Beneath a Starless Sky: A gripping and utterly heartbreaking WW2 historical fiction novel 

From Covenant to Catastrophe: Supersession, Betrayal, and the Collapse of Judicial Integrity in the Gospels. A person who testifies about himself … NEVER believed. “I believe”, comes directly under this judicial ruling.

What Xtianity calls “faith” in Jesus as the “Son of God” is not a continuation of emunah—it’s a rupture. A radical super-session of the Torahic pursuit of justice among Israel, a betrayal of the brit sworn at Horev and carried through the generations by the Cohen people, elected not for mystical belief, but for national responsibility, for judicial integrity.

Where Torah defines righteousness as doing justice (צדקה ומשפט), the New Testament replaces that with faith in blood. Contrast the substitution theology of the New Testament where “Faith” becomes belief in a metaphysical person, a shift from legal loyalty to psychological assent. Sin and the Devil replace the righteous pursuit of judicial compensation for damages inflicted, to restore shalom among our people. The generations of the chosen Cohen people stands upon the foundation of remembering the exact oaths which the Avot swore to HaShem; this Av Torah commandment – time oriented mitzva, continually creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing every time we remember the exact oath which the Avot swore an oath alliance with HaShem – the brit.

John 13:21 — “Jesus was troubled in his spirit… one of you will betray me” — echoes the aesthetics of Greek tragedy more than any literary or prophetic moment in the Tanakh. Jesus was troubled in his spirit. This introspective psychological framing is alien to the Tanakh, where leaders like Moshe, David, or Yirmeyahu express anguish in oath alliances – national, or legal terms – and not in solitary inner turmoil framed by fate.

Exodus 32 (Golden Calf) serves as a בנין אב\precedent. Moshe’s anguish, framed not as personal betrayal, but rather as a breach of the oath sworn by Israel at Sinai! His intercession for HaShem to annul His Vow, & to remember the Divine oaths sworn to the Avot concerning the Chosen Cohen people. Stands in utter contrast to JeZeus sef-referential Greek tragic theatre. While Matthew’s narrative may focus on the broader implications of betrayal within the community and the redefinition of authority, John’s account emphasizes the personal anguish of Jesus, reflecting a different theological and emotional landscape. This distinction, crucial for understanding how each Gospel interprets the themes of loyalty, betrayal, and the nature of divine relationships.

The Gospel’s framing of betrayal follows the tragic motif of unavoidable fate, where even close companions become instruments of divine or tragic destiny — reminiscent of Euripides or Sophocles. In contrast, the Tanakh never uses personal betrayal by a close disciple as a literary device to generate tragedy. When betrayal occurs (e.g., Absalom rebelling against David in 2 Samuel), it is woven into a national-political framework, never mythologized into divine necessity.

In the Tanakh, accusations, betrayals, or judgments require witnesses, & due process. Like Nathan confronting David in 2 Sam 12. John 13:21 lacks this. There’s no legal hearing, no cross-examination. The “betrayal”, emotionally intuited and fatalistically foretold. This lack of juridical structure utterly antithetical to all Torah oath britot alliances.

The figure of “Matthew”, traditionally identified as a tax collector (Greek: τελώνης) named Levi in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27, and called Matthew in Matthew 9:9. The gospel of Matthew written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. It heavily relies on the gospel of Mark, written in Rome about 70 CE, after the destruction of Herod’s Temple, as a source (about 90% of Mark is embedded in Matthew). It has virtually no familiarity with the Hebrew Masoretic T’NaCH.

Unlike the Gospel of Mark (strongly associated with Rome, possibly written there for some persecuted Xtian community under Nero), Matthew – generally considered to have been written in Syrian Antioch, or possibly another urban center in the Eastern Roman Empire—not Rome. This gospel expresses a strong anti-Pharisaic polemic (e.g., Matthew 23), suggesting an audience competing with Rabbinic authority post-70 CE. By Paul’s language the grafted Goyim now permit the cursed Jew to convert to Xtianity and receive forgiveness for their deicide of Christ.

The new testament replaces the old testament Torah authority, with the authority of Jesus as a new Moses figure (Matthew 5–7, the “Sermon on the Mount”). It repurposes Pharisaic halakhah while simultaneously demonizing the Pharisees (a contradiction that reveals its ideological agenda). This gospel adopts Greco-Roman rhetorical tropes to reshape Jewish categories into Xtian theological slogans.

Matthew as a tax collector under Roman occupation, not some neutral biographical footnote. In first-century Judea, tax collectors, abhorred & widely despised as collaborators with the Roman imperial system, much like kapos during the Shoah who either forced (or chose) to act as enforcers within the Nazi death machinery. The 66-70 revolt resulted in possibly half of the Judean population’s brutal liquidation by the Romans.

The Roman Empire farmed out tax collection to locals—often Jews—who worked for Herodian or Roman authorities. Perceived and viewed as ritually unclean, in contact with Goyim and their money linked to avoda zara. Utterly corrupt they extracted more than required, lining their own pockets through Judean anguish and poverty. Kapo Jews during the Shoah similarly placed in positions of power over death camp Jews by the Nazis. Many attempted to justify their betrayal so to survive; most like the Polish guards abused their power. The key similarity between this and that, both participated and enforced imperial oppression and murder, in exchange for personal survival or profit.

Both undermined national solidarity under foreign coercion. This gospel, authored by a character who represents collaboration with the most hated enemies of the Torah nation. It preaches individual salvation through belief in Jesus. Emphasizes blood atonement and submission to imperial persecution as virtue (Matthew 5:10–12). It delegitimizes Jewish halakhah and sets up Jesus as a replacement lawgiver.

The image of Matthew, the tax collector, the predecessor to Nicholas Donin – rebranded as an apostle, mirrors the Av tuma avoda zara super-sessionist strategy of the new testament itself. A Kapo theology—a betrayal from within rebranded as spiritual truth. In the Gospel of Matthew, the figure of Matthew as a tax collector represents a complex relationship with authority and betrayal. His background as a collaborator with the Roman Empire positions him within a framework of Nicholas Donin like traitor who hated and despised the Jewish people, yet the new testament revisionist history rebranded him as a saintly apostle. This transformation raises questions about loyalty, identity, and the nature of redemption within the context of a community that has experienced oppression.

It calls Day Night and Night Day. In 1242, following the disputation, thousands of volumes of the Talmud—estimates range up to 24 wagonloads—were publicly burned in Paris, likely in the Place de Grève. This massive cultural and spiritual loss for the Jewish people of France and Europe at large, as these texts represented centuries of Torah commentary, halakhah, and Jewish intellectual life compares to the WWII Nazi theft of French art stolen from the Louvre.

Nicholas Donin became infamous in Jewish history as a symbol of betrayal, much like Paul is seen in some Jewish critiques of early Xtianity. The burning of the Talmud marked a turning point in Xtian censorship and persecution of Jewish learning in medieval Europe. Thereafter a paradigmatic shift in how Xtian urope began to institutionalize theological control over Jewish intellectual tradition. It was not just about books; it was about erasing a rival covenantal voice, extinguishing a living legal system, and asserting ideological supremacy. Before 1242, anti-Jewish violence was often localized and episodic, driven by Crusaders or mob violence. After 1242, Christian authorities—especially the Catholic Church—began moving toward systematic censorship and surveillance of Jewish texts, particularly the Talmud. Papal Inquisitors began to treat the Talmud as a heretical document, subjecting it to censorship, confiscation, and burning across Europe.

The Church no longer saw Judaism merely as a tolerated witness religion (Augustinian theology) but as a threatening ideological rival. Dominican and Franciscan inquisitors, especially after the 13th century, began using forced public disputations, coercion, and even torture to compel Jewish conversions and force public rejections of Rabbinic teachings.

In France and parts of Western Europe, Rabbinic study went underground or into self-censorship. Marginal glosses were hidden or coded. Certain passages were removed or altered to avoid Christian suspicion. Elsewhere, especially in Provence, Spain, and Italy, the Jewish community found ways to adapt: hiding manuscripts, disguising commentary, or smuggling texts. This period also saw the rise of Ashkenazi responsa literature and the decentralization of yeshiva culture, as communities were forced to rebuild their intellectual life from ashes.

Nazi-like book burnings became the “passion” of the Cross. Aragon (1263) after the Disputation of Barcelona. Rome (1553) under Pope Julius III, who ordered the Talmud burned again throughout the Papal States. And many local events throughout Germany, Italy, and even Eastern Europe in the centuries that followed.

Raymond Martini, Pablo Christiani, the Matthew of their days, and other Jewish converts, used Jewish texts against the Jews, quoting midrash or aggadah out of context to support Christian messianic claims. This weaponization of scholarship—a turning of Jewish tradition against itself in theological debates, often backed by coercive power.

Works like the Mishneh Torah (Rambam), Arba’ah Turim (Rosh’s son, Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher), and later the Shulchan Arukh were part of the effort to codify and preserve halakhic clarity amid growing external threats. Some turned toward Kabbalah (e.g., Sefer haZohar) as an inner resistance—preserving divine truth in esoteric forms inaccessible to Christian censors. Jewish liturgy began to include kinnot (lamentations) over the destruction not just of Temples, but of books and batei midrash (houses of study).

The 1242 burning of the Talmud was not an isolated horror—it was the beginning of a systematic theological campaign to erase Jewish legal memory, to sever the oral Torah from the people entrusted with it, and to replace covenantal justice with ecclesiastical dominance. But the Jewish response was resilient. Torah didn’t die in Paris. It moved. It adapted. And it remembered.

ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
ἐλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου\/For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death\/. Jesus directly compares to the Golden Calf. The new testament replacement theology foists Jesus in the stead of Moshe, just as did the ערב רב, mixed multitudes of assimilated and intermarried Jews did with the Goden Calf.

Classic projectionism and switch-bait nonsense rhetoric propaganda. Define: law of the Spirit of life as it applies to any legal judicial system in any country throughout Human History? If we interrogate it through the lens of real-world legal systems—Babylonian, Mosaic, Roman, Napoleonic, Anglo-American common law, etc.—this “law of the Spirit” is untranslatable into any recognizable legal category. Hence this religious rhetoric propaganda exists only as a theological slogan that floats above any framework of evidentiary justice, public testimony, or communal covenantal accountability. It shares zero common ground with Hammurabi’s Code, Athenian democracy, Talmudic jurisprudence of Common Law/Oral Torah, US Constitution, Islamic Sharia, Modern international law.

What Paul calls “law” here is not law in any legal sense. It’s a metaphorical principle rebranded with juridical language to mask its lack of structure. The so-called “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:2) is entirely untranslatable into any recognizable legal category. Paul’s language constitutes a theological slogan that floats untethered above any framework of evidentiary justice, public testimony, or communal covenantal accountability. It shares zero jurisprudential common ground with codified systems listed above.

What Paul calls “law” is not law in any legal sense. It is a metaphorical principle rebranded with juridical language to mask its lack of statutory structure, procedural enforcement, or binding communal authority. Thus, the New Testament doesn’t fulfill Torah. It replaces emunah with emotionalism. It displaces the legal with the mystical. It turns a national covenant into private belief. And it betrays the brit at Horev in favor of Hellenistic myth. That is its foundation—and its fraud. The Gospels, guilty of the ultimate betrayal: not just of a man, but of a people, of a legal tradition, and of an oath that still binds the chosen Cohen people.

LikeLike

Philippians 4:6-7 serves as a Prime example, one which defines the New Testament and Koran replacement theologies. The great US vs. Them Divide. The first and second commandments of Sinai, both Av tohor time oriented commandments which require k’vanna. Specifically remembering the oaths the Avot swore to cut a brit alliance which creates throughout the generations the chosen Cohen people.

The relationship between prayer, God, and Christ in Xtian doctrine. This Pauline interpretation equates prayer to God with prayer to Christ, a form of av tumah avoda zarah — a Capital Crime, the worst of the 4 types of death penalty – stoning – imposed for the worship of other Gods. Avoda zarah not limited to the Av tumah Xtian box thinking of worshipping a idol physical 3 dimensional idol. Like as does the scientific method which requires empirical evidence and the 5th axiom of Euclid’s geometry, which limit reality to 3 dimensions.

Rather the Talmud defines the intent of the 2nd Sinai Commandment through two negative commandment, the primary precedents of Torah common law: 1) Do not assimilate and duplicate the ways, customs or manners of any Goy society which rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. 2) Do not intermarry with such Goyim. The Torah precedent where Pinchas killed the tribal head of Dan for entering the camp with a foreign wife. Plus the kabbalah of Kings and Ezra support this interpretation of the 2nd Sinai commandment intent, not to marry alien women who do not obey alien women who do not honor the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – the definitive Torah brit, tohor time oriented commandment which requires the k’vanna of prophetic mussar to obey.

Furthermore, the strict monotheism of the koran – likewise avoda zarah. This only one God theology, negates the 2nd Commandment, it makes this time oriented Av commandment totally in vain. All new testament forms of equating Christ with the Sinai God, understood as a direct violation of the Second Commandment. Just that Simple. Mitzvot do not come by way of “Sin”. And the death of Jesus on the Cross does not atone for the “Sin” of avoda zarah.

Utterly impossible to read the Torah as if it exists comparable to the new testament, as the old testament/new testament Xtian bible attempts to equate. Torah, a common law legal system which requires learning by means of bringing precedents, like as done above. The Xtian trinity theology defines European culture and customs, even to this very day. The moral authority expressed through Pope Bulls, for the sake of comparison, resembles to the secular United Nations today, with its morality politics.

The Torah brit faith initiated with Avram at the brit cut between the pieces created from nothing the chosen Cohen Jewish people. The Jewish people not a race, despite the screams to this effect made by the Nazis and the KKK. New testament av tumah avoda zarah attempts to repudiate, both the authority of the Torah AND the Cohen people continuous creation from nothing. Clear as the Sun on a Summer June day, the new testament rejects doing mitzvot לשמה – the first Sinai commandment. And therefore worships other Gods – the 2nd Sinai commandment. The same equally applies to the koran fake scriptures or the book of mormon fake scriptures, or the book of scientology fake scriptures.

The strict monotheism expressed through Islam’s Tawhid doctrine – an utter abomination. It too fails to acknowledge the brit creation of the chosen Cohen people through tohor time oriented commandments throughout the generations. Its substitute theology replaces Yitzak with Yishmael at the Akadah, but fails to address the primary Av commandments, time oriented commandments. Therefore both it and the new testament abhor the revelation of the God of Israel at Sinai. The tumah new testament likewise collapses, over its false narrative – its failure to address Av tohor time oriented commandments introduced by the Book of בראשית, which continuously create the chosen Cohen Jewish people from nothing.

The Hebrew word “Brit” (ברית) simply not be translated as “Covenant”. Brit refers to the time oriented commandments. Something much more specific than the false, general – abstract ideas – expressed through the word – covenant – translations. A Brit a time-bound, (meaning life/death crisis situation) legal, and national commitment, (such as the akadah represents)—an oath contract, particularly tied to the Jewish Cohen people, forged through the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), and represented through commandment positive and negative precedents which define Av tohor time oriented commandments k’vanna. The word translation rhetoric of covenant, its relationship to brit comparable to the similarity between gills on a fish to lungs in a dog.

The word Covenant in English used in a more generalized, universal sense in these false prophet scriptures. Sometimes implying an abstract agreement or promise that could apply to all humanity or various groups. The God of Sinai, not a Universal God. The false prophet scriptures declare otherwise. Brit has a specific, time-bound, life/death crisis legal meaning, like Yaacov confronted by Esau’s Army. Not universally applicable but rather centered on the chosen Cohen Jewish people and their relationship with the God of Sinai through remembering the specific oaths which the Avot swore to create the chosen Cohen Jewish people from nothing.

Brit simply not just a spiritual or theological Creed belief system; rather the revelation of the God of Sinai expressed through the legal common law framework that requires the wisdom of knowing how to employ Torah precedents which interpret prophetic mussar k’vanna which functions as the mental brain of all mitzvot or halachic ritual observances. Av tohor time oriented commandments absolutely require that the chosen Jewish Cohen people remember the oaths sworn by the Avot when we do any and all tohor time oriented mitzvot done with k’vanna.

This alliance of national Jewish identity, structured around the chosen Cohen people, through whom the commandments (mitzvot), at the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, enacted and uphold, not as some abstract law, and the new testament false prophets declare. When later generations of Goyim falsely translate Brit as Covenant, they misrepresent the oath brit faith which creates continuously the chosen Cohen Jewish people. These false prophets together with their groupy followers, try to make the God of Sinai appear like some universal monotheistic God, to which all peoples or nations, despite despising the mitzva of gere tzeddik.

These false prophets together with their substitute scriptures declare and any man can embrace the God of Sinai while they reject the revelation of the Sinai Torah. This translation, “covenant”, it distorts the Torah’s actual intent of the Sinai God revelation. Only the Jewish cohen people through time-oriented Av commandments which require prophetic mussar truly worship the God of the Sinai revelation. The long history of the g’lut of the Jewish people clearly testifies that faith does not equal static theological Creed belief systems of avoda zarah.

LikeLike

The T’NaCH defines the bitterness of G’lut/exile.

Job 21 — Job’s Seventh Speech: A Response to ZopharThe problem of the prosperity of the wicked.  Important to understand that the T’NaCH has 3 divisions.  The Holy Writings serve the identical role that the Gemara makes a case/din commentary to the Mishna.  The T’NaCH, like the Mishna, both instruct משנה תורה common law.  Meaning, a person does not read T’NaCH or Mishna as if it were a novel or some work of fiction read for pleasure.  Rather, the Holy Writings within the T’NaCH, they function as the בניני אבות\precedents by which scholars learn and interpret the mussar k’vanna of the NaCH prophets.  In their turn the NaCH Prophets serve as precedents to interpret the mussar k’vanna of the Book of דברים or משנה תורה which means “common law”.  The Book of D’varim serves the role of Gemara to the other 4 Books of the Written Torah/Mishna.

It’s this precise sh’itta – methodology of learning – by which a person can study the Torah, NaCH, Holy Writings, Mishna, and Gemara and Midrashim as ONE Common Law Constitutional Basic Law of the Jewish Cohen Peoples’ Republic.  The purpose of this common law legal system, to affix and establish the culture, customs, even minhagim of the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations our people walk upon the face of this Earth.  Therefore, avoda zarah, understood as the arousal of the Yetzer Hara which pursues tuma middot spirits within the hearts of the Jewish people.  Specifically, as expressed through the sex drive: to copy, embrace, and assimilate to non Cohen cultures, customs and practices – specifically through intermarriage with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
Herein concludes this preamble to the Book of Job.__________________________________________________________________________________The Jewish people in Israel have a custom learned from the Goyim to stand in a moment of silence as a way to remember national tragedies.  This behavior compares to war against Moav and Bila’am where Israelis captured vessels made by these Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.  Moshe instituted that Israel purify these Goyim made vessels and garments by plunging them through water and fire.  Any figure of a Goyim god required removal.  Therefore it seems to me that the same applies to standing in a moment of silence.  Jews should learn from the precedent of ליום הזיכרון Rosh HaShanna.  

This Yom Tov, affixed to the Neshama Name of אל dedicated during every 3rd day of the week.  Tefillah a matter of the heart.  The lungs blow air, but the heart blows spirits.  On the 3rd day of the week, the Neshama spirit of אל – dedicated when a man calls Adonai with his lips.  This Yom Tov, Yom HaDin upon the Brit remembers the rebuke of the sin of the Golden Calf.  When the assimilated Jewish ערב רב attempted to replace missing Moshe with a Calf replacement theology.  Replacement theologies the essence of all avoda zarah rather than simply graven images.  The new testament, koran, book of mormon, and scientology all represent replacement theology avoda zara.

The t’shuva made on Rosh HaShanna not the t’shuva made on Yom Kippur.  The latter recalls the Divine t’shuva which annulled the vow to make from Moshe the chosen Cohen people to replace the oath sworn to the Avot.  Hence the two Yom Tov book ends of t’shuva to one another.  (The siren just sounded remembering the fallen soldiers killed in the wars Israel has fought to establish and maintain our national independence as the Cohen nation in the Middle East.  Standing during the siren blast, focused within my heart to remember the oath sworn by Avram at the brit cut between the pieces; the oath of Yitzak sworn at the climax of the Akedah; and the oath sworn by Yaacov when Yitzak caused him and not Esau to inherit the oath britot which create the chosen Cohen people from nothing in all generations through Av tohor time oriented Torah commandments – as applicable in this case, the wailing of the siren to remember our fallen soldiers.  Elevating an action which does not require k’vanna, like positive and negative Torah commandments to an Av tohor time oriented Torah commandment – the essence of breathing Torah life from generation to generation.)

The Book of Job depicts a fictional story of g’lut aggadah.  Hence this Book serves as the Gemara commentary made upon the NaCH prophet Yirmiyahu-Mishna.  The study of common law precedents therefore compares Yirmiyahu 12:1-3 to Job 21.  The logic of פרדס learns NaCH prophets through the 13 Horev Oral Torah middot.  Hence the T’NaCH has the name – Kabbalah.  Just as the Gemara learns the Mishna by means of comparative precedent, so too NaCH prophets learned through בנייני אבות precedents.  The Talmud serves as the authoritative codification of Oral Torah common law.  

A disciplined study of the Talmud, based upon how Rabbeinu Tam learns, requires making a search, not found on the dof of Gemara, of other similar precedents.  The Baalei Tosafot a common law commentary to the Talmud.  The commentary of Rashi, primarily a dictionary of terms explained and defined – called p’shat.  Rashi p’shat on the Talmud does not compare nor resemble Rashi’s common law commentary he made on the Chumash.  Why did Rashi switch his sh’itta of learning?!  Answer: the hatred of the church toward the Talmud.  Rashi feared that if he wrote, like Rabbeinu Tam, a common law commentary to the Talmud – the church priests might grasp the wisdom, how to correctly study the Oral Torah as common law.

Church violence and repression against the Cohen Jewish people forced Rashi to teach Torah learning wisdom, as a secret and concealed kabbalah.   In like manner the sages split how to study the Talmud, whether to prioritize judicial common law interpretation of separate unique case/law vs. codifying halacha into rigid and fixed legal classifications and simplified codes of religious ritual observances.  The difference between the opposing sh’ittot dynamic judicial interpretive laws vs. static religious ritual rote laws.  The latter prioritization prevailed, the opposite of what occurred during the civil war remembered through the Hanukkah lights.

The church threw Jews into ghetto gulags throughout the Middle Ages of European barbarism.  The 30 years war almost obliterated the population of Germany.  Catholic vs Protestant barbarism perhaps inspired the Cossack barbarism which resulted in the mass slaughter of Jews who fled the Pope’s ghetto gulag UN-like-Bull, only to wind-up slaughtered by Cossack barbarians, whose vicious mobs crossed the flat plains of Ukraine and joined the chaotic Polish political anarchy, which withered the Cossack revolt unto its ultimate defeat.  The plains of the Ukraine – ideal for Cossack cavalry horsemanship skills.  Poland – carved up by vicious great power imperialism – another matter altogether different.

The Book of Job depicts the bitter realities which daily confronted life as a stateless refugee who has no political or social rights – like the Palestinian dhimmi Arab populations today.  Jewish g’lut travails, like a woman giving birth, throughout their vain attempts to harmoniously live within European lands – they never in 2000 years received nor witnessed fair judicial justices for damages inflicted upon them by church controlled governments and mobs.  Job’s cry for justice reflects Israel, beaten by the officers of Par’o who withheld the straw they require to meet their quota, tally of bricks – Shemot 5:6–19.

A בנין אב precedent for Yirmeyahu 12:1-3…6:22-30.  Compare employing the inductive logic of פרדס, Job 21 also to D’varim 16:21,22.  Now compare the inductive kabbalah פרדס wisdom B’reishit 5:28 -6:4.  The reputation of those giants – an utterly evil reputation to this day.

LikeLike

A completely different dysfunction: Why the Jews view the Xtian church as the worst Av tuma Nazi -like avoda zarah

The vision of Torah as an oath-based, constitutional brit alliance cut between the chosen Cohen people who alone accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, whose revelation centers upon judicial justice and prophetic mussar—not theological creeds or divine incarnations or false messiah Son of God theological creeds.Silly Xtian, even by the exceptionally low standards of your sophomoric bible translations Proverbs 1:33 says: “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (KJV); this lone verse contained within the larger sugya of 1:20-2:22.

Shlomo rebukes his son for refusal to pursue Oral Torah wisdom. His pursuit of foreign women – cultural adultery – a direct Torah curse which resulted in king Shlomo whoreshipping after church avoda zarah.  Silly Xtian, even by the exceptionally low standards of your sophomoric bible translations Proverbs 1:33 says: “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (KJV). You silly reactionary Goyim have no wisdom. Goyim, they remind me how water behaves on a hot skillet! Ya ball up, bounce around, and make noise.

Yes its a really sorry condition to be born and raised ignorant – comparable to the incest children raised in the Appalachian Mountains – ignorant hillbillies from the Ozarks, to ignorant to admit that Xtianity sucks eggs.

T’NaCH common law learns through precedents. Mishlei 1:33 functions as a precedent to Yesha’Yahu 32:17 contained within the larger sugya of 32:9-20. Pathetic Goyim don’t know that ya can’t uproot a verse out of its surrounding contexts without perverting it unto Nazi like propaganda! T’NaCH — a common law legal system. But you Appalachians don’t know this basic fact, because your church denies the existence of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev.

Truly sucks being as ignorant as sticks. Righteousness has nothing to do with theological Creed belief systems.  The new-testament promotes JeZeus as the messiah Son of God – bull shit. Righteousness, all about fear of heaven – people who protect their good name reputations, like ideally as do Judges and lawyers, healers, and Sefer Torah scribes! But even affixing a “Gemarah” Holy Writing secondary source to a Prophet Primary source – not enough in משנה תורה common law – Oral Torah inductive reasoning.

A scholar, with fear of heaven, learns that Prophet source, to some other precedent Prophetic precedent, then back to the Book of D’varim, and ideally even back to the Book of בראשית, which introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments, which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna.  Doing mitzvot observance with the k’vanna of prophetic mussar separates Av tohor time oriented commandments — from toldot secondary positive/negative commandments and Talmudic ritual halachot — which do not require k’vanna. 

However,,,, if a person weaves prophetic mussar as the weft thread into the warp threads of positive, negative, and Talmudic ritual halachah למעשה, this Torah wisdom elevates them all to Av tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah.  This Av Torah commandment creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing in all generations Israel walks upon the face of the Earth.

Torah law not some new testament bull shit, with a dumb-ass axe to grind; which prostitutes T’NaCH verses to promote its new testament avoda zarah abominations; which believe in av tumah other false messiahs, and nonsensical farcical Chili Pepper talking Gods on a stick.

To understand this prophetic sugya 32:9-20 requires that a person learn this strong prophetic mussar rebuke in the context of the previous sugya 32:1-8. Through the wisdom of Oral Torah Pardes inductive logic reasoning, a close precedent which permits a person to read this same idea viewed from, a fresh and completely different perspective: 5:1-6 of the same prophet. Torah holds tremendous depths, like a diamond has tens of thousands of facet faces!

The new testament Paul and JeZeus – pony show – Goebbels propaganda – declares that a T’NaCH verse only has one narrow meaning, which Xtian church authorities dictate, comparable to how, only the Government can print money!

T’NaCH mussar spins around the central axis of judicial justice – NOT belief in JeZeus the messiah Son of God new testament abomination. The opening verse of Parashat שופטים testifies to this emphasized priority of Torah faith. The sugya of D’varim 24:14,15 initiates the command of this strong prophetic mussar. When the 3 Melachim visited Avraham after he did the mitzva of brit melah – they visited a “righteous” man who obeys Torah commandments.  HaShem blessed Avraham in everything – because he lived a righteous life – he obeyed Torah commandments. 

Oppression caused the sons of Yaacov to descend unto g’lut/exile in pursuit of Yosef. The wicked do not call upon HaShem. The Avot by stark contrast, called upon El Shaddai as their God. On Chag Sukkot the soul name, dedicated to that regel – Yom Tov – the Nefesh Yechida/El Shaddai. Every 5th day of the week kabbalah instructs that a bnai brit man to call from the depths of his heart, the remembrance of the El Shaddai soul dedicated on the regel of Sukkot. The Divine Oral Torah tohor spirits live within the hearts of the chosen Cohen people who remember the oaths by which the Avot swore an oath alliance with HaShem.

HaShem made Moshe a “lord like messiah” to Par’o, which Moshe judged the Gods worshipped by Par’o and the Egyptians as JeZeus like other false Gods. Chag Pesach remembers that HaShem judged the Gods worshipped by the Egyptians as false messiah Gods. The mitzva to remember to expunge the assimilation and intermarried ערב רב, whose fundamentally lack of fear of heaven – the root cause of all Amalek-antisemitism throughout the generations. This Torah curse, comes through Jews pursuing their life interests without remembering the oaths the Avot swore — their tohor time oriented commandments which create the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations, as a living תמיד מעשה בראשית, when ever Israel does tohor Av time oriented commandment with prophetic mussar as their k’vanna.

The ultimate בנין אב-precedent, the Parshah of תרומה! Only a fool could read this Parshah through the silly eyes of טיפש פשט. This Parshah employs the vessels of the Mishkan merely as a משל. Oral Torah פרדס logic demands that the reader make the דיוק logical inference and grasp the נמשל prophetic mussar which instructs the faith, that Israel pursues righteous judicial justice from generation to generation to generation.

LikeLike

Who was the Rambam and what impact did he inflict upon the Jewish people?

Was the 1232 ban only on Moreh Nevuchim or also on Mishneh Torah? It seems to me, that the ban made by the Baali Tosafot covered both. The former treif book openly praised the Arabic interpretations of how to learn Aristotle’s syllogism deductive reasoning. While the latter openly copied, much as did king Shlomo did with his Beit HaMikdosh which duplicated the extravagance of Goyim Temple construction across the world, the egg-crate organization of statute law into subject matter which defines both Greek and Roman legalism which subordinates the legislative review of the courts subsumed before the primary authority of the legislatures or Senates.

The 1232 ban initiated by the Ba’alei Tosafot (specifically the rabbis of Northern France, notably Rabbi Shlomo of Montpellier and his circle) was explicitly focused on Moreh Nevuchim and other philosophical writings by the Rambam. However, it is historically unclear whether Mishneh Torah was officially banned by the same decree — though many critics implicitly or explicitly saw the codification and systematization of halakha in Mishneh Torah as deeply problematic and part of the same rationalist project they opposed.

No post-Tosafist, ghetto-era rabbi succeeded in reestablishing a Talmud-based common law jurisprudence. The yeshiva model after the Shulchan Aruch largely became a pilpulist or posek-based culture, not a dayyanut britit (covenantal judicial reasoning) as modeled by the Talmud. The shift in the yeshiva model after the publication of the “Shulchan Aruch” and the rise of pilpulist and posek-based cultures marked a significant change in Jewish legal practice. This shift has been critiqued for moving away from the dynamic, integrative approach exemplified by the Tosafists.

Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema, 1520–1572) wrote his statute law commentary to the statute law Shulchan Aruch. The idea that communal legal practice, responsa, and local precedent, compares to – much less replaces the sealed masoret of the Talmud patently absurd.

The Maharshal (Rabbi Shlomo Luria, 1510–1573) – In Yam Shel Shlomo, he critiques halakhic decisions made by earlier authorities. But did he go back to the Talmud and weigh the sugyot with a common-law mindset? No. His Yam Shel Shlomo never once acknowledged sugya integrity within the Order and organization of the Talmud. He never once addressed how the Baali Tosafot wrote a common law commentary to the Talmud or how they condemned the Rambam in 1232 for writing a statute law perversion, the first of its kind, of both the T’NaCH and Talmudic and Midrashic common law jurisprudence.

He never once engaged with the methodology of the Baalei HaTosafot, who viewed the Talmud not as a loose anthology of traditions, but as a tightly integrated common law system. The Baalei HaTosafot commentaries cross-referenced parallel sugyot across tractates that reached to the depths of the Yerushalmi.

The process of integrating and harmonizing legal principles and rulings from different sugyot (sections or topics) within the Talmud, known as the etzem ha-mishpat or inter-sugya legal synthesis which involves analyzing various legal discussions, interpretations, and precedents found in multiple sugyot to create a cohesive understanding of halacha, his commentary never once achieved.

Etzem ha-mishpat represents the essence, the core of legal reasoning, focusing on how different legal arguments and rulings can be reconciled or applied in a unified manner. This approach allows scholars and jurists to derive comprehensive legal conclusions that reflect the complexity and dynamism of Jewish law, rather than treating each sugya in isolation. By engaging in this synthesis, legal authorities can address contemporary issues while remaining rooted in traditional sources, ensuring that halacha – most essentially common law – does not descend unto the legal corruption of assimilated Greek and Roman statute law Hades. The latter grossly fails to evolve in response to new circumstances while maintaining its imaginary Talmudic foundational principles, as the Rambam so – bold faced – falsely declared.

The Rashbam predates the Rambam, his intellectual lineage among Tosafists reflects an earlier form of Ashkenazi resistance to rationalism. The Paris rabbis explicitly publicly opposed the Rambam’s statute law perversion of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. The Goyim threw the Jews into ghetto gulags for 3 Centuries but rabbinic leadership betrayed and abandoned judical Jewish courtroom common law. Rabbinic Torts damages courts utterly forsook the 3 man Courts division of labor which divide the Court organization into Judge, prosecuting attorney, and defense attorney as the definition of all Torts 3 man courtrooms! This retreat from common law Talmudic courts, commanded not to accept bribes, compares to Kashrut mash’gichim who receive their salaries from the stores they police! An absolute and utter corruption of Talmudic common law.

The Tosafists did not codify—they commented dynamically, upheld disputes, and refused the false security of closure. This, the hallmark of covenantal jurisprudence: law as a living court process, and most definitely not some arrogant appeal to authority – imperial fiat. The later pilpul schools which sprouted as weeds following the Gra utterly failed to grasp.

After the Shulchan Aruch, the yeshiva model shifted towards a pilpulist or posek-based culture, moving away from the dayyanut britit (covenantal judicial reasoning) exemplified by the Talmud. Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema) wrote his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch, which represented statute law, but (as previously stated) the notion that communal legal practice and local precedent could replace the Talmud’s sealed masoret simply fundamentally flawed.

Etzem ha-mishpat, or inter-sugya legal synthesis, represents the core of legal reasoning, allowing for the reconciliation of diverse legal arguments. This synthesis absolutely essential for addressing contemporary issues while remaining rooted in tradition; to ensure that halacha retains its common law essence and does not devolve into the corruption of assimilated Greek and Roman statute law, as falsely promoted by the Rambam.

Despite the challenges faced by Jews in the ghetto, rabbinic leadership felt itself forced to abandoned the judicial common law system, forsaking the three-man court structure essential for Torts damage law suits. This retreat parallels the corruption seen in kashrut supervision, where mash’gichim in Israel today face conflicts of interest! Who pays their salaries?

Rabbinic divorce courts today make the public חלול השם ברבים when they permit רשעים to publicly profane their sworn oath made before kosher witnesses and a minyan of Jews, these רשעים have no shame. Their arrogance imprisons their ex-wives to the disgraceful status of agunah! Because the post Rambam Civil War rabbis ignorantly fail to grasp the implications of the Shemittah precedent which permits Jewish farmers to sell their produce to a “beit din” (a rabbinical court) or to a non-Jewish entity.

This action, done to circumvent the prohibition of working the land and to allow for the distribution of produce while adhering to the laws of Sh’mitta. The precedent of prosbul serves as a primary precedent. The mitzva of kiddushin absolutely requires than the baal acquire Title to the nefesh O’lam Ha’ba of his wife; meaning he acquires – based upon the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces which created the chosen Cohen people from nothing – the baal acquires title to all the seed produced in the world to come/future of this marital union. Another worthy and similar precedent, the minchag of selling חמץ before Pesach to Goyim.

Statute law pesel Judaism, which dominated ghetto Jewry in Europe, abysmally failed to grasp that the divorce Beit Din has the power to impose the ban of נידוי upon the רשע ex-husband, based upon the precedent of gere tzeddik as a “new creation”. The דיוק of this mitzva, that the reverse din of כרת equally expels and cuts off this רשע, who publicly makes false oaths – as כרת, not part of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. The divorce beit din has the power to retro-actively annul the original kiddushin. Therefore the divorce beit din has the Torah authority to issue the required ‘get’ to the imprisoned agunah ex-wife, permitting her to make k’ddushin with a man who has fear of heaven, permitting them to sanctify the mitzva of fruitful and multiply.

The concepts discussed in Ketubot 3a and Yevamot 90b provide important precedents for the authority of a divorce Beit Din to place an ex-baal into נידוי and subsequently issue a get that frees the agunah prisoner. Ketubot 3a: discusses the obligations of a husband to his wife, including the financial responsibilities outlined in the ketubah (marriage contract). It emphasizes the importance of the husband’s role in providing for his wife and the consequences of failing to fulfill these obligations. If a husband refuses to grant a divorce or fulfill his marital duties, the court can take action against him, including placing him in נידוי. Unlike the Aggadic 3 oaths, which religious Jews quote in order to denounce Zionism, found at the end of mesechta Ketubah, the baal has Torah/halachic obligations toward maintaining the dignity of his wife.

The rationale, a husband who neglects his responsibilities to his wife, simply not acting in accordance with Jewish law and community standards, thus justifying the court’s immediate intervention. No רשע should ever assume his refusal to give a get to his ex constitutes as a powerful weapon of revenge – a direct negative Torah commandment.

Yevamot 90b: This passage addresses the concept of a husband who refuses to grant a get, particularly in cases where his decision acts against the interests of his wife. The Talmud discusses the authority of the Beit Din to impose sanctions on such a husband, including excommunication. The reasoning: that the court has the responsibility to protect the rights of the agunah and ensure that does not abuse his get obligations which could leave her in a state of marital limbo. By placing the husband in נידוי, the court exerts pressure on him to comply with the law and grant the divorce. The Gemara of Sahedrin attributes the floods in the days of Noach to false oaths. The mitzva of kiddushin directly swears an oath alliance based upon the oath brit sworn at the brit cut between the pieces which eternally תמיד מעשה בראשית creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing.

The combination of these two sources establishes a legal framework that empowers the Beit Din to act decisively in cases of refusal of the baal to returned the nefesh O’lam Ha’ba soul of his wife. The imposition of נידוי serves as a means of compelling the ex-husband to fulfill this Torah warning – not to make vain oaths. The threat to the security of the World, thereby mandates the court to issue the get following the ban. This action ultimately frees the agunah from her state of marital imprisonment, enabling her to remarry and move forward with her life.

In summary, Ketubot 3a and Yevamot 90b provide the necessary precedents for the Beit Din to impose נידוי on an ex-husband who refuses to grant a divorce, thereby facilitating the issuance of a get and addressing the plight of the agunah.

Consequent to the 1306 expulsion of all Jews from France which obliterated the Rashi/Tosafot common law commentaries made upon the Talmud, and ultimately crippled common law T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship – on par with the 1242 disaster of the public burning of all Talmudic manuscripts in France! The destruction of evidence means that no conclusive proof exists that a majority of the Baali Tosafot condemned the Rambam. Clearly Rabbi Moshe ben Yaakov of Coucy, known also as the Smag, this Baali Tosafot who wrote Sefer Mitzvot Gadol – clearly rejected the condemnation made by the “majority” of the Baali Tosafot; based upon the simple fact that only on two occasions does the Baali Tosafot commentary mention the Rambam and no both occasions in the whole of the Sha’s; they rejected and opposed his halachic posok both times.

Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir, known as the Smak, another Baali Tosafot scholar noted for his support of lifting the נידוי that had been placed upon Maimonides in 1232 by “a group of rabbis” in Paris, including many of the Ba’alei Tosafot. Some rabbis attempt to limit the excommunication only to the Moreh’s exultation of Greek logic. However, organizing law into defined subject matter, as does the Rambam code, equally represents the influence of Greek and Roman statute law. But name the Yad – Mishna Torah – an utter perversion due to the simple fact that Rabbi’s Mishna based its name upon the Book of דברים having the second name משנה תורה. The Book of D’varim defines the Torah judicial legal system as common law. For the Rambam to distort this Torah name with his statute law code, this absolute לשון הרע merits that he like Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), that the reputation of his name for ever rots.

In the early 2000s a group of rabbis, which amazingly included myself for a spell, attempted to re-establish a Federal lateral common law Sanhedrin court system together with the small Sanhedrin cities of refuge. Rebuilding dayyanut britit rather than posek-based rulings – my dream. Reliance upon the Talmud as the basic model for a Federal Sanhedrin court system across all 12 Tribes of the Republic. Restoring the legitimacy of beit din as a sovereign legal authority, capable of acting boldly in the face of injustice (as in the agunah case), guided by Talmudic precedent, not shackled by post-codification legal inertia. Alas I personally failed, the Yatzir to impose legal halachic closures, which defines Judaism today, dominated the hearts of my peers. The Rambam Yad triggered a tectonic shift in halakhic consciousness.

LikeLike

How to study the Talmud through wisdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LikeLike