. Dzień dobry mosckerr 🙂

   Dziękuję za podzielenie się tą głęboką i interesującą refleksją. Zgadzam się, że znajomość Świętych Ksiąg jest bardzo ważna i wartościowa. Jednocześnie muszę przyznać, że temat jest dla mnie zbyt skomplikowany, a moja wiara opiera się na Jezusie jako jedynej Prawdzie. Cenię jednak możliwość poznawania różnych perspektyw i szanuję Twoje poglądy.

   Pozdrawiam 😊

   PolubieniePolubienie

   Odpowiedz

2. משנה תורה — קידושין פרק אב משנה

   What distinguishes a אב משנה from all other Mishnaot which the Gemara comments upon through bringing similar common law precedents from other Gemarot? The Siddur, specifically the kabbalah behind the Shemone Esrei places a “stamp” of Order upon the Talmud. As the opening blessing of Shemone Esrei contains a blessing of שם ומלכות. The Shemone Esrei, like the קריא שמע וברכת כהנים lacks שם ומלכות. The classic rabbinic blessing with שם ומלכות: ברוך אתה ה’ אלהינו מלך העולם. Av time oriented commandments absolutely unquestionably and definitely require k’vanna. The k’vanna required – the intent to swear a Torah oath brit alliance through swearing a תולדה of an oath. Yom Kippur definitively proves the power of swearing a Torah oath! Even HaShem had to make t’shuva and annul his vow to make of Moshe Rabbeinu’s seed the chosen Cohen people instead of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.

   Acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven – תפילה דאורייתא קריא שמע – acceptance within the Yatzir HaTov within the heart to breath life into the soul of the Chosen Cohen People through the sanctification of Av tohor time-oriented commandments which fundamentally require this יסודי כוונה. The Torah, Nach, Holy Writings/T’NaCH, the Talmud & Midrashim, and patently but of course the Siddur – doing any and all time oriented commandment requires the יסודי כוונה of breathing חיים into the soul of the generations of the Chosen Cohen to חיי מדור לדור the oath brit cut at the brit between the pieces which Creates the Chosen Cohen people through the קידושה of Av tohor time oriented commandments. The language תמיד מעשה בראשית twice repeated in the opening “blessing” which surrounds tefillah דאורייתא קריא שמע, this language serves as a פרדס רמז to time oriented Av Torah commandments.

   Tefillah דרבנן, the Shemone Esrei lacks שם ומלכות, which the opening first blessing absolutely requires! Hence translating שם ומלכות, misses the point and idea of this סוד Torah concept of swearing an oath brit alliance. Translating שם ומלכות like a screen door on a submarine. Common law does not “learn” through translations but rather only through making פרדס inductive reasoning comparison of similar precedent Cases. The T’NaCH makes its precedent Case comparison through similar sugyot containing a fixed sh’itta of counting the שם השם לשם מידות י”ג revealed to Moshe at Horev on Yom Kippur. The kabbalah of rabbis Akiva’s פרדס, Yishmael 13 rules of logical comparison methodologies which apply directed to the Holy Writings of the NaCH functioning as a Gemara to the, so to speak, Mishna Books of the prophets.

   The Talmud directly resembles a loom with its warp/weft opposing threads; Talmud has its aggadah and halacha opposing threads which in scholars in each and every generation determine the Way, Path, Truth that the culture and customs of the Chosen Cohen people walk therein: Walk before Me and be holy. Av tohor time oriented commandments define the Chosen Cohen Walk before HaShem.

   Since ק”ש, ברכת כהנים, ותפילה – אין להם שם ומלכות, as clear as the Sun in the heavens on a cloudless Summer day Name and Kingship translations do not amount to squat in defining the כוונה של שם ומלכות. Only Torah בניני אבות-precedents can possibly grasps the intent of the meaning of שם ומלכות. The Torah instructs that the Cohen HaGadol pronounces the שם השם לשמנ on Yom Kippur. Mesechta ר”ה introduces blowing the shofar. Blowing a horn requires air pressure from the lungs. But tefillah a matter of the heart.

   Therefore a person when blowing the Shofar on ר”ה must discern the כוונה between blowing air from his lung from blowing the Neshama soul dedicated on ר”ה to remember the Torah rebuke אל, the opening branch Spirit revealed at Horev following the repetition of the שם השם לשמה\שמע. The concept of שם, its not a word translation like as made at the Sin of the Golden Calf by the ערב רב שאין להם יראת אלהים. The word translation of אלהים, JeZeus, or Allah not “ONE” with the Spirit Divine Presence first Sinai commandment revelation – the greatest Torah commandment: תעשה מצוות לשמה.

   Hence מלכות similar to מלאך. את הרוחות של י”ג מידות מן התורה – these Divine Spirits, like the שם השם. They breath Creation into other spirits called מלאכים by means of swearing a Torah oath through שם ומלכות. Herein explains the סוד kabbalah of the mitzva of tefillah, as opposing to saying the praises contained in Tehillem. The latter serves as a Gemara which explains the k’vanna of the prophetic mussar expounded by the NaCH prophets.

   Reshonim commentaries on the Talmud Midrashim T’NaCH and – but of course – Av Siddur – failed to teach this kabbalah יסודי. Learning Talmud actively entails that the down stream generations make their פרדס דרוש pursuit of בניני אבות precedents expressed through the Holy Writings to the NaCH prophets etc. The 13 rules of rabbi Yishmael best serve the Holy Writings “Gemara” commentary made upon the NaCH Prophets “Mishna”. These diverse texts, on the surface so completely different and unalike — all stand upon the kabbala יסוד של משנה תורה. Talmudic common law not learned by reading Dof Yomi. Nor the Hebrew T’NaCH its mussar even remotely understood by reading the T’NaCH on par with a Harry Potter fiction story of a replacement Messiah for the witching world – for he whose name forbidden to pronounce. As if that name compared to the שם השם לשמה. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.
   ___________________________________________________
   ___________________________________________________
   ___________________________________________________
   גופא: אי הכי קשו קראי אהדדי, וקשיא נמי מתני’ אהדדי קראי אהדדי. לא קשין. הכא דבתורה קאי, ותורה איקרי לשון נקבה; דכתיב (תהילים יט) תורת ה’ תמימה משיבת נפש; עדות ה’ נאמנה מחכימת פתיה. כתב לה בלשון נקבה. התם דבמלחמה קאי דדרכו של איש לעשות מלחמה, ואין דרכה של אשה לעשות מלחמה כתב לה בלשון זכר.
   __________________________________________________
   __________________________________________________
   __________________________________________________

   Kiddushin 2b, כי יקח איש אשה, and the gendered verb “יקח” — “take.” The Gemara explores why Torah uses masculine forms in some contexts and feminine in others. This verse, used as the proof-text that Torah often grammatically feminine, since תורת ה׳ תמימה uses the feminine form. The masculine usage is justified through verses like: דברים כ”ד:ה – כי יקח איש אשה חדשה… לא יצא בצבא ולא יעבור עליו לכל דבר; נקי יהיה לביתו שנה אחת ושמח את אשתו אשר לקח. Another example: דברים כ:א – כי תצא למלחמה על אויביך. Precedents: שמות רבה ל”ג:א, ויקרא רבה ל״ה:א Torah common law employs Midrash as a Reverence Book, as opposed to just another novel.

   בדרך אחד יצאו אליך” — masculine. ובשבעה דרכים ינוסו לפניך” — also masculine. But “תורת ה׳ תמימה משיבת נפש” is feminine. When the verse speaks of Torah, “דרך” takes feminine form (“תורה” = נקבה). When it speaks of warfare, “דרך” takes masculine, since “דרכו של איש לעשות מלחמה.

   רבנו בחיי בן אשר, the other son of the Rosh. His brother, Rabbi Jacob ben Asher, commonly known as author of the Tur. The Tur, the first to make a colage of Reshonim opinions upon statute law deductive reasoning which attempts to make a shallow reactionary flat reading of halachot which originate from the Talmud, but whose most essential connection to their Mishnaic language, completely and totally ignored by these statute law heretics.

   His infamous work on Jewish law, the Arba’ah Turim, dishonored the Rosh, who rejected the Rambam’s statute halachic law perversion. Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel (the Rosh), a prominent harsh critic of the Rambam, known for his works on Jewish common law, opposed the Rambam’s statute law code. Rabbeinu Bachya, the son of the Rosh and brother of Asher, the heretic, supported the Rambam premise that its permitted to distort Talmudic common law unto Roman statute law; just as Aristotle’s deductive syllogism – the Rambam revisionist history – replaced rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning of kabbalah, which defines the k’vanna of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev – with Aristotle’s Tzeddukim supported deductive syllogism. So too and how much more so the false messiah of JeZeus does not replace the Torah obligation upon the Moshiach to rule the land with righteous Judicial justice. Unlike how king David court treated the Baal of Bat Sheva.

   The contrast between Talmudic precedent-based reasoning and codificatory statute models influenced by philosophical and bureaucratic systems like those of Rome or Aristotle. The Rosh argued that reducing halakhah to a statute book severs it from Gemara reasoning and precedent. In his introduction to Piskei ha-Rosh, (The Rosh lived during the 14th century in Spain and later in Germany. The work summarizes and clarifies Jewish law (Halakha) based on earlier sources, particularly the Talmud. It serves as a guide for practical law, helping to resolve legal disputes and questions. Piskei ha-Rosh, organized by topics and often mirrors the structure of the Talmud, making it easier for scholars and students to navigate the material.), he writes explicitly that halakhic clarity comes only through reasoning from Talmudic sugya, not through memorizing codified rules…לא מפני שסומך אני על דברי, אלא מפני שראיתי עיקר הדין מן הגמרא. Dof Yomi by stark contrast totally uproots sugya integrity like as did the Rambam’s code uprooted Gemara precedents to understand the k’vanna of their Mishna – viewed from different precedent perspectives, multiple and diverse viewpoints.

   The כסף משנה, Karo’s commentary attempted to correct the central flaw in the Rambam perversion of halacha unto assimilated Roman statute law-cult of personality decrees. Yet his כסף משנה failed to link the sources for the Rambam halachot to similar halachot poskined by the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh common law halachic commentaries. The purpose of halachot located within Gemara sugyot – similar Case/Rule precedents which permits down-stream generations to view the language of both the sugya itself and משנה תורה – the language of the Mishna itself viewed from a completely different perspective. Clearly the Rambam failed to grasp that משנה תורה means “Common Law”, ruled through Torah mandated Court-rooms; rather than, as he held, religious ritual observances kept by religious “Orthodox” Jews. Prophets enforced judicial rulings, they served as the policemen of the Sanhedrin Federal Court system.

   Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (the Tur), his Arba’ah Turim systematized halacha into egg crate like categories (Orach Chayim, Yoreh De‘ah, Even ha-Ezer, Choshen Mishpat). Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher, his hermeneutic system integrates Rambam’s Ta’amei ha-Mitzvot (reasons for the commandments) rationalism with kabbalistic and midrashic allegory. He frequently uses Aristotelian categories (e.g., form/matter) alongside Zoharic metaphors — bridging rationalist and mystical traditions. But unlike his brother the Tur, his work employs Midrash as a resource of symbolic precedent which aligns more with פרדס-type reasoning than statute law. So while Rabbeinu Bachya absorbed elements of Rambam’s philosophy, his method remains aggadic–hermeneutic, not a legislative distortion. He didn’t codify halakhah; rather, he made his priority placed upon exegetical synthesis.

   The shift away from T’NaCH/Talmudic common law unto Aristotelian deduction, which post the Rambam civil war, supplanted the judicial court-room law, replaced with substituted simplified religious ritual observances! The Tur and Rambam codified halakhah into a system resembling Roman statutory jurisprudence. Rabbeinu Bachya, though a spiritual exegete (focused on their spiritual significance and deeper meanings rather than merely their literal or historical context). alas, philosophically he too legitimized this ירידות הדורות shift, by reconciling Torah hermeneutics with Aristotelian logic — thus laying a metaphysical foundation for halacha’s rationalization.

   Midrash serves as A) the primary commentary to Talmudic aggada. B) an important tool for resolving language dikduk/grammar and meaning for how the Talmudic aggadic passages interpret NaCH prophetic mussar.

   The Midrash Rabbah and its sister collections (Tanchuma, Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifrei) form the foundational commentary corpus for understanding aggadic material in the Bavli and Yerushalmi. R. Sherira Gaon (Iggeret, 10th c., also known as an epistle or letter), describes Midrash as the source pool (me’kor) from which the aggadot of the Talmud drew prophetic T’NaCH mussar interpretations. The academies, he writes, transmitted both halakhah and aggadah, with the latter preserved in Midrashic anthologies.

   Rashi and Tosafot frequently cite Midrash Rabbah or Tanchuma to explain difficult aggadot in the Gemara — treating Midrash as its commentarial background. For example: Rashi on 61b בכל לבבך of mesechta ברכות. quotes Devarim Rabbah to clarify aggadic context. The Maharal of Prague explicitly argues that to understand Aggadah of the Talmud, one must read Midrash Rabbah, for the language of Aggadah – symbolic, and “דרש אחד מאיר פני דרש אחר.” Hence Midrash compares to the different layers of a cake by which succeeding generations learn and interpret aggadic prophetic mussar, which defines the k’vanna of halachot throughout the Shas Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi.

   The RambaN in his introduction to his commentary on the Chumash states that Midrashic Aggadot are “מאמרי חז״ל הנאמנים” transmitted with the same authority as halakhic traditions, though intended to elucidate revelation and prophecy through metaphor and סוד. Impossible to learn Midrash divorced from פרדס logic. Hence the Rambam wrote no commentary upon Midrash because he abandoned פרדס inductive logic for the simpler syllogism deductive reasoning developed by Plato and Aristotle, which the Tzeddukim supported in the Hanukkah Civil War.

   Midrash operates as a linguistic–juridical tool, dissecting the nuances of Hebrew syntax and morphology to extract halakhic or moral implications. This – precisely how derash differs from peshat — דרוש a method of interpretive jurisprudence, not “homily.” (a religious discourse or sermon that provides interpretation and application of scriptural texts, typically delivered during a religious service.) Sifra (Torat Kohanim) and Sifrei built entirely on dikkdukic precision. “ריבה הכתוב” (inclusion/exclusion logic); “יתור לשון” (extra word usage); ההידיע, את, גם, etc. These function as the grammar of revelation — how law and prophecy encoded through linguistic form.

   Even the Rambam in his introduction to his commentary on the Mishna acknowledges Midrash’s grammatical function — distinguishing midrash halakhah (based on linguistic structure) from midrash aggadah (based on allegorical language), yet both bound by grammatical fidelity to Scripture. Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher in his introduction to the Chumash commentary explicitly says: “הלשון הקדוש… נדרשת בשבעים פנים, וכל דרש תלוי בדקדוק הלשון.” Midrash is thus the interpretive mechanism through which the prophetic mussar of Tanakh — decoded — a philological discipline, not mere storytelling.

   Sherira Gaon, Rashi, Maharal — Midrash serves as the background commentary to Talmudic Aggadah, revealing its conceptual precedent and metaphoric coherence. Sifra, Sifrei, Rambam, Rabbeinu Bachya: Midrash refines language precision — using dikduk and syntax to interpret prophetic mussar and the Talmud’s use of NaCH texts.

   עיין שמות רבה כ״ט:ד. משיבת נפש, עדות ה’ נאמנה מחכימת פתי. Learning requires an investment of both time and patience. A central flaw of religious books of Torah halacha, readers of these religious comic books, grow to fervently believe that they understand the depth of halachic intent based upon their reactionary shallow reading of halachic rulings ripped away from their Talmudic contexts which originally employed these halachic precedents as a chief tool to make a משנה תורה re-interpretation of both the language of the sugya of Gemara as well as the language of the Mother Mishna as well. Assimilated Roman statute law halacha directly compares to apple vinegar which lacks the essential “mother”.

   Apple vinegar is produced through the fermentation of apple juice. The “mother” is a substance composed of acetic acid bacteria that forms during fermentation, which is often considered vital for quality vinegar. In this metaphor, the “mother” symbolizes the authentic, organic essence or foundational principles that give a legal system its depth, integrity, and longevity. The adoption of ritual halacha without understanding its underlying purpose and connection to a specific Mishna, leads to a dilution\perversion of their original meaning and intent.
   ______________________________________________________
   ______________________________________________________
   ______________________________________________________
   מדרש רבה יתרו פרשת כט:ד — (תהלים יט) תורת ה’ תמימה משיבת נפש. א”ר לוי וכי לא היה גלוי לפני המקום שאם הוא מראה כבודו לישראל ומשמיען קולו שאינן יכולין לעמוד. אלא צפה הקב”ה שהן עתידין לעשות עבודה זרה שלא יהו אומרין אלו הראנו את כבודו ואת גדלו והשמיענו את קולו לא היינו עושים ע”ז. לכך נאמר שמעה עמי ואדברה
   _____________________________________________________
   _____________________________________________________
   _____________________________________________________
   Rabbi Levi expounds the p’suk תהלים י”ט תורת ה׳ תמימה, his drosh interprets Torah as the restorative path — derekh teshuvah — against the derekh ha-avodah zarah. Does restricting קידושין limited to a קום ועשה מצוה away from a tohor time oriented Av commandment qualify as avoda zarah?

   Chazal repeatedly warn that reducing Torah to technical compliance while detaching it from oath brit basis borders on avodah zarah because it divorces the act from the One who commands. Sanhedrin 63b – “כל העושה מצוה שלא לשמה, כאילו עובד עבודת כוכבים.” When a mitzvah is isolated from its covenantal derekh and turned into a detached ritual or statute, the form may remain but the orientation can drift toward derekh avodah zarah. Reducing the covenant of marriage to an act of legal acquisition risks mischaracterizing its derek. If one performs קידושין purely as a formal “transaction” without its covenantal frame—the mutual oath binding within brit Torah—then functionally, yes, it parallels derekh avodah zarah: a ritual form emptied of covenantal consciousness.

   Rabbi Levi’s “תורת ה׳ תמימה משיבת נפש” teaches that Torah restores the nefesh precisely because it is whole—תמימה. Fragmenting Torah into isolated קום ועשה acts without the tohor Av-command time-axis destroys that wholeness; what remains Av tumah avoda zarah. A mitzvah detached from its derek Torah orientation, simply not a neutral error—but structurally akin to avodah zarah, because it replaces divine command with human formalism. In Midrash Tanchuma Yitro ח, where the giving of Torah is described as קידושין between God and Israel—thereby showing that true קידושין must mirror תורת ה׳ תמימה rather than a transactional statute?

   Midrash Tanchuma, Yitro 8:
   בשעה שנתן הקדוש ברוך הוא את התורה לישראל, אמר להם:
   הרי אני נותן לכם ספר הקידושין; מכאן והלאה אתם לי ואני לכם.
   אמרו כל אשר דבר ה׳ נעשה ונשמע — ככלה המקבלת ספר קידושיה.
   ונתן להם תורה — כספר כתובה.

   Thus restricting kiddushin to a bare קום ועשה betrays its the oath brit that time oriented commandments create, in the image of HaShem the first born Chosen Cohen people in all times and generations. Midrash Tanchuma shows that kiddushin serves as a reenactment of Sinai; therefore, divorcing קידושין from its tohor Av time-oriented commandments renders the mitzva of קידושין unto but an empty form. In lateral Sanhedrin jurisprudence perverted into ritual religious orthodox observances, an empty void; structurally identical to avodah zarah: worshiping the shell rather than the living brit.

   PolubieniePolubione przez 1 osoba

   Odpowiedz

   1. Witaj mosckerr😊

      Dziękuję bardzo za ten głęboki i inspirujący komentarz. Jako chrześcijanka nie jestem tak dobrze zaznajomiona z kabalistycznymi aspektami Talmudu i modlitwy żydowskiej, ale bardzo cenię sobie to duchowe spojrzenie na porządek i intencję modlitwy.
      To dla mnie fascynujące, jak różne tradycje duchowe podejmują próbę zgłębienia relacji człowieka z Bogiem i duchowością. Dziękuję, że podzieliłeś się tą wiedzą — zachęca mnie to do dalszego poznawania i refleksji.

      PolubieniePolubione przez 1 osoba

      Odpowiedz

      1. משנה תורה קידושין אב משנה

         On the opening sugya of this the first published commentary upon this specific Mesechta; in this opening public learning of the Talmud, my opening thesis stands and accuses the ראשונים חכמים of the Capital Crime דיני נפשות crime of עבודה זרה – the 2nd Sinai commandment. Based upon גט גירושין, an Av time-oriented mitzva from the Torah. Therefore (this word employs a רמז of swearing a Torah oath), denigrating an Av tohor time oriented Torah commandment prostituted to a rabbinic positive commandment which does not require k’vanna (קידושין the דיוק of גט גירושין), the av tumah perversion of T’NaCH/Talmudic משנה תורה\common law unto Greek/Roman statute halachic law. Avoda zarah statute law determines the posok halacha, based upon cults of personality, like as represented in the statute Tur and Shulkan Aruch codes, rather than Gemara halachic בניני אבות\precedents which serve to make a different perspective reading of the language of this the Av Mishna of קידושין. This sh’itta of Reshonim g’lut scholarship merits a direct Torah curse rather than a blessing. Therefore, this Talmudic commentary calls for a Sanhedrin common law court to judge this dispute made against Reshonim Talmudic scholarship upon the both the T’NaCH & the Talmud – accused of the At tuma דיני נפשות crime of avoda zarah — enforced by NaCH prophetic mussar prophets/police of Sanhedrin Court Torah mandated Constitutional authority to enforce judicial rulings made by the Federal Sanhedrin Courtrooms.

         Obviously, to publicly call for the restoration of common law/Legislative Review of Reshonim statute halachic law openly blesses the Zionist success who rose our people out of the European ashes of Shoah, after that Wilderness generations Orthodox rabbinic spies melted the heart of that generations which resulted in the Torah plague curse, known as Chamberlain’s White Paper public betrayal of the Balfour Declaration. That this false oath, comparable to the floods which destroyed the generation of Noach, obliterated and caused the Sun to permanently set upon the British empire. That dead empire gone the way of the dead Assyrian, Babylonian, Roman, Islamic, Mongrel, Ottoman, Austria-Hungarian, Japanese, 3rd Reich, French, British, and USSR, defunct empires that together with the Roman Protocols of the Elders of Zionism NT forgery as dead as the trinity God created through the Nicene Council dogma decree of statute law, together with the Av tuma avoda zarah Allah Golden Calf God which translates the שם השם First Commandment Spirit Name unto the degraded אלהים word translation of Allah. Therefore, the Siddur openly instructs the mussar that Torah oaths can Create יש מאין, תמיד מעשה בראשית מלאכים. Av tuma avoda zarah profanes with the lie that theology and creeds can create Gods either through council or by way of Angels! The latter a perversion equal to profaning Av tohor time oriented Torah commandments unto positive rabbinic mitzvot which do not require k’vanna.

         PolubieniePolubione przez 1 osoba

      2. Cześć mosckerr 🙂
         Dziękuję za podzielenie się przemysleniami .Tekst porusza trudne i kontrowersyjne kwestie dotyczące interpretacji prawa, historii i relacji między tradycjami religijnymi. Cenię sobie możliwość wymiany zdań w duchu szacunku i wzajemnego zrozumienia, a także chęć lepszego zrozumienia perspektywy drugiej strony. Mam nadzieję, że możemy kontynuować dialog w sposób otwarty, bez uprzedzeń i skupić się na wspólnych wartościach: poszukiwaniu prawdy, odpowiedzialności w komentowaniu źródeł i dialogu między różnymi tradycjami religijnymi.

         Pozdrawiam

         PolubieniePolubione przez 1 osoba

      3. Amen Amen

         PolubieniePolubione przez 1 osoba

   2. משנה תורה — קידושין

      The style of the Gemara – difficulty answer. Why? Mishnah as blueprint, Gemara as rotation of facets. My father, to whom I referred to as a boy of 5 years of age as “Wild Bill Kerr”, based upon the TV series: “The Adventures of Wild Bill Hickok”. An American Western television series that aired from April 15, 1951, to September 24, 1958. Wild Bill Hickok, a legendary lawman and gunfighter known for his bravery and quick draw. Jingles P. Jones, Hickok’s comedic sidekick, providing humor throughout their adventures. Framed as set in the 1870s, focusing on the escapades of Hickok and Jingles as they fought outlaws and maintained law and order primarily around Fort Larabee.

      My father taught me that a skilled lawyer does not really master his trade unless he can argue persuasively both sides: Prosecution and Defense. Up to this point in this commentary, made upon the opening sugya of קידושין, have framed myself as accepting the yoke of בית שמאי, the Sanhedrin Court prosecuting attorney. Having accused the רישונים חכמים of their intentional guilt, specifically their Av tuma avoda zara; which promotes Jewish assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The consequence of this fundamental lack of יראת שמים, this Reshonim ערב רב caused the Torah curse of Amalek/anti-semitism\ to plague the generations of the Jewish people like as did the plagues afflicted Par’o and Egypt during the days of Moshe and Aaron and Miriam.

      Shall now likewise accept the yoke of בית הילל, the Defense attorney of the Sanhedrin Court and defend both רמב”ם וכסף משנה. The classic Pairs define Talmudic judicial common law. Absolutely essential that my commentary actively attempts a fair defense of the chief רשע – Rambam. “The act of codification in exile – pikuach nefesh for Torah, not rebellion — a suspension of precedent to preserve the covenantal body until the judicial soul of mass aliyah to the reconquered homeland restored.”

      Lacking a strong defense for this Av tuma רשע, this commentary on the Av Mishna of קידושין compares to only one hand clapping; the Salem Witch Trials! This said, its essential to lay out the most obvious flaw of the Rambam code; the failure of that רשע to follow the common law Halachic codes made by the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh, and most especially by the Baali Tosafot who ruled Rambam guilty and placed him into the din of נידוי in 1232.

      The Baali Tosafot criticized Rashi’s commentary as functioning primarily as a dictionary rather than a common law commentary which interprets the multiple facet perspectives which defines both T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. Only twice in the whole of the Sha’s Bavli did the Baali Tosafot make mention of the Rambam, and in both those cases they challenged and disputed his posok halacha.

      But a minority of Baali Tosafot scholars approved and supported the Rambam perversion of Talmudic common law – to assimilated Greek/Roman statute law – cult of personality dictates. (Ask a religious Jew why he keeps the halacha? His standard answer: Because its written in the Shulkan Aruch.) The SMaG, (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol), authored by Rabbi Moshe ben Asher in the 13th century. This Baali Tosafot halachic code organized it’s posok halachic rulings, based upon the rules established by Reshonim conventions. Imposed due to the harsh reality of the collapse of the Roman road system and armed Robin Hood robbers. The tumultuous political and social landscape prompted scholars to consolidate halachic knowledge and attempt to establish a reliable source of Jewish law. He organized his halachic code around the frozen/static 613 Rambam (rigid egg-crate literal orthodox Xtian reading of the language of their bible Creation story). His codification of Reshonim opinions served as the model whereby the Tur based and organized his own statute law code.

      Due to the simple fact that the king of France, together with the Pope – catholic church, publicly burned all the Talmudic manuscripts in Paris 1242. In 1290 the Jews of England expelled; 1306, King Philip IV of France, also known as Philip the Fair, ordered the expulsion of all Jews from his realm. These two Tsunami-like Earthquakes utterly obliterated and destroyed the French common law Rashi/Tosafot sh’itta which studied the kabbalah of Rabbis Akiva, Yishmael, and Yosi HaGalili middot. From the Paris burnings to the Khmelnytsky massacres to the Shoah, Amalek reappeared in each generation — the penalty for assimilation and the forgetting the Sinai oath brit alliance.

      The latter Tanna, his 32 rules expand rabbinic middot legal scholarship; they amplifies rabbi Yishmael’s 13 rules wherein the Holy Writing serve to amplify differing perspectives made to interpret the Books of the NaCH. The realtionship of the Gemara to the Mishna models itself after how the Holy Writings interpret the NaCH Prophets.

      Here’s a brief list and explanation of this famous Tanna’s 32 middot. 1 Kal V’Chomer. A form of argument from minor to major. 2 Gzerah Shavah. A principle that draws parallels between similar terms or phrases in different contexts. 3. Binyan Av. The common law principle of precedents. The anchor of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. 4. Shenei Ketuvim. Resolving contradictions between two biblical verses. 5. Tzarich L’Chatech. Requires clarification within a specific context. 6. Masar LaChaver. Transmitting a rule or principle to others. 7. Danny D’Rabi. Interpret a phrase based on rabbinical authority. 8. Chalom. A principle that allows interpretation based on dreams or visions. 9. Mikra. The textual basis for legal conclusions. 10. Davar SheBikdushah. A legal concept pertaining to sacred contexts. 11. Hekesh. A type of comparison that links two similar cases together. 12. Sefarim. Reference to books or scriptures that provide guidance. 13. Kavachomer from Torah. A derived legal principle that compares laws from the Torah to other laws. 14. Hekesh d’Rabbanan. A rabbinical comparison of legal interpretations. 15. Shema. Deriving laws that are evident in rules and practices. 16. Ribui U’Mi’ut. One of rabbi Akiva’s principles apart from rabbi Yishmael; inclusivity and exclusivity in legal terms. 17. Memashim. Interpreting terms based on similarity in context. 18. D’varim. Specific discussions within the context of Mitzvot. 19. Tanaim. Recognition of pluralism in opinions. 20. Ma’aseh. Examples that guide understanding or application of a principle. 21. Tuvaot. Philosophical principles based on faith or belief. 22. Kedushah. Principles pertaining to holiness and sacredness. 23. Chiddush. A new interpretation or novel legal ruling. 24. Omak. The principle of measuring depth or intensity in legal interpretations. 25. G’vul. Boundaries concerning laws. 26. Takanah Legal improvements made for community welfare. 27. Harsha. Interpretative techniques that adjust meanings based on context. 28. Shavah. A principle of equivalence or balance in law. 29. Edut. Laws based on testimonies and witnesses. 30. Mitzvot. Observance or fulfillment of commandments within Jewish law. 31. Machloket. The principles governing disputes and disagreements in interpretations of law. 32. Tamim. The concept of integrity and moral character in the practice of law.

      My commentary relies extensively upon the rules established by Rabbi Yosi HaGalili. Yet no rabbi, other than Rav Nemuraskii – but of course – ever took the time to emphasize the absolute need to study and comprehend these 32 middot!

      The supporters of the Rambam today negate not only the נידוי דין made by the court of Rabbeinu Yonah. But they, to my knowledge, due to the massive anarchy and chaos – resultant of this Civil War – which produced forced mass population transfers which effectively did not terminate till the Church three Century ghetto gulag decree. Which triggered the another tragic forced population transfer of Jews fleeing Western European church unjust tyranny to Eastern Europe. This mass population transfer contributed to the pogroms of 1648.

      The 1648 Cossack Revolt, also known as the Khmelnytsky Uprising, led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Marked a pivotal moment in Ukrainian history and had enduring consequences for the region. Violent tensions boiled & brewed between the Polish nobility and the peasant Cossack feudal serfs. The latter, faced social and religious oppression, as the Polish nobility pitted aristocratic Catholics, opposed by peasant/serf Cossacks – Orthodox Christians. Peasant communist revolts against the land holding aristocrats, pretty much defines the history of Dark Ages, church oppression and slavery.

      Bohdan Khmelnytsky, a prominent Cossack leader and military strategist, Khmelnytsky united various Cossack factions and sought to challenge Polish rule. This peasant/slave revolt began in the spring of 1648. Khmelnytsky attacked Polish forces and saw initial successes, capturing several key towns. This early victory, history remembers as the Battle of Zhovti Vody (May 1648), bolstered Cossack morale and led to further recruitment to his revolt. Another decisive victory the Cossacks enjoyed, which solidified Khmelnytsky’s power and territory, the Battle of Pyliavtsi (September 1648).

      The uprising resulted in the Treaty of Zboriv (1649) between the Cossacks and the Commonwealth, granting significant autonomy to the Cossacks and recognition of Khmelnytsky’s leadership. The revolt led to increased Cossack autonomy and eventually contributed to the creation of the Cossack Hetmanate, a semi-autonomous region under Cossack control with considerable independence from Polish authority. The revolt, often seen as a cornerstone in the development of Ukrainian national identity – commemorated in Ukrainian history as a fight for independence and self-determination.

      Not till the post WWII Catholic Pius XII inspired rat-lines which openly assisted Nazi war-criminals to escape standing trial, did the utter and complete barbarity of Church Nazi race-based guilt become so blatantly obvious. The Nazis proved that Xtian Europe eternally bears the mark of Cain. Post Shoah, no get out of jail free for Xtianity as a religion; nor for Islam who openly & publicly made open alliance to achieve the goals of Hitler – in both the 1948 and ’67 Israeli Independence Wars.

      The opening defence of the רשע Rambam, based upon the 1232 נידוי ruled by French/Baali Tosafot rabbis in Paris. Outside the Land, Divine justice does not manifest through Sanhedrin jurisprudence — for HaShem Elohei Yisrael – bound by brit to the soil of the oath sworn lands. Having accused the Rambam as ha-rasha ha-gadol in Beit Shammai’s charge sheet, the Beit Hillel defense now must redeem him on grounds of intent (kavanah). Alas, this defense immediately collapses due to the Rambam’s bi-polar Sefer Ha’Mitzvot which totally ignores tohor time oriented commandments which absolutely both define and hence require — k’vanna. None the less, the essence of Gemara — that justice lives not in verdict but in the capacity to argue both sides with equal passion.

      The obligation of Beit Hillel defense requires in-depth examination of the Rambam’s halachic rulings. The Rambam (1138–1204) lived through the Almohad persecutions in Spain and Morocco, when Torah academies were burned and communities forced to convert or die. In such times, the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah was not an act of rebellion but of triage — a desperate effort to preserve the body of law until neshamah chadashah could restore its soul. His code did not deny Torah shebe’al peh; it froze its surface in order to prevent total loss.

      The Kesef Mishneh (R. Yosef Karo) later wrote: “He wrote a code not to uproot the Gemara, but to protect it, lest the generations forget even its bones.” The prosecution identifies codification with Avoda Zara, arguing that it transforms the living word into a fixed idol. Yet idolatry in Torah law is defined not by the form of worship but by intention — kavanah. The Rambam’s intention, as proven in his Introduction to Mishneh Torah, was not to replace the Oral Law but to “gather what is scattered” (le’asof hanidachim). Alas the Rambam replaced dynamic פרדס inductive logic with Greek syllogism deductive logic.

      In his Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot he writes: “I did not intend that one abandon the Talmud, for the Talmud is the root of all decisions.” Thus, the form of his writing — systematic, Greek-like — cannot be construed as Avoda Zara unless the intent actually qualifies as alien worship which the prosecution maintains. The burden of proof for idolatrous intent cannot stand in din Torah without testimony and motive. The prosecution claims that Rambam’s move from common law to statute code, violated the dynamic precedent system (binyan av). Yet Ezra HaSofer and the Men of the Great Assembly themselves wrote down the Tanakhic canon to preserve it post-exile. Codification – in crisis – perhaps qualifies precedent, & not rebellion.

      R. Yosef Karo’s Kesef Mishneh perhaps understood not as blind allegiance but as judicial commentary — a defense brief of its own. He accepts Rambam’s framework but reopens the dialectic: where ever Rambam seems to rule against the Gemara, the Kesef Mishneh restores the dialogue of possible Gemara sources, but fails to bring the language of the Mishna as does the common law codes of the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh. Does the Kesef Mishneh replicate what Beit Hillel does to Beit Shammai — not to overturn, but to temper judgment viewed from an entirely different perspective? Most definitely no.

      The prosecution links Rambam’s rationalism to assimilation. Yet history shows that rationalism, in Rambam’s hands, perhaps served the opposite purpose: to rescue Judaism from the Aristotelian cults of barbaric Islam and Xtian Av tuma avoda zarah. In Guide for the Perplexed, Rambam dismantled the Greek metaphysical “gods” and reframed Torah theology in the language of the nations, to prevent the youth of his generation from apostasy. Is this לא תעשון כן לה’ אלהיכם in reverse — cleansing foreign ideas for Avodat Hashem? Again clearly No. The Rambam defense admits that he erred. However, his error limited only to method, to faith; in precision – not to loyalty, requires an עיון that this introduction can only suggest at this early stage of the trial.

      The Ba’alei Tosafot indeed criticized his halachic method — a legal dispute within the precedent of the B’HaG, Rif codes? No the Rambam clearly favored systematic ease over common law judicial discipline. The Rambam’s מציאות השם radically differs from the Talmudic masoret which teaches that only the 12 Tribes of the Chosen Cohen people accepted the revelation at Sinai: the brit to continuously create the seed of the Avot through tohor time oriented Av commandments, starkly different from the Rambam opinion, embraced by the vast majority of assimilated Jews who themselves stood in absolute terror from Xtian & Islamic Av tuma avoda zarah Creed beliefs in some Universal God. G’lut Jewry endured a nightmare, an absolute panic of dread & fear. Therefore they abandoned the Sinai revelation limited to a Tribal local god.

      The Cherem against the Rambam in Montpellier arose not from halachic analysis but from this precise horror experienced by the assimilated Jews of Spain. Their crude knowledge of Torah faith as common law judicial justice, utterly overwhelmed by their absolute dread of philosophy’s encroachment on the purity of common law judicial faith; that seals the focus of the oath alliance upon the Sinai brit that touches the eternal creation of the Chosen seed of the Avot through time oriented tohor commandments.

      Clearly the Rambam’s vision of what defines the foundation of prophecy, stands fundamentally apart from the Talmudic definition which understands prophets as persons who command mussar to all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Its this prophetic mussar which the Aggada of the Talmud defines the k’vanna of rabbinic halachot throughout the Talmud employs to plant mussar seeds within the Yatzir Ha’Tov; elevates positive rabbinic commandments to Av tohor time oriented commandments based upon the Oral Torah 13 middot revealed at Horev; the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive dynamic reasoning akin to the variables of Calculus. The priority of pursuit of judicial common law justice vs. theological belief in a Universal omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence God — starkly different than outside of the land of Israel there exists no God. The restrictions on the Sanhedrin courtrooms obeys the model of Tribal HaShem as God of the Chosen land.

      The Talmud fundamentally rejects speculation attempts to grasp the nature of the Gods as “better such person never born”. Greek philosophy’s influence upon Spanish Jewry had clearly overshadowed the shade cast by the Tree of Life. Jewish philosophers, without shame, debated the nature of God’s existence, on par with Xtian and Muslim avoda zarah believers. The Zohar’s kabbalistic mysticism promoted the large and small face of God Av tuma narishkeit.

      Avoda zarah’s metziut of God as experienced through the absolute prioritization of faith in some theological belief system – artificial creed, spiritual practices, and personal encounters with the Divine. Miracles and divine providence play a significant role in affirming the existence of a Universal rather than a small tribal god. Descriptions of God mirror the sin of the Golden Calf word translations for שם השם. Rambam’s metziut of God encompasses a complex assimilation of philosophical inquiry, theological discourse, and personal experience. Understanding God’s existence requires engaging with both rational arguments and the richness of spiritual and communal experiences.

      In his Introduction to the Yad Rambam writes: “My purpose is to gather the scattered, that the weary may find rest in one accessible structure.” None the less Yosef Karo failed to grasp that the sugyot of the Talmud a) require respect in and of themselves; b) serve as common law precedents to re-interpret the original language of both the Gemara sugya itself, together with the Mishnaic language – viewed from a completely different facet perspective.

      Some argue that R. Yosef Karo’s Kesef Mishneh transforms the Rambam Yad from idol-statute into case law in exile — a portable court for a dispersed people. In the early 2000 sat with 70 other anointed judges in an attempt to restore Sanhedrin courts. Alas the vast majority of my peers perceived the Rambam Yad served as the ideal model by which we could re-establish Sanhedrin common law courtrooms! Does the Kesef Mishneh stands as the Rambam’s second breath — the return of neshamah chadashah into the vessel that had been frozen by necessity? Clearly no.

      Rambam’s Guide dismantled the idolatries of his age — Aristotelian eternity of the Earth, Islamic predestination, and Xtian incarnation — translating Torah theology into the language consoled Goyim hostility, so that Jewish youth might survive their Christ-killer slanders. Assimilated Spanish Jewry had long ago actually embraced the concept of avoda zara altered and restricted/limited to the Goyim concept of actual physical or historical idol worship. Aristotle’s philosophy posited an eternal universe, implying that the world has no beginning or end. For Rambam, this notion contradicted the creation narrative in the Torah, where God creates the world at a specific point in time. But he failed to grasp the essence of בראשית as the introduction of tohor time oriented Av commandments vs the תולדות מצוות which do not require k’vanna.

      In certain Islamic philosophies, there is a strong emphasis on predestination, where God’s will determine all events. This concept raises questions about free will. Assimilated Rambam confused the Centuries later Protestant – Calvin’s ‘free will’ – with the Talmud’s ירידות הדורות domino/ripple effect. The Rambam failed to grasp that Islam’s strict Monotheism Universal God theology uproots the 2nd Sinai commandment. Hence the Guide actually embraces the error of monotheism as the nature of God; a direct violation of the Mishna which warns man not to contemplate upon that which exists above, below, or behind the humanity of Man. Converting Greek philosophy re-labelled as Jewish philosophy, serves only as revisionist history – holocaust denial – on par with the modern-day UN declarations of a genocide in Gaza.

      PolubieniePolubione przez 1 osoba

      Odpowiedz

      1. Cześć mosckerr 🙂

         Dziękuję za Twój szczegółowy i głęboki komentarz. Mam wrażenie, że dla lepszego zrozumienia tematu i dla wszystkich czytelników warto byłoby, aby komentarze i dyskusje były również po polsku. W ten sposób więcej osób będzie mogło skorzystać z tych cennych treści, zwłaszcza że temat jest dość skomplikowany i wymaga pewnego kontekstu.

         Jeśli to możliwe, proszę, abyś w przyszłości przesyłał swoje teksty i komentarze w języku polskim. Bardzo mi na tym zależy, by dyskusja była dostępna dla szerszej grupy odbiorców, także tych, którzy nie znają innych języków.

         Dziękuję za zrozumienie i jeszcze raz za Twój wkład!

         Pozdrawiam 😊

         PolubieniePolubione przez 1 osoba

      2. Próba obrony רמב״ם i כסף משנה

         Autor zapowiada zamiar podjęcia analitycznej obrony רמב״ם (Majmonidesa) i jego komentatora כסף משנה (Josefa Karo). Jako główne narzędzie metodologiczne badania zapowiada wykorzystanie traktatu עין משפט נר מצווה, który służyć ma jako przewodnik w porównywaniu języka יד החזקה (Kodeksu Majmonidesa) oraz komentarza Karo.

         Punktem wyjścia studium jest tekst z הלכות אישות, פרק ראשון, הלכה ב:

         “וליקוחין אלו – מצות עשה של תורה הם.”

         Do tego fragmentu odnosi się כסף משנה, który w swoim komentarzu (פ״א: ב) stwierdza:

         “ובאחד משלשה דברים וכו’. בביאה ובשטר מהתורה ובכסף מדברי סופרים.”

         Analizując ten ustęp, autor podkreśla różnicę pomiędzy poziomem biblijnym (מן התורה) a rabinicznym (מדברי סופרים) w rozumieniu trzech sposobów nabycia (לקוחין): przez akt współżycia, dokument lub przekazanie pieniędzy (כסף). Wskazuje, że obaj uczeni — רמב״ם i Karo — przyjęli rozróżnienie pomiędzy źródłem torycznym a rabinicznym, jednakże ich interpretacja językowa oraz logiczna wymaga szczegółowego porównania, aby uchwycić pełny sens zamierzonego przez nich pojęcia „mitzvah z Tory”.

         Autor zakłada, że poprzez analizę systematyczną wyrażeń użytych w Yad ha-Chazaka i w Kesef Mishneh, w świetle metody wskazanej przez עין משפט נר מצווה, można będzie uchwycić wewnętrzną strukturę rozumowania halachicznego obu komentatorów. Celem badania jest wykazanie, iż język użyty przez Majmonidesa w omawianym fragmencie nie jest jedynie literalnym sformułowaniem normy prawnej, lecz stanowi świadomy wybór terminologiczny mający ukazać hierarchię źródeł — pomiędzy nakazem Tory (מצות עשה של תורה) a tradycją ustną (דברי סופרים).

         W tym kontekście autor zwraca uwagę, że interpretacja Karo, który wyraźnie zauważa trudność w sformułowaniu Majmonidesa („ובכסף מדברי סופרים”), sugeruje istnienie napięcia pomiędzy literalnym a hermeneutycznym rozumieniem pojęcia כסף. Analiza ta stanowi punkt wyjścia do dalszych rozważań w części drugiej, w której zostanie omówiona relacja pomiędzy precedensem biblijnym, zasadą intencji (כוונה), a halachiczną ważnością aktu nabycia.

         Precedens biblijny, כוונה i znaczenie aktu nabycia

         Autor rozwija analizę, wskazując na przypadek nabycia grobu Sary przez Awrama jako precedens toryczny (בנין אב) dla pojęcia כסף w kontekście halachicznego nabycia. Zdarzenie to służy mu jako wzorzec dla rozumienia wartości i skuteczności aktu prawnego, w którym kluczową rolę odgrywa כוונה — świadomy zamiar osoby dokonującej czynności.

         Według autora, ważność prawna czynności takich jak משיכה (pociągnięcie towaru w celu jego nabycia) zależy nie tylko od samego aktu fizycznego, lecz przede wszystkim od intencji towarzyszącej temu działaniu. Osoba dokonująca czynności musi wyraźnie zamanifestować zamiar nabycia przedmiotu, który do siebie przyciąga. Podobna zasada — argumentuje autor — odnosi się do ייבום, משיכה i כסף, ponieważ wszystkie te formy wymagają odpowiedniego poziomu כוונה.

         Intencja (כוונה) zostaje tu przedstawiona jako warunek wstępny (תנאי מוקדם), który odróżnia זמן גרמא מצוות od תולדות מצוות. Autor przyjmuje, że תולדות מצוות (pochodne przykazania pozytywne i negatywne) nie wymagają szczególnej intencji, gdyż są wykonywane w sposób rutynowy. Odmiennie jednak זמן גרמא מצוות — przykazania zależne od czasu — wymagają wewnętrznego aktu intencjonalnego, związanego z duchową świadomością i wyborem momentu działania.

         Na tym tle autor interpretuje sformułowanie Rambama “ובכסף מדברי סופרים” jako wyraz świadomego rozróżnienia pomiędzy poziomem prawnym (דאורייתא) a poziomem ustnej tradycji rabinicznej (מדברי סופרים). Wskazuje, że Josef Karo, w komentarzu כסף משנה, dostrzegał trudność tego sformułowania i próbował ją wyjaśnić, pisząc: “וכל דבר הנלמד באחת מי״ג מדות הוי דבר תורה.” Tym samym Karo potwierdzał, iż zasady interpretacyjne oparte na trzynastu regułach hermeneutycznych (י״ג מדות) nadają danym przepisom status prawa torycznego, nawet jeśli ich treść została przekazana w tradycji ustnej.

         Autor jednak zwraca uwagę, że zarówno Rambam, jak i Karo nie zdołali w pełni uchwycić zasadniczej różnicy pomiędzy przykazaniami „zorientowanymi w czasie” (זמן גרמא מצוות) a przykazaniami wtórnymi (תולדות מצוות). W opinii autora to właśnie ta różnica stanowi klucz do rozumienia hierarchii prawa w ramach Tory i tradycji ustnej.

         W dalszej części wywodu autor zapowiada omówienie sposobu, w jaki Bahag (בה״ג) klasyfikował przykazania Tory, oraz wskazuje, że intencja (כוונה) uwarunkowana przez מוסר נבואי może podnieść status czynności rabinicznej do rangi przykazania torycznego. Tym samym problem interpretacji כסף, כוונה i משיכה zostaje osadzony w szerszym kontekście hermeneutycznym i duchowym, który łączy literalne znaczenie tekstu z jego proroczym i etycznym wymiarem.

         Bahag, różnica między przykazaniami rabinicznymi i torycznymi oraz krytyka kodifikacji halachy

         Autor, rozwijając wątki z poprzedniej części, wskazuje, że według Bahaga (בה״ג – בעל הלכות גדולות) klasyfikacja przykazań Tory opierała się na zasadniczym rozróżnieniu między czynnościami rabinicznymi wykonywanymi z intencją (כוונה) inspirowaną מוסר נבואי a czynnościami wykonywanymi mechanicznie, bez wewnętrznego zaangażowania. Bahag miał utrzymywać, że jeśli Żyd wykonuje przykazanie rabiniczne z intencją zgodną z dobrym impulsem (יצר הטוב) w sercu, to taka czynność uzyskuje status זמן גרמא מצוה – przykazania torycznego.

         Autor przywołuje fakt, że Rambam nie tylko odrzucił, lecz wręcz wyszydził tę opinię Bahaga. W jego interpretacji modlitwa (תפילה) jako przykazanie דאורייתא odnosiła się do tekstu שמונה עשרה, podczas gdy Bahag rozumiał תפילה דאורייתא jako קריאת שמע. Ten spór, znany również z krytyki Rambama przez Rambana (komentarz do piątego pozytywnego przykazania), stanowi dla autora przykład, jak różne ujęcia istoty przykazania prowadzą do odmiennych rozumień relacji między formą a intencją.

         W tym kontekście autor rozwija myśl, że celem Objawienia Tory Ustnej (פרדס) i trzynastu zasad interpretacji (י״ג מדות) jest właśnie objaśnianie intencji (כוונה) stojącej za przykazaniami אב טהור, czyli fundamentalnymi, czasowo zorientowanymi przykazaniami Tory. Przykazania te – twierdzi autor – nie są „uwięzione” w literalnym brzmieniu tekstu, lecz wymagają dynamicznej interpretacji opartej na hermeneutyce prorockiej.

         Autor przywołuje komentarz Karo, który pisał: “הרי דלארבע טוטפות קרי דברי סופרים אע״פ שהם דאורייתא.” Z tego zdania wywodzi, że Karo sam przyznawał, iż nawet elementy formalnie określane jako דברי סופרים mogą posiadać charakter prawa torycznego. Jednocześnie autor wskazuje na miejsce w Gemarze מנחות, gdzie pojawia się spór dotyczący liczby błogosławieństw nad תפילין (jedno lub dwa), i interpretuje ten spór jako źródło późniejszej różnicy w kolejności תפילין między Raszim a Rabbenu Tamem.

         W interpretacji autora, kolejność תפילין nie jest jedynie kwestią tekstualną, lecz symbolicznym odzwierciedleniem przymierzy (שבועות) zawartych w historii Izraela: układ Rassiego odnosi się do przysięgi złożonej w Gilgalu, natomiast porządek Rabbenu Tama – do przysięgi w Szechem za dni Jozuego. W tym sensie תפילין są analogiczne do ספר תורה w kontekście przysięgi (שבועה).

         Z tej perspektywy autor stwierdza, że wszystkie przykazania toryczne o charakterze czasowym wymagają מוסר נבואי – duchowej i etycznej intencji wyprowadzonej z hermeneutycznej lektury אגדה i מדרש דרוש opartej na źródłach תנ״ך. Właśnie ta warstwa מוסר נבואי nadaje przykazaniom sens duchowy i wspólnotowy, który odróżnia je od czysto formalnego przestrzegania prawa.

         W zakończeniu tej części autor formułuje zasadniczą tezę metodologiczną: fundament „czystego” (טהור) studium Tory polega na zdolności uczonych do rozróżniania źródeł pierwotnych od wtórnych. Josef Karo – według autora – traktował precedensy zewnętrzne, pozbawione kontekstu strony Gemary (דף), jakby stanowiły dedukcyjne sylogizmy logiczne, zamiast analizować je w kontekście wspólnotowego precedensu i interpretacji przypadków (דין). Taki sposób myślenia autor określa mianem błędu prawa stanowionego (עבודה זרה של חוק קבוע), który ignoruje kabalistyczny wymiar interpretacji פרדס i zatraca głębię patrzenia na sprawę sądową z wielu perspektyw.

         Zakończenie: konsekwencje kodifikacji i utrata duchowego wymiaru przykazania

         Autor kończy rozważania krytyką podejścia Rambama i Josefa Karo do kodifikacji halachy. Twierdzi, że poprzez traktowanie halachy jako prawa stanowionego (חוק קבוע), zamiast systemu precedensów i interpretacji (משנה תורה jako common law/legislative review), obaj uczeni odłączyli przykazania od intencji prorockiej (כוונה), co skutkowało „zamrożeniem” Tory Ustnej w martwym systemie legislacyjnym. Autor określa to jako formę עבודה זרה, w której czci się słowa zamiast dążyć do sprawiedliwości sądowej i budowania zaufania oraz pokoju w społeczności.

         Przykładem jest interpretacja przykazania קידושין, które według autora wymagało poświęcenia i zaangażowania duchowego (יצר הטוב) dla wychowania przyszłych pokoleń w wierze opartej na צדק צדק תרדוף. W tym kontekście כוונה staje się centralnym elementem przykazania, pozwalającym przekazywać duchowy impuls Tory od pokolenia do pokolenia w linii Awot.

         Autor krytykuje uproszczenia Rambama, które – według niego – nie uchwyciły pełnego znaczenia precedensów biblijnych ani więzi przymierza (ברית) zawartego przez Awram w akcie dzielenia ofiar, który miał zapewnić wieczne pobudzenie יצר הטוב w sercach wybranych Kohanim i ludu Izraela. Z perspektywy autora, brak powiązania kodeksu Rambama z konkretnymi precedensami Mishnaicznymi oraz niedocenienie źródeł pierwotnych (B’HaG, Rif, Rosh) spowodowały, że wszystkie późniejsze komentarze i kodyfikacje nie skorygowały głównej wady systemu – oderwania prawa od duchowego i prorockiego wymiaru intencji.

         Autor zauważa, że współczesna edukacja w yeshivach nie uczy, że משנה תורה oznacza system precedensów i przegląd legislacyjny (common law/legislative review), ani że בנין אב odnosi się do precedensów halachicznych. W rezultacie, szkoły rabiniczne utrwalają błędne podejście prawa stanowionego (statute law), które niszczy fundamenty תנ״ך i Tory Ustnej oraz rytualizuje przestrzeganie przepisów w oderwaniu od głębokiej analizy języka i logiki Gemary.

         Autor kończy konstatacją, że Rambam i Karo, traktując halachę jak ustawę, oderwali przykazania od intencji prorockiej, przekształcając żywe przymierze Kohanim i ludu w martwy system legislacyjny, który czci formę zamiast sprawiedliwości. Tym samym utracono fundament duchowy, który pozwalałby realizować שָׁלוֹם i zaufanie w społeczności Izraela, a kolejne pokolenia uczonych powtarzały błędy tych dwóch najważniejszych rabinów w historii kodyfikacji halachy.

         Autor zapowiada zamiar podjęcia analitycznej obrony רמב״ם (Majmonidesa) i jego komentatora כסף משנה (Josefa Karo). Jako główne narzędzie metodologiczne badania zapowiada wykorzystanie traktatu עין משפט נר מצווה, który służyć ma jako przewodnik w porównywaniu języka יד החזקה (Kodeksu Majmonidesa) oraz komentarza Karo.

         Punktem wyjścia studium jest tekst z הלכות אישות, פרק ראשון, הלכה ב:

         “וליקוחין אלו – מצות עשה של תורה הם.”

         Do tego fragmentu odnosi się כסף משנה, który w swoim komentarzu (פ״א: ב) stwierdza:

         “ובאחד משלשה דברים וכו’. בביאה ובשטר מהתורה ובכסף מדברי סופרים.”

         Analizując ten ustęp, autor podkreśla różnicę pomiędzy poziomem biblijnym (מן התורה) a rabinicznym (מדברי סופרים) w rozumieniu trzech sposobów nabycia (לקוחין): przez akt współżycia, dokument lub przekazanie pieniędzy (כסף). Wskazuje, że obaj uczeni — רמב״ם i Karo — przyjęli rozróżnienie pomiędzy źródłem torycznym a rabinicznym, jednakże ich interpretacja językowa oraz logiczna wymaga szczegółowego porównania, aby uchwycić pełny sens zamierzonego przez nich pojęcia „mitzvah z Tory”.

         Autor zakłada, że poprzez analizę systematyczną wyrażeń użytych w Yad ha-Chazaka i w Kesef Mishneh, w świetle metody wskazanej przez עין משפט נר מצווה, można będzie uchwycić wewnętrzną strukturę rozumowania halachicznego obu komentatorów. Celem badania jest wykazanie, iż język użyty przez Majmonidesa w omawianym fragmencie nie jest jedynie literalnym sformułowaniem normy prawnej, lecz stanowi świadomy wybór terminologiczny mający ukazać hierarchię źródeł — pomiędzy nakazem Tory (מצות עשה של תורה) a tradycją ustną (דברי סופרים).

         W tym kontekście autor zwraca uwagę, że interpretacja Karo, który wyraźnie zauważa trudność w sformułowaniu Majmonidesa („ובכסף מדברי סופרים”), sugeruje istnienie napięcia pomiędzy literalnym a hermeneutycznym rozumieniem pojęcia כסף. Analiza ta stanowi punkt wyjścia do dalszych rozważań w części drugiej, w której zostanie omówiona relacja pomiędzy precedensem biblijnym, zasadą intencji (כוונה), a halachiczną ważnością aktu nabycia.

         Precedens biblijny, כוונה i znaczenie aktu nabycia

         Autor rozwija analizę, wskazując na przypadek nabycia grobu Sary przez Awrama jako precedens toryczny (בנין אב) dla pojęcia כסף w kontekście halachicznego nabycia. Zdarzenie to służy mu jako wzorzec dla rozumienia wartości i skuteczności aktu prawnego, w którym kluczową rolę odgrywa כוונה — świadomy zamiar osoby dokonującej czynności.

         Według autora, ważność prawna czynności takich jak משיכה (pociągnięcie towaru w celu jego nabycia) zależy nie tylko od samego aktu fizycznego, lecz przede wszystkim od intencji towarzyszącej temu działaniu. Osoba dokonująca czynności musi wyraźnie zamanifestować zamiar nabycia przedmiotu, który do siebie przyciąga. Podobna zasada — argumentuje autor — odnosi się do ייבום, משיכה i כסף, ponieważ wszystkie te formy wymagają odpowiedniego poziomu כוונה.

         Intencja (כוונה) zostaje tu przedstawiona jako warunek wstępny (תנאי מוקדם), który odróżnia זמן גרמא מצוות od תולדות מצוות. Autor przyjmuje, że תולדות מצוות (pochodne przykazania pozytywne i negatywne) nie wymagają szczególnej intencji, gdyż są wykonywane w sposób rutynowy. Odmiennie jednak זמן גרמא מצוות — przykazania zależne od czasu — wymagają wewnętrznego aktu intencjonalnego, związanego z duchową świadomością i wyborem momentu działania.

         Na tym tle autor interpretuje sformułowanie Rambama “ובכסף מדברי סופרים” jako wyraz świadomego rozróżnienia pomiędzy poziomem prawnym (דאורייתא) a poziomem ustnej tradycji rabinicznej (מדברי סופרים). Wskazuje, że Josef Karo, w komentarzu כסף משנה, dostrzegał trudność tego sformułowania i próbował ją wyjaśnić, pisząc: “וכל דבר הנלמד באחת מי״ג מדות הוי דבר תורה.” Tym samym Karo potwierdzał, iż zasady interpretacyjne oparte na trzynastu regułach hermeneutycznych (י״ג מדות) nadają danym przepisom status prawa torycznego, nawet jeśli ich treść została przekazana w tradycji ustnej.

         Autor jednak zwraca uwagę, że zarówno Rambam, jak i Karo nie zdołali w pełni uchwycić zasadniczej różnicy pomiędzy przykazaniami „zorientowanymi w czasie” (זמן גרמא מצוות) a przykazaniami wtórnymi (תולדות מצוות). W opinii autora to właśnie ta różnica stanowi klucz do rozumienia hierarchii prawa w ramach Tory i tradycji ustnej.

         W dalszej części wywodu autor zapowiada omówienie sposobu, w jaki Bahag (בה״ג) klasyfikował przykazania Tory, oraz wskazuje, że intencja (כוונה) uwarunkowana przez מוסר נבואי może podnieść status czynności rabinicznej do rangi przykazania torycznego. Tym samym problem interpretacji כסף, כוונה i משיכה zostaje osadzony w szerszym kontekście hermeneutycznym i duchowym, który łączy literalne znaczenie tekstu z jego proroczym i etycznym wymiarem.

         Bahag, różnica między przykazaniami rabinicznymi i torycznymi oraz krytyka kodifikacji halachy

         Autor, rozwijając wątki z poprzedniej części, wskazuje, że według Bahaga (בה״ג – בעל הלכות גדולות) klasyfikacja przykazań Tory opierała się na zasadniczym rozróżnieniu między czynnościami rabinicznymi wykonywanymi z intencją (כוונה) inspirowaną מוסר נבואי a czynnościami wykonywanymi mechanicznie, bez wewnętrznego zaangażowania. Bahag miał utrzymywać, że jeśli Żyd wykonuje przykazanie rabiniczne z intencją zgodną z dobrym impulsem (יצר הטוב) w sercu, to taka czynność uzyskuje status זמן גרמא מצוה – przykazania torycznego.

         Autor przywołuje fakt, że Rambam nie tylko odrzucił, lecz wręcz wyszydził tę opinię Bahaga. W jego interpretacji modlitwa (תפילה) jako przykazanie דאורייתא odnosiła się do tekstu שמונה עשרה, podczas gdy Bahag rozumiał תפילה דאורייתא jako קריאת שמע. Ten spór, znany również z krytyki Rambama przez Rambana (komentarz do piątego pozytywnego przykazania), stanowi dla autora przykład, jak różne ujęcia istoty przykazania prowadzą do odmiennych rozumień relacji między formą a intencją.

         W tym kontekście autor rozwija myśl, że celem Objawienia Tory Ustnej (פרדס) i trzynastu zasad interpretacji (י״ג מדות) jest właśnie objaśnianie intencji (כוונה) stojącej za przykazaniami אב טהור, czyli fundamentalnymi, czasowo zorientowanymi przykazaniami Tory. Przykazania te – twierdzi autor – nie są „uwięzione” w literalnym brzmieniu tekstu, lecz wymagają dynamicznej interpretacji opartej na hermeneutyce prorockiej.

         Autor przywołuje komentarz Karo, który pisał: “הרי דלארבע טוטפות קרי דברי סופרים אע״פ שהם דאורייתא.” Z tego zdania wywodzi, że Karo sam przyznawał, iż nawet elementy formalnie określane jako דברי סופרים mogą posiadać charakter prawa torycznego. Jednocześnie autor wskazuje na miejsce w Gemarze מנחות, gdzie pojawia się spór dotyczący liczby błogosławieństw nad תפילין (jedno lub dwa), i interpretuje ten spór jako źródło późniejszej różnicy w kolejności תפילין między Raszim a Rabbenu Tamem.

         W interpretacji autora, kolejność תפילין nie jest jedynie kwestią tekstualną, lecz symbolicznym odzwierciedleniem przymierzy (שבועות) zawartych w historii Izraela: układ Rassiego odnosi się do przysięgi złożonej w Gilgalu, natomiast porządek Rabbenu Tama – do przysięgi w Szechem za dni Jozuego. W tym sensie תפילין są analogiczne do ספר תורה w kontekście przysięgi (שבועה).

         Z tej perspektywy autor stwierdza, że wszystkie przykazania toryczne o charakterze czasowym wymagają מוסר נבואי – duchowej i etycznej intencji wyprowadzonej z hermeneutycznej lektury אגדה i מדרש דרוש opartej na źródłach תנ״ך. Właśnie ta warstwa מוסר נבואי nadaje przykazaniom sens duchowy i wspólnotowy, który odróżnia je od czysto formalnego przestrzegania prawa.

         W zakończeniu tej części autor formułuje zasadniczą tezę metodologiczną: fundament „czystego” (טהור) studium Tory polega na zdolności uczonych do rozróżniania źródeł pierwotnych od wtórnych. Josef Karo – według autora – traktował precedensy zewnętrzne, pozbawione kontekstu strony Gemary (דף), jakby stanowiły dedukcyjne sylogizmy logiczne, zamiast analizować je w kontekście wspólnotowego precedensu i interpretacji przypadków (דין). Taki sposób myślenia autor określa mianem błędu prawa stanowionego (עבודה זרה של חוק קבוע), który ignoruje kabalistyczny wymiar interpretacji פרדס i zatraca głębię patrzenia na sprawę sądową z wielu perspektyw.

         Zakończenie: konsekwencje kodifikacji i utrata duchowego wymiaru przykazania

         Autor kończy rozważania krytyką podejścia Rambama i Josefa Karo do kodifikacji halachy. Twierdzi, że poprzez traktowanie halachy jako prawa stanowionego (חוק קבוע), zamiast systemu precedensów i interpretacji (משנה תורה jako common law/legislative review), obaj uczeni odłączyli przykazania od intencji prorockiej (כוונה), co skutkowało „zamrożeniem” Tory Ustnej w martwym systemie legislacyjnym. Autor określa to jako formę עבודה זרה, w której czci się słowa zamiast dążyć do sprawiedliwości sądowej i budowania zaufania oraz pokoju w społeczności.

         Przykładem jest interpretacja przykazania קידושין, które według autora wymagało poświęcenia i zaangażowania duchowego (יצר הטוב) dla wychowania przyszłych pokoleń w wierze opartej na צדק צדק תרדוף. W tym kontekście כוונה staje się centralnym elementem przykazania, pozwalającym przekazywać duchowy impuls Tory od pokolenia do pokolenia w linii Awot.

         Autor krytykuje uproszczenia Rambama, które – według niego – nie uchwyciły pełnego znaczenia precedensów biblijnych ani więzi przymierza (ברית) zawartego przez Awram w akcie dzielenia ofiar, który miał zapewnić wieczne pobudzenie יצר הטוב w sercach wybranych Kohanim i ludu Izraela. Z perspektywy autora, brak powiązania kodeksu Rambama z konkretnymi precedensami Mishnaicznymi oraz niedocenienie źródeł pierwotnych (B’HaG, Rif, Rosh) spowodowały, że wszystkie późniejsze komentarze i kodyfikacje nie skorygowały głównej wady systemu – oderwania prawa od duchowego i prorockiego wymiaru intencji.

         Autor zauważa, że współczesna edukacja w yeshivach nie uczy, że משנה תורה oznacza system

         PolubieniePolubione przez 1 osoba

      3. Cześć mosckerr 🙂
         Dziękuję za podzielenie się swoimi głębokimi przemyśleniami i zaangażowaniem w temat. Poruszasz ważne kwestie dotyczące interpretacji prawa i tradycji, które zasługują na szacunek i dokładną refleksję. Wierzę, że w dialogu opartym na wzajemnym zrozumieniu i szacunku możemy razem poszerzać naszą wiedzę i lepiej pojmować złożoność duchowego dziedzictwa. Zachęcam do kontynuowania rozmowy w duchu otwartości i odpowiedzialności.

         Pozdrawiam 🙂

         PolubieniePolubione przez 1 osoba

      4. Magiczna Lu,

         its exceptionally difficult for me to translate this Talmudic learning. If it bothers you please inform me. :)))

         משנה תורה — קידושין.

         The Talmud „Framers” organized this codification of Great Sanhedrin judicial rulings through use of a semicolons which separate and easily identify one sub-chapter from another sub-chapter.

         In the English language, a semicolon, most commonly used to link two independent, yet closely related clauses holding similar ideas or thoughts viewed from the different fixed perspectives. This concept reflects how witnesses perceive and interpret key yet subtle distinctions in a דיני נפשות murder trial.

         By contrast the סדר יסודי built around the distinction between either a פ – פרק או ס – סוגיא in the Chumash. Whereas the organization יסודי of T’NaCH literature employs an void empty space gap which separates one sugya from another. In this latter instance, the authors and their descendants of the New Testament Protocols of the Elders of Zionism counterfeit fraud, ((By their fruits you shall know them)), perverted their bible sophomoric mistranslations into an order of Chapters and verses. Changing the „order” of a communicated idea directly compares to tuma propaganda rhetoric blood-libel slanders.

         The difference between the common law commentators on the Talmud: B’HaG, Rif, Rosh, Baali Tosafot – the Big Four – from the statute law corrupters of judicial common law unto religious ritual religious observances, the disgraceful „all others post the Rambam Civil War” Reshonim, Acharonim, and Modern scholars — all these ירידות הדורות post Rambam Civil War generations, they totally ignore the cold hard fact that ORDER serves as the הגיונות יסודי – change the „order” of an idea and you get a different idea: GOD vs. DOG. Just that simple, no fancy dance’n.

         The perverted Rambam statute law radically changed the Order יסודי wherein the Gemara sugyot have an ordered, purposely edited direct connection to a specific Mishna. The halachot which the Gemara introduces serve as judicial witnesses which permits down stream generations to view the language of the Mishna viewed from a fixed sugya perspective as opposed to another, slightly different fixed sugya perspective.

         The statute religious ritual halachic codifications shattered this ordered Talmudic „mirror” into thousands of sharp shards that the framers of this Tannaim vs. Amoraim Mishna/Gemara „mirror” never intended. The Talmud originally intended to serve as a model for common law judicial courtrooms based upon a Torah written Constitutional mandate to achieve the faith of צדק צדק תרדוף. The Reshonim and later g’lut numb-skulls confused religious ritualism of halachic observances as equal to or even superior than the Torah faith to pursue judicial justice within the borders of our oath sworn home land! The disgrace of converting Judaism to resemble orthodox Xtianity or Islam, g’lut religious fanatics travel to Israel and smugly inform Israelis that they live in g’lut just as do American or whatever – Jews.

         King Shlomo triggered another ירידות הדורות domino ripple effect when instead of establishment of Federal Sanhedrin common law courtrooms within the borders of his kingdom, king Shlomo pulled the Rambam stunt, and built his copy duplication of Goyim Temple/Cathedral buildings. The Book of מלכים mocks the wealth and prosperity which thrived during the „Golden Age” of king Shlomo, the avoda zarah worshipping רשע. The foundation of Civil War among a people – injustice and bureaucratic corruption! Civil War pursued King David and all generations of his descendants who presumed the crown of kingship defined the k’vanna of Moshiach! Bat-shit crazy stupid. Equal only to the JeZeus false messiah Roman counterfeit propaganda. The mitzva of Moshiach stands on the בנין אב יסודי of Moshe anointing Aaron and his sons as the Moshiach. Korbanot dedications require the k’vanna of צדק צדק תרדוף. Remembering the redemption from Egyptian slavery emphasizes the judicial oppression exorcised by the court of Par’o.

         Israel delivered from Egyptian judicial oppression not to become frumm and blindly follow ritual halachic cult of personality religious rulings made by either a Reshon or Aucharon or modern religious „authority”. Religion not dependent upon the brit oath sworn lands. An examination of Reform Judaism leaders who declared „Berlin as their New Jerusalem” conclusively proves this point beyond a shadow of a doubt. Only within the borders of an independent Jewish homeland can Jews righteously pursue righteous judicial legislative review of statute laws passed by a Knesset Parliament!

         The people requested a king from the prophet Shmuel so that he could lead them out to war against our enemies. The anointing of David as Moshiach prioritizes his role in the government function of establishment of foreign policy strategic and tactical objectives. Contrast the Sanhedrin courts whose jurisdiction restricted only to & within the borders of the Jewish state. Understanding the k’vanna of Legislative review as the Torah Constitutional mandate of משנה תורה, requires making subtle distinctions. ביקורת חקיקתית vs. סקירה חקיקתית. The former preferrable over the latter concept, because it emphasizes the required need for evaluation and\or critique wherein judicial courtrooms committed to punish the wicked and fairly compensate the innocent for damages suffered.

         Disputes, fights, arguments all these verbs define the spirit of the tuma Yatzir within our hearts. It began with Chava vs. the serpent and the children produced by Adam and Chava. This recurring central theme of the Torah best expressed through the metaphor of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil vs. the Tree of Life and the Gemara of קידושין. A blessing requires שם ומלכות, not as some frumm (Yiddish) religious ritual worship of words printed in a Siddur! But rather שם – the dedication of tohor middot within the Yatzir Ha’Tov and מלכות\מלאך, the dedication of tohor Oral Torah spirits first revealed to Moshe at Horev; by means of swearing a Torah oath through making a „blessing”. Herein separates blessings from saying praises as expressed through reading Tehillem prayers.

         Tefillah vs prayer – the two not the same. Impossible for a surgeon to cut out a tumor within a diseased critical organ within the body while wearing boxing gloves! Statute halachic law codes, starting with the Rambam’s av tuma avoda zara, places boxing gloves on the hands of Talmudic surgeons of common law. The oath created מלאך concealed within the details that establish Life or Death/tohor or tuma\Blessing or Curse.

         Rav Aaron Nemuraskii, my rav, repeatedly warned me that the subject of tohor & tuma – the most complex & difficult subject the Sha’s addresses. The prostitute whores, New Testament and Koran, make no reference whatsoever to the distinction between tohor tuma spirits in eternal conflicts within the heart. Avoda zara substitutes belief in theologically created Creed Gods for the dedication of dominant tohor spirits which cause the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart to prevail as the dominant set of spirits. This unique spirituality totally alien to av tuma avoda zara; specifically in this examined case … the religious puke of the Rambam’s statute law perversion of Talmudic judicial common law. Child rape does not qualify as קידושין.

         Admitted that during the times of the T’NaCH, a father could sell his minor daughter without her consent. But the Rambam 2nd halacha quoted on this current sugya, failed to make this critical distinction. A lot of water has gone under the bridge. Today Jewish Ashkenazi custom does not permit a man to marry multiple wives. The grossly over-simplified Rambam halachic ruling which permits child rape, an utter abomination. The language of our sugya debates grammar gender debates as a means to validate that women share equal rights together with men. Clearly the current generations we live in today hold radically different values than did the generation of the Rambam. Statute law compares to a frozen ritual stamp. But seasons change and frozen ice eventually thaws and flows under the bridge. פרדס logic dynamic, syllogism logic static. The רשע Rambam statute law code blew out the Hanukkah lights of freedom. Jewish Independence within the borders of the oath sworn lands defines the miracle of Hanukkah celebrated by generations who dedicate to study the Torah limited only to reliance upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic inductive reasoning.

         This theological flaw made by all religions which promote belief in av tuma avoda zara – they rely upon deductive Greek syllogism logic; their framers therefore substitute a wicked „Devil” as their replacement theology for tuma middot. The latter tuma spirits empowers the Yatzir Ha’Raw within the heart to prevail over the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart. The Divine tohor middah אל continuously rebukes the Yatzir Ha’Tov to remember the sin of the Golden Calf. Wherein the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים, these assimilated and intermarried Israelites, they exchanged אלהים for the רוח שם השם לשמה. Avoda zara, by definition worships words as God, like as stated in the opening verses of the gospel of John. The righteous who develop their Good Name reputations/יראת שמים\ they forever abhor the avoda zara of worshipping words as either Gods or prayers directed to God(s), by saying word Divine Names.
         ______________________________________________
         ______________________________________________
         ______________________________________________
         וביאה איקרי דרך. (משלי ל) ודרך דבר בעלמה.

         This verse often understood as 1. „The way of an eagle in the sky.” – This is often interpreted as expressing the mystery and wonder of nature. 2. „The way of a serpent on a rock.” – This illustrates the cleverness and stealth of the serpent. 3. „The way of a ship in the middle of the sea.” – This highlights the vastness and complexity of navigation. 4. „The way of a man with a maiden.” – This reflects human relationships and the complexities involved in love.

         Clearly in the larger contexts of our Gemara, the sages bring משלי ל:יט to express the forth interpretive option. But פרדס logic does not compare to syllogism deductive logic – not by a long shot. The Holy Writing of the NaCH, they serve as a similar Gemara commentary to its permanent Mishna. The Holy Writing make a different perspective depth analysis of a comparative sugya within the Books of the Prophets!

         The discipline of Talmudic common law scholarship absolutely requires without exception no „over-simplifications” of deep complex tohor middot spirits wherein the opposing Yatzirot compete to prevail within the bnai brit hearts. Oral Torah always addresses the revelation of the 13 middot לשמה revealed to Moshe at Horev after the sin of the Golden Calf. The latter remembered as an arrogant attempt to create God out of the midst of Fire to duplicate the revelation of the Torah at Sinai just 40 days prior. Avoda zara an av tuma evil spirit within the Yatzir Ha’Raw within the heart precisely because it continually attempts to create Gods using theological creeds or in the case of the Koran abomination an imaginary rhetoric propaganda Angel.

         Torah common law learn T’NaCH Primary Sources through פרט\כלל Oral Torah logic – just that simple. No fancy dance’n. The Hebrew T’NaCH retains, despite Xtianity’s revisionist bible translation attempts to remove and change the Order of sugyot. Sugya integrity defines the discipline of both T’NaCH and Talmudic honest and real scholarship as opposed to and contrasted by the false Dof Yomi fraud. Common law simply not read like some New Testament/Koran Harry Potter book of fiction. פרדס logic dictates that down stream generations make a דרוש search for at least one בנין אב precedent. The Rambam word translation tossed salad perversion of Talmudic common law which stands upon making a דרוש research for comparative precedent cases directly compares to the puke opinion that child rape qualifies as kosher קידושין.

         The small sugya which contains משלי ל:יט resembles הושע ב: יח-כב. Greek deductive syllogism logic simply not capable of learning this inductive reasoning which defines פרדס logic which trains students of T’NaCH/Talmudic common law to make a דרוש research for similar precedents. This פרדס Torah wisdom, completely alien to Rambam’s replacement theology which organized Talmudic halachot into egg crate deductive reasoning static and fixed legal categories. Rabbinic Judaism fumbled the ball. They failed to catch the Rambam error and correct it. Consequently, following the victory of the Tzeddukim Rambam Civil War, Orthodox Judaism went completely of the דרך.

         T’NaCH/Talmudic פרדס logic scholarship demands making a דרוש research, first for a דברים\משנה תורה בנין אב, followed up with (starting with בראשית) a second Torah precedent search. Herein defines the proper discipline of Talmudic scholarship which continuously learns both the Talmud and the T’NaCH through a sacred קידושין common law relationship. Post the Rambam civil war, the perverted Yeshiva world divorced Talmudic scholarship from T’NaCH scholarship just as did the Rambam’s puke code divorced Halacha from its Aggada; a loom has its opposing warp weft threads and the Talmud weaves the „garments” of the culture of the chosen Cohen people.

         A דברים\משנה תורה דרוש בנין אב … דברים יז:א — לא תזבח לה’ אלהיך שור ושה אשר יהיה בו מום כל דבר רע כי תועבת ה’ אלהיך הוא. Child rape a Torah abomination! A ספר בראשית דרוש בנין אב: בראשית כא:כב-לד. The mitzva of קידושין compares to the brit which Avraham swore with Avi-Melech. Avraham set aside 7 sheep and קידושין celebrates שבעה ברכות.

         ודרך גבר בעלמה כן דרך אישה מנאפת. This phrase smells like Rambam’s child rape qualifies as קידושין utter narishkeit. הא תינח ביאה כסף ושטר מאי איכא למימר משום ביאה The Gemara discusses different means through which marriage can be validly initiated. Our Gemara questions the act of intercourse as a legal form of קידושין. Where do the three ways of „acquisition” overlap?

         What does a man „acquire” through קידושין? The woman neither a slave nor a whore as Yechuda perceived Tamar. Regardless of the method, there has to be mutual consent and intent to establish a marital relationship. In all cases, both parties must agree to the terms of the marriage. What „lasting union” established through any of these over lapping ways to „acquire”? Intercourse alone, especially today, not sufficient to sanctify the Torah mitzva of קידושין. This unique mitzva does not apply to Goyim who rejected the Torah revelation at Sinai. Solid proof that the mitzva of קידושין more than simply a rabbinic mitzva.

         Under what conditions can intercourse alone create a binding agreement? The opening question raised, „What does a Man ‚acquire’ through the mitzva דאורייתא of קידושין? Answer: A man acquires title to the נפש עולם הבאה from this woman. Meaning, the Man acquires title to the name of the children born into the future world to come! The precedent for this oath brit acquisition which the mitzva of קידושין precisely duplicates … the oath sworn at the brit cut between the pieces. Tohor time oriented commandments possess the holiness to create יש מאין the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot. Goyim cannot reproduce the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot.

         Therefore the mitzva of קידושין actively entails both two kosher witnesses and a minyan of 10 men. The latter required to swear a Torah oath. Therefore should a רשע divorce his wife and refuse to give her her required גט which returns her נפש עולם הבאה, and therein shatters the קידושין acquisition. If a רשע profanes his oath sworn to the woman, that woman can ask a בית דין to decree the din of נידוי upon that רשע which duplicates through a דיוק the ‚new creation’ of a Ger Tzeddick. This permits the בית דין to retro-actively annul the קידושין and free that „chained” woman to raise Cohen seed of the Avot from a more worthy man.

         The Rambam’s shallow over simplified statute law code failed to grasp the fundamental basics which define the Torah time oriented commandment of קידושין. The groans of agunah women, chained to a fate worse than child rape, this eternal guilt condemns the arrogance of the Rambam false posok halacha.

         PolubieniePolubione przez 1 osoba

      5. Cześć mosckerr 🙂

         Dziękuję za ten wnikliwy komentarz i wieloaspektową analizę. Warto zauważyć, że judaizm i chrześcijaństwo mają wspólne korzenie, choć różnią się w interpretacji wielu zagadnień, takich jak postać Mesjasza i rola Pisma Świętego. Dialog między tymi tradycjami może przynieść głębsze zrozumienie i wzajemny szacunek, zwłaszcza gdy pamiętamy, że oba systemy duchowe podkreślają wartość intencji, sprawiedliwości i relacji z Bogiem.

         Pozdrawiam

         PolubieniePolubione przez 1 osoba

      6. משנה תורה – קידושין: סוגיה ראשונה

         Order serves as the bedrock foundation for פרדס logic analysis. This term סוגיה prioritizes subject “issues” raised by each and every sub-chapter. The Gemara analysis of the faceted language of the Mishna broken down into easily identifiable “sections”. My Rav, Aaron Nemuraskii taught me: First Order then speed. The first time we completed the Sha’s Bavli together we did it in four months. But prior to making a study of the Talmud, Rav Aaron required development of basic skills. 1) Read the Chumash in Hebrew like I could read an English newspaper. 2) Do the same with the Aramaic Targums. 3) Make an in-depth across the board study of classic Midrash. Achieving this foundation took almost 5 years of intense study.

         Rav Nemuraskii did not accept a salary from the Yeshiva. The integrity of this Man reminds me of President Trump who refuses to take a salary as President of the United States. During these crucial five years we would learn, or he permitted me to study privately in my dorm room alone, due to my Dyslexia “sugya”. Surrounding outside movement, noise my kryptonite. Only this Rav and Dr. Dunning, my Russian history professor at Texas A&M ever recognized my dyslexia “sugya”. Dr. Dunning rather than insist that I sit in a class-room demanded the substitute of my doing research in the University library while sitting in a private carrel. Both men demanded excellence in scholarship. In the latter case, wrote a thesis that argued the genius of Stalin in that he enticed Hitler to invade Russia prior to the expected fall of Britain, which forced Germany to fight a two-front war. Used this thesis to explain why Stalin withdrew unto complete social isolation for about a week.

         Under the leadership of the Czar, the long drawn out fight known as WWI caused that government of three centuries to collapse – burned in the flames of internal revolution which pitted Social Revolutionary anarchists against Mensheviks. The Mensheviks favored that Soviet local Parliaments regulate all bureaucracies which in their turn regulated industry and trade.

         Bakunin viewed the “Establishment” State – bureaucratic machine as inherently oppressive which fundamentally required dismantlement. Marxist-Leninism by stark contrast, re-established Czarist Russia’s bureaucratic autocracy. The political assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist initiated WWI and lead to the establishment of Kerensky Russian Provisional Government in 1917. This first post Czarist government based itself upon the anarchist Social Revolutionary Party/Bakunin founder\ who like the Serbian nationalist group – called the Black Hand – favored assassination as a key tool to achieve political change. The Kerensky government separated from Bakunin’s political ideas over the matter of political assassinations.

         The Social Revolutionary Bakunin Party did advocate for political violence and assassination as a anarchist challenge to terminate the inherently “corrupt” bureaucratic State; yet in post Revolution Russia its leaders pursued a more reformist agenda, aiming to stabilize the state rather than dismantle it through assassination. The Social Revolutionary Party, followed and accepted Bakunin’s views concerning the anarchist value of political violence as an anarchist challenge to rest power away from the State and its corrupt bureaucracies. They justified such actions as essential to destabilize oppressive bureaucratic structures, aligning with Bakunin’s broader revolutionary goals.

         Bakunim opposed the rigid Marx theory which organized revolution as a fight between the Classes which pitted the bourgeoisie (capitalists) against the proletariat (working class). The latter political idea lead to the establishment of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” under Lenin. Bakunim’s Social Revolutionaries Peasants Party prioritized a society organized around communes and federations, collective ownership free from any centralized bureaucratic regulatory power. Important to remember that Czarist bureaucratic Autocracy, like the Confederate States of America, clung to an agricultural based, class rule society, rather than an industrial based society – until defeat through wars forced change in Bolshevik Russia and the crushed Southern States – the ashes of General Sherman’s Atlanta, and his march to the Sea.

         What does this have to due with קידושין? Does the Talmud institute the institutions of religious law as the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch advocate or Torah as the written Constitution of the 12 Tribe Republic, which enshrines צדק צדק תרדוף as the faith mandate for Great Sanhedrin משנה תורה-Legislative Review as its Constitutional mandate? Clearly the former idea favors the realities of oppressed g’lut Jews. Whereas the latter vision exists as a prophesy for the restoration of a Constitutional Jewish Republic within the borders of an Independent “Zionist” Jewish State.

         How to define these two opposing, fundamentally different interpretations in a word? Power vs. Justice. Contrast the lawfare employed against Trump and his Maga supporters before and after he won the 2024 election! Compare this to Darth Vader who said unto Luke in the opening Star Wars movie: “You do not know the power of the Dark-Side of the Force”. The Rambam second quoted halacha made kosher child rape to accomplish קידושין in his halachic code. In Chullin Rambam’s halacha prioritizes knowledge over יראת שמים in shechita – butchery of animals for human consumption. But the Apecorus (or Epicurus), possesses the required knowledge, and yet the sages within the Gemara ruled such shechita as treif. Clearly, this person lacks יראת שמים; the awareness that protecting ones’ good name reputation understood and prioritized as the most essential requirement for any public service or commercial trade.

         Its this fundamental distinction which separates Torah Constitutional governance, expressed through משנה תורה common law Sanhedrin Federal courtrooms from g’lut religious ritual halachot which separates Justice from Power – tohor from tuma. Hence have compared קידושין of the Talmud to the Bakunin vs Marxist socialist political theories as a way to high-light the sharp separation between Justice from Power; righteousness from oppression.

         PolubieniePolubione przez 1 osoba

      7. Order serves as the bedrock foundation for פרדס logic analysis. This term סוגיה prioritizes subject „issues” raised by each and every sub-chapter. The Gemara analysis of the faceted language of the Mishna broken down into easily identifiable „sections”. My Rav, Aaron Nemuraskii taught me: First Order then speed. The first time we completed the Sha’s Bavli together we did it in four months. But prior to making a study of the Talmud, Rav Aaron required development of basic skills. 1) Read the Chumash in Hebrew like I could read an English newspaper. 2) Do the same with the Aramaic Targums. 3) Make an in-depth across the board study of classic Midrash. Achieving this foundation took almost 5 years of intense study.

         Rav Nemuraskii did not accept a salary from the Yeshiva. The integrity of this Man reminds me of President Trump who refuses to take a salary as President of the United States. During these crucial five years we would learn, or he permitted me to study privately in my dorm room alone, due to my Dyslexia „sugya”. Surrounding outside movement, noise my kryptonite. Only this Rav and Dr. Dunning, my Russian history professor at Texas A&M ever recognized my dyslexia „sugya”. Dr. Dunning rather than insist that I sit in a class-room demanded the substitute of my doing research in the University library while sitting in a private carrel. Both men demanded excellence in scholarship. In the latter case, wrote a thesis that argued the genius of Stalin in that he enticed Hitler to invade Russia prior to the expected fall of Britain, which forced Germany to fight a two-front war. Used this thesis to explain why Stalin withdrew unto complete social isolation for about a week.

         Under the leadership of the Czar, the long drawn out fight known as WWI caused that government of three centuries to collapse – burned in the flames of internal revolution which pitted Social Revolutionary anarchists against Mensheviks. The Mensheviks favored that Soviet local Parliaments regulate all bureaucracies which in their turn regulated industry and trade.

         Bakunin viewed the „Establishment” State – bureaucratic machine as inherently oppressive which fundamentally required dismantlement. Marxist-Leninism by stark contrast, re-established Czarist Russia’s bureaucratic autocracy. The political assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist initiated WWI and lead to the establishment of Kerensky Russian Provisional Government in 1917. This first post Czarist government based itself upon the anarchist Social Revolutionary Party/Bakunin founder\ who like the Serbian nationalist group – called the Black Hand – favored assassination as a key tool to achieve political change. The Kerensky government separated from Bakunin’s political ideas over the matter of political assassinations.

         The Social Revolutionary Bakunin Party did advocate for political violence and assassination as a anarchist challenge to terminate the inherently „corrupt” bureaucratic State; yet in post Revolution Russia its leaders pursued a more reformist agenda, aiming to stabilize the state rather than dismantle it through assassination. The Social Revolutionary Party, followed and accepted Bakunin’s views concerning the anarchist value of political violence as an anarchist challenge to rest power away from the State and its corrupt bureaucracies. They justified such actions as essential to destabilize oppressive bureaucratic structures, aligning with Bakunin’s broader revolutionary goals.

         Bakunim opposed the rigid Marx theory which organized revolution as a fight between the Classes which pitted the bourgeoisie (capitalists) against the proletariat (working class). The latter political idea lead to the establishment of the „dictatorship of the proletariat” under Lenin. Bakunim’s Social Revolutionaries Peasants Party prioritized a society organized around communes and federations, collective ownership free from any centralized bureaucratic regulatory power. Important to remember that Czarist bureaucratic Autocracy, like the Confederate States of America, clung to an agricultural based, class rule society, rather than an industrial based society – until defeat through wars forced change in Bolshevik Russia and the crushed Southern States – the ashes of General Sherman’s Atlanta, and his march to the Sea.

         What does this have to due with קידושין? Does the Talmud institute the institutions of religious law as the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch advocate or Torah as the written Constitution of the 12 Tribe Republic, which enshrines צדק צדק תרדוף as the faith mandate for Great Sanhedrin משנה תורה-Legislative Review as its Constitutional mandate? Clearly the former idea favors the realities of oppressed g’lut Jews. Whereas the latter vision exists as a prophesy for the restoration of a Constitutional Jewish Republic within the borders of an Independent „Zionist” Jewish State.

         How to define these two opposing, fundamentally different interpretations in a word? Power vs. Justice. Contrast the lawfare employed against Trump and his Maga supporters before and after he won the 2024 election! Compare this to Darth Vader who said unto Luke in the opening Star Wars movie: „You do not know the power of the Dark-Side of the Force”. The Rambam second quoted halacha made kosher child rape to accomplish קידושין in his halachic code. In Chullin Rambam’s halacha prioritizes knowledge over יראת שמים in shechita – butchery of animals for human consumption. But the Apecorus (or Epicurus), possesses the required knowledge, and yet the sages within the Gemara ruled such shechita as treif. Clearly, this person lacks יראת שמים; the awareness that protecting ones’ good name reputation understood and prioritized as the most essential requirement for any public service or commercial trade.

         Its this fundamental distinction which separates Torah Constitutional governance, expressed through משנה תורה common law Sanhedrin Federal courtrooms from g’lut religious ritual halachot which separates Justice from Power – tohor from tuma. Hence have compared קידושין of the Talmud to the Bakunin vs Marxist socialist political theories as a way to high-light the sharp separation between Justice from Power; righteousness from oppression.

         Have openly despised the Rambam halachic codification as a perversion of Judicial common law courtrooms within the borders of the oath sworn lands vs. static ritual halachot for g’lut Jewry to be religious and therein believe in God. The Torah has no such commandment to believe in God.
         Mishna Chagigah 2:1:

         משנה חגיגה ב:א. אין דורשין במרכבה בשלושה דברים: באדם, ובעלמא, ובשמות. וכל העוסק בַּמרכבה, אין לו חלק לעולם הבא.
         The soul of Man; the interpretation of the Isaiah’s vision concerning the Divine Chariot; and Divine Names. This warning provokes a strong Yatzir for good and evil within the Heart. Impossible to learn Isaiah and Yehezkel’s vision simply by reading the words of these prophets by themselves alone.

         This Mishna warns against the NT avoda zara error of attempting to learn „Big Picture” ideas which the prophets spoke without cementing these later prophetic mussar to Torah commandments. The NT av tuma avoda zara did this error with Moshiach. It failed to learn the mitzva of Moshiach to the precedent of Moshe standing before the court of Par’o touching the matter of straw withheld, while the slave overlords beat Israelites for our failure to meet our brick production quotas.

         Moshe anointed the House of Aaron as Moshiach, not to make absolutely silly and utterly worthless ritual barbeques unto heaven-sacrifices. Rather to dedicate oath brit dedication of tohor middot\מלכות/ which directly impact Israelite social behavior thereafter. The mitzva of Moshiach from the Torah, rests upon the burden to rule the oath sworn conquered lands with judicial justice which makes fair compensation of damages inflicted.

         The vision of the Merkabah, a vision of the mitzva of Moshiach. באדם learns from the Menorah in the Mishkan vision description. The brit cut between the pieces wherein childless Avram cut his soul through an oath alliance; the dedication of Cohen seed life in the world to come. What defines the soul of Man? The creation of the world to come future born soul Cohen seed. Herein expressly defines the k’vanna of the mitzva of קידושין. The 7 Menorah branches refers to the 7 Yom Tov „soul of the Cohen seed of the Avot”: Pesach-Shevuot; Rosh HaShana-Yom Kippur; Sukkot-Sh’meni Atzaret and Shabbat. These 7 Holy periods, they affix Divine Names for the Cohen „soul” dedicated on those holy days; Pesach: Nefesh (Divine Name) Ya; Shevuot: Ruach (Divine Name) Ha’El; Rosh HaShana: Neshama (Divine Name) El; Yom Kippur: Chiyya (Divine Name) Elohim; Sukkot: Yechida (Divine Name) El Shaddai; Shemeni Atzaret: Nefesh Kalli (Divine Name) Eish HaElohim; and Shabbat הבדלה (Divine Name) Shalom.

         בעלמא do not contemplate concerning the creation of the physical world, like as does treif Xtian fundamentalist avoda zara. The dedication of the Book of בראשית introduces the subject of „Av” time-oriented Torah commandments! בשמות the abstract naming of עולם הבא as yet unborn Cohen Children souls through Divine Names in compliance with the oath sworn alliance cut upon the „soul” of Avram at the brit between the pieces. The cutting of the animals into their opposing halves at that Av-brit, teaches the prophetic mussar, just expressed, by means of משל\נמשל.

         This סודי kabbalah concealed during g’lut oppression. The Mishna, codified in 210 CE, broke the tradition of not writing down the Oral Torah Great Sanhedrin courts legal rulings. The Mishna Chagigah 2:1 warns not to make reactionary, shallow, one source interpretations – like the Goyim do with their NT shallow theology driven interpretation to place the mitzva of Moshiach into a clean box. The Mishna, a common law legal system which fundamentally requires making a דרוש-פשט search of how the language of the prophets serves as a precedent wherein they interpret the k’vanna of Torah positive and negative commandments elevated to tohor time oriented commandments. Failure to heed this dire warning defines both the NT and Rambam Yad av tuma avoda zara heresies.
         ________________________________________________
         ________________________________________________
         ________________________________________________
         הלהות גדולות הלכות קידושין

         אסיר ליה גבר ישראל למנסב איתתא
         This opening line prohibits sexual acts as a means to acquire a woman as a wife without the time oriented k’vanna of the mitzva of קידושין. This fundamental distinction separate the kosher B’HaG common law halachic code from the treif av tuma Rambam statute law halachic code which perverts the oath brit cut between the pieces touching the life and birth of the chosen Cohen people throughout all generations in time to a profaned religious ritual observance that Jews in g’lut can easily do and keep.

         Making ritual observance of Torah commandments and rabbinic halakot defines the justification by by רשעים to pervert the Talmud away from the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva, Yishmael, HaGalili – their understanding of פרדס as a unique inductive reason logic system which systematically compares Case/Rule to similar Case\Rule precedents. The burden of modern Zionism, now that we have achieved national Independence, to restore the Torah as the written Constitution of our Republic and the Sanhedrin Federal Court system, which has the mandate of Legislative Review of all law passed by the Knesset, as the basis of Jewish justice — as opposed to political power — within the borders of the oath sworn lands.

         Common law courtrooms no more resemble ritual halachic religious observances than Brit compares to covenant. Only a shallow reactionary ignorance declares that the meaning of brit the same meaning as the alien puke covenant. Absolutely no Torah mitzva for Jews to live in accursed g’lut. The Wilderness generation serves as witness to this cold hard fact. Raising a handkerchief as a symbol for „acquisition” and intent for the time oriented mitzva of קידושין, compares to marriage after visiting a whore-house.

         בה”ג: עד דמקדש לה בכספא או בתבובתא או בביאה, וכולהי בסהדי\וכולי בעדי. בכסף מדאוריתא מנלן. דכתיב (דברים כד,א) כי יקח איש אשה וכתיב התם (בראשית כג:יג) נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני. מה קיחה דהתם בכספא אף קיחה דהכא בכספא. ותנן האשה נקנית בשלשה דרכים, וקונה את עצמה בשני דרכים במיתת הבעל ובגט. נקנת בכסף בשטר ובביאה, בכסף, ב”ש אומרים בדינר ובשוה דינר. בה”א בפרוטה ובשוה פרוטה, הילכתא כבית הילל. וכמה היא פרוטה וכו.

         Contrast Karo’s כסף משנה super-commentary on the Rambam who declared money as merely a rabbinic mitzva! Karo’s statute law clear as the sun in the sky on a cloudless day, did not understand the priority which T’NaCH and Talmudic common law bases all Torah learning upon precedents! G’lut religious statute law, based simply upon the Karo commentary upon the Rambam could not care a less about precedents. Hence the Beit Yosef collage of Reshonim opinions on any given halacha does not base itself upon the T’NaCH/Talmudic יסוד which absolutely requires all Torah learning expressed through the discipline of bringing פרדס inductive reasoning which compares Case/Din to similar Case\Din courtroom rulings. Karo’s Shulkan Aruch focused solely upon g’lut religious ritual observances; his code failed to express or reveal any Torah wisdom which teaches Av Torah time oriented commandments, as the Talmudic framers explicitly intended.

         Never as any of the sick book licker rabid rabbis ever criticize Karo’s contradiction against a Gaon scholar! Their inept ירידות הדורות box thinking which openly declares that later generations cannot dispute with earlier generation as vacuous as air inside a balloon. Off the דרך Orthodox Judaism statute law rabbis, they have no shame.

         Bakunin’s revolt against bureaucratic autocracy resembles the Talmudic revolt against the frozen halakhic codification of Rambam and Karo. Where Marx restored a new form of centralized coercion, Rambam’s Yad replaced deliberative common law with legislative absolutism. Both substitute administration for judicious common law lateral Sanhedrin Federal courtroom justice. קידושין simply not some sterile religious ritual that thrives in g’lut. But rather this mesechta of the Talmud teaches a strong mussar rebuke to the generations. Don’t get to comfortable in g’lut. Don’t duplicate the false oath sworn by the pre-Shoah generations of European Orthodox Judaism. Acceptance of the Sinai revelation predicates upon seeking the restoration of a public constitutional Republic, comparable to a man who seeks a wife.

         The perpetuation of the oath time oriented brit Cohen-seed from generation to generation defines the destiny of the children of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov. Ritual religious halachic observance in g’lut as useful as sucking tits from a boar hog. The Torah, taught through the משל of the mitzva of קידושין instructs the דיוק נמשל that Geulah from g’lut Egyptian legal oppression depends not upon observance of empty religious ritual observances, g’lut Jews cursed by the Torah curse that they have lost the wisdom how to obey the Torah לשמה. Rather Geulah depends upon the strengch of our cries, like we made in Egypt, which express our yearning to rule our homeland with judicial common law just courtrooms. The difference between Rambam’s halakhic code and the Talmud’s constitutional jurisprudence, the difference between Power and Justice — between exile and sovereignty.

         Now that the Jewish people have restored sovereignty, our task is not ritual observance but judicial redemption — to rebuild the Torah as written Constitution and restore Sanhedrin legislative review as the Republic’s foundation. Only then will צדק replace כח — justice replace power — and קידושין fulfill its purpose as oath-brit of national rebirth of the chosen Cohen people.

         PolubieniePolubione przez 1 osoba