Yeshua: Torah Fulfilled?

9 thoughts on “Yeshua: Torah Fulfilled?”

1. Why Xtian “Heart felt prayer” compares to taking a dump in a stream and laughing at the people down stream who drink the water.

   The term “heartfelt prayer” qualifies as religious rhetoric pie in the sky nonsense/narishkeit in Yiddish. Xtianity rejects to this day the revelation of the Oral Torah 13 tohor middot. The inductive dynamic logic of this tohor logic system – impossible to employ Aristotle or Plato’s static deductive logic to grasp and understand an entirely different logic system all together and completely opposed to rigid block like thinking. The Egyptians logic based upon “block” thinking – its how they built the Pyramids.

   Inductive reasoning stands upon the foundation of Order. G O D vs D O G. Order changes everything. Hence the Jewish prayerbook called Siddur. This word contains the 3 letter root verb ס ד ר – which means “Order”. The Oral Torah which the church rejects, despite the fact that the mitzva of Moshiach – an Oral Torah commandment. Oral Torah dynamics stand upon the foundation of Order. Law intent learned by “ordering” comparative precedent cases that oppose one another like a prosecutor vs a defense attorney. Hebrew verbs build around 3 letter roots. ק ד ש this root verb can either mean Holy or Prostitute/whore. Hagel’s logic dialectics of the late 19th Century, his logic format too focused upon Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. This 3rd Law of Motion by definition dynamic and not static. Hence for Newton to derive this law he had to develop Calculus rather than rely upon static Algebra.

   Algebra is essential in static engineering, particularly in the design and analysis of structures like bridges. While Aristotle’s syllogism itself is not directly based on a triangle, it can be represented visually in a triangular format to illustrate the relationships between the premises and the conclusion. In this triangular format, you can think of the major premise at the top, the minor premise on one side, and the conclusion on the other side. This triangular representation emphasizes the static nature of deductive reasoning, where the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed by the truth of the premises, provided that the premises are valid. It illustrates how logical arguments can be constructed in a clear and structured manner, making it easier to analyze and understand the relationships between different statements.

   The Church abhors to this day the Talmud b/c this codification of Oral Torah common law builds around inductive dynamic logic rather than deductive static logic. Court legal cases compare precedent previous rulings – a dynamic reasoning process similar but different than Newton’s calculus and Hegels bi-polar dialectics. Hebrew logic spins around the central axis of making the דיוק, roughly translated as logical inference. Case law compares to the 3 different views contained in a blue print. The Human aging process a slow dynamic of change in the body.

   The Mishna presents, using the blue print metaphor, as the front view of One or Two similar Cases argued before Sanhedrin common law courtrooms. The Gemara brings external Cases – known as halacha – from different mesechtot of the 6 Orders of the Mishna. The word Mishna which rabbi Yechuda named for his Oral Torah codification comes from the Book of D’varim – also known as משנה תורה\Mishna Torah (Not to be confused with the Rambam perversion, his statute static law code which presumptuously named Mishna Torah. This deranged rabbi did not know that Mishna Torah means “Common Law”. Hence Jews who have a bit of Torah education refer to his legal codification of Halacha as “Yad Chazaka/Strong Hand”.). The 5th Book of the Torah defines Torah law as a common law legal system! Hence rabbi Yechuda as head of the Great Sanhedrin named his common law codification – the Mishna.

   The Gemara commentary to the Mishna therefore brings other halachic precedents gathered from any of the other Orders of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna as Top or Side view precedents to understand the Front view of the cases – as presented by the basic language of the Mishna itself. By folding the Gemara precedents back upon the very language of the Mishna the Frontal view changes to a different perspective. Something akin to looking at different facets of a diamond. Herein defines how the Gemara “commentary” understood the simple language of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishnaot as partially codified within the Yerushalmi and Bavli Talmuds.
   ____________________________________________________________________________________

   With this introduction can now address the distinction between Hebrew tefillah from non Jewish “prayer”. The latter does not correctly translate the former. Non Jewish prayer similar to saying Tehillem/Psalms. Saying Tehillem a person never says שם ומלכות, an abstract term essential to comprehend a Torah brit alliance. Tefillah based upon its Order: 3 + 13 + 3 blessings, this Order recombines into 613, the number of commandments of the Torah according to the רשע, the Rambam. In his defense – his Yad static code perversion greatly contributed to saving the Hebrew language from going extinct and becoming just another dead language like ancient Greek or Latin. Its exceptionally important to validate the merits of the Rambam. He might be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.

   A bit of a digression but his code caused a Civil War among Jews which it appears to me caused the down water streams of Yiddishkeit to endure 3 Centuries of ghetto gulags. The Rambam has a tremendous impact upon Jewry. His code compares to Earth Tectonic plates! Orthodox Judaism stands upon the foundations of the static statute law codes introduced by the Yad, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch. These static codes served the petrified environmental conditions of the ghetto gulags perfectly. But when Napoleon freed the Yidden from the Catholic war-crimes, the “shit hit the fan”. Reform Judaism declared the static statute law codes archaic and the American and French Revolutions made the huge innovation – separation of church from state – which gave birth to secularism. Chiloni Jews in Israel and g’lut/exile\Jews living in foreign countries – secular non religious Jews. Judaism the religion which the chiloni Jews reject – based upon the perversion of deductive statute law halachic codes.
   ________________________________________________________________________

   The Order of tefillah 3 + 13 + 3 makes a numerical רמז/hint to the 6 Yom Tov + Shabbat. The 13 middle blessings contained within the body of the Shemone Esrei tefillah DeRabbanan, adjacent to tefillah from the Torah – the kre’a shma. This opening verse: Hear Israel HaShem our God HaShem One, contains – 3 Divine Names just as the blessing of the Cohenim contains 3 blessings. Hence the Shemone Esrei contains 3 ___ 3 blessings. The key concept that a blessing requires שם ומלכות, herein defines the key pre-condition of swearing a Torah oath alliance! Neither word can be translated. A טיפש פשט/bird brained translation of Name + Kingship = tits on a boar hog stupidity. Common law not read like a novel or Harry Potter gospel books of fiction. Xtians read their bible mistranslations. Common law learned through the dynamics of bringing Case/Rule precedents/halachot.

   Hence to cut a Torah brit requires שם ומלכות. Neither the Xtian bible nor Muslim koran ever once brings the Name of השם ever within tomes/tombs homophones. Returning to _____ +13 _____. Why 13 middle blessings within the “Order” of the Shemone Esrei. The 13 middot of the Oral Torah revealed to Moshe at Horev following the Golden Calf “substitution theology” avoda zarah. Post the טיפש פשט, literal translation of “Golden Calf”, HaShem made a vow to substitute the seed of Moshe for the seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov as the chosen Cohen People. Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to the Avot concerning the creation of the chosen Cohen people by means of Av tohor time oriented commandments (both kre’a shma and tefillah qualify as Av tohor time oriented commandments). On Yom Kippur HaShem made t’shuva (as opposed to the טיפש פשט translation of repentance) upon His error of substitute theology and annulled the vow! Hence both a father and a husban can annul the vow made by a young daughter or a wife! But not even HaShem can annul a Torah sworn oath. Hence the טיפש פשט of the Xtian reading of Jerimiah “new covenant”; covenant does not correctly translate brit which actually means “sworn alliance”. To swear a brit alliance requires that a man swear this oath in the Name of HaShem. This Name absent in the bible and koran – different and strange tome/tomb nonsense. Translating the 1st Commandment Spirit to crude word translations = the Sin of the Golden Calf.

   To grasp the priority of Order, the Torah organized into 54 divisions called Parshiot. שם ומלכות … four (letters in the Name) X 13 (Oral Torah middot) = 52. The two remaining Parshiot contain the blessings and curses of the Torah. The Talmud in mesechta shabbat refers to these to Parshiot as the “two Crowns of the Torah”. A man in order to accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai must embrace, like a man does his wife following their wedding, responsibilities of Life or Death — blessing or curse — rule the oath lands with justice or endure Par’o like oppression in g’lut.

   Therefore the mitzva of tefillah, a man ideally stands before a Sefer Torah and swears a brit Torah oath which dedicates (just like a korban placed upon the altar of Zion) defined tohor middot לשמה. Meaning a man dedicates how he will conduct his social life with his family neighbors and people in the future! Herein separates and distinguishes the fundament differences between reading prayers of Psalms as read from a book and swearing a Torah oath with dedicates tohor middot as the king which directs a man’s future social behavior with others among his people. Why? Because Israel came out of the judicial oppression of Par’o corrut courtroom ‘Star Court’, to conquer and rule the land of Canaan with righteous judicial court room common law justice. Jewish common law completely different from Legislative statute law decrees — like Jewish courtroom common law absolutely estranged from Greek and Roman statute decrees ruled from some foreign Roman Senate.

   Tefillah a matter of the heart. Based upon the instruction of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna in ברכות which explains בכל לבבך\כם as the struggle between opposing spirits – tohor vs. tuma – within the heart. The mitzva of blowing the Shofar interprets שם component of the brit sworn oath as a breath blown. But k’vanna separates, like shabbat from chol, the spirit living within the heart from the air emitted from the lungs. Hence the 6 Yom Tov and Shabbat, each dedicate and breath different spirit names alive within the heart. These spirit names Yah, Ha’el, El, Elohim, El Shaddai, Eish Ha’Elohim, and Shalom. The 3 ____ 3 Order of the Shemone Esrei makes a רמז\hint to this deep kabbalah which answers why tefillah requires k’vanna.

   Reply

   • Greetings:
     Thank you for sharing such a passionate and eye-opening perspective. As someone from the U.S. who has recently begun returning to the roots of Torah and embracing Israel’s covenantal calling, I’m beginning to understand the richness of *tefillah* and the profound meaning behind *שם ומלכות*—the invocation of God’s Name and Sovereignty. It’s more than prayer; it’s a declaration of loyalty within a sacred oath, deeply rooted in order and purpose.

     I truly feel as if I’ve been wandering in the desert for the last forty years—searching, thirsting, unaware of just how far I was from the Source. Your analogy of ‘heartfelt prayer’ and the stream hit me deeply; it sounded like something from my own unspoken thoughts. I never realized how much I was missing until I began to see the difference between emotional sincerity and covenantal alignment.

     Thank you for helping shine light on this path. There’s so much to unlearn, and so much more to embrace. Let’s keep sharing truth, with boldness and wisdom, for the sake of those still searching. Shabbat Shalom

     Reply

     • 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.

       Reply

     • In the shadow of the past, they twist and turn,
       Revisionist tongues, where the embers burn.
       “Genocide” they cry, as their hollowed refrain,
       While December’s Tora diminishes in willful disdain.

       Infamy cloaked in a selective veil,
       As kingdoms of Judea fade, their stories pale.
       Three crowns of defiance, in history’s grip,
       While the Arab presence slips, a phantom’s trip.

       Jordan’s grasp on Samaria, a name to erase,
       “West Bank” they call it, a political face.
       No state for the people, no dreams to ignite,
       Just shadows of rulers who vanished from sight.

       Egypt held Gaza, a fleeting charade,
       Yet Nasser’s ambitions left nothing but shade.
       Arafat’s embrace of a name, ’64 newly found,
       In the wake of recapture, the truth’s tightly bound.

       Revisionist whispers, like ghosts in the night,
       Denying the horrors, distorting the light.
       To compare Gaza as Holocaust, a vile, bitter jest,
       In the theater of history, they fail the true test.

       So let them rewrite, let them spin their tale,
       But the weight of the truth will forever prevail.
       For history’s not written by lies that deceive,
       Though buried in Arab sands of deception & fraud,
       Israel arises in Zion, on its own ancient National feet.

       Greetings Rickey AM, if you slap the term “genocide” onto Israel’s response to the Oct 7th Abomination War, then intellectual honesty demands you paste the same label on the Dec 7th, 1941 assault—the “day of infamy”—which launched America into World War II. Accusing Israel of genocide while excusing the Allies’ firebombing of Tokyo and atomic obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reveals either flagrant hypocrisy or ideological dishonesty.

       Revisionist hacks whitewash the role Arab states played between 1948 and 1967, fabricating a myth in which a sovereign Palestine once flourished—until Israel supposedly destroyed it.

       In truth, Jews rooted themselves in the land through three distinct political eras:

       The united Twelve-Tribe Kingdom,

       The Judean Republic under Persian suzerainty, and

       The Hasmonean Dynasty, which threw off Greek-Syrian domination through armed revolt.

       No Arab or Muslim polity ever ruled a sovereign state in the land now called Israel. Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan occupied Samaria—renaming it the “West Bank” in a rhetorical land grab—but never lifted a finger to forge a Palestinian state. The British Mandate for Palestine dissolved in 1948; no successor Arab government attempted to revive it.

       Egypt, likewise, seized control of Gaza. Despite the 1950 UN condemnation (endorsed by every member state except England and Pakistan), Egypt’s monarch made no moves toward Palestinian statehood. Nasser later toppled that king, but Arafat didn’t even adopt the term “Palestine” until 1964—just three years before Israel’s recapture of both Gaza and Samaria. The PLO’s founding charter, penned under Arab occupation, refused to claim either territory; instead, it called for Israel’s destruction. Their silence about Gaza and the West Bank in 1964 screams louder than any later propaganda.

       Revisionist history mimics Holocaust denial by distorting the record, concealing cause and context, and blaming the victim for surviving.

       When Ben-Gurion and the Zionist leadership named the new state “Israel,” they didn’t merely select a name—they resurrected an identity. “Israel” evoked ancient sovereignty, tethered modern Jewish nationalism to ancestral roots, and announced a reborn nation. This name galvanized a people and reshaped geopolitics.

       Had the Jews named the state “Palestine,” the identity landscape might have fractured. For centuries, “Palestine” referred to geography—not Arab nationality. During the British Mandate, the term “Palestinian” often denoted Jews, not Arabs. Arabs roundly rejected both the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, which carved out a Jewish National Home. That rejection didn’t spring from a desire for Palestinian independence—it flowed from opposition to Jewish statehood.

       The Jerusalem Post bore the title Palestine Post during the Mandate, further underlining the term’s original association with Jews. The Zionist movement, founded on Herzl’s vision, drew legitimacy from the Balfour Declaration. Every Arab war against Israel traces back to Arab rejection of Jewish self-determination.

       Foreign propaganda outfits often deploy the word “created” to smear Israel as artificial or illegitimate. But in 1947, two-thirds of the UN voted in favor of Jewish self-determination in the Middle East. Following Israel’s Declaration of Independence, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union immediately recognized the Jewish state. Yet Arab states categorically rejected the British-sponsored UN Resolution 181 and waged war to erase Israel from the map.

       The emergence of a “Palestinian Arab” national identity didn’t arise in a cultural vacuum—it developed as a reaction to Zionism and the Jewish victory in the War of Independence. Jewish sovereignty forced clarity onto a region long trapped in imperial ambiguity.

       We didn’t steal a land. We reclaimed a homeland—and we won our war of national survival. Arab propaganda still clings to the word “created” because it cannot stomach the truth: Israel wasn’t manufactured by foreigners. Jews rebuilt it. Fought for it. Bled for it. Secured it.

       The Palestinian national identity emerged in opposition to Zionism, not as a longstanding expression of sovereignty. Historical facts—like the Jewish political presence across millennia, the origins of the term “Palestinian,” and the legitimacy of Israel’s statehood—have been distorted by propaganda.

       Reply

     • A Review of German Leaders During WWII

       Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) spat out speeches that shackled education to the Führerprinzip. This “Leader Principle,” the iron gauntlet gripping Nazi Germany, crushed democratic voices and pulverized collective will beneath the sole rule of the Führer—Hitler’s ruthless dominion. It throttled dissent, enslaved minds, and forged a dictatorship of absolute obedience.

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

       Dietrich Bonhoeffer thundered opposition at Nazism from its dawn. He hurled blistering public condemnations at Hitler’s regime, especially its savage persecution of Jews, and hammered together the Confessing Church to shatter the Nazi state’s iron grip on Christianity.

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

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

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

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

       Meanwhile, the Vatican under Pope Pius XII held its silence like a fortress of cowardice. Despite witnessing the Confessing Church’s fierce opposition, Pius XII calculated cold diplomacy over righteous outcry. When Rome’s Jews faced deportation in 1943, he offered hollow excuses instead of incendiary condemnation, betraying the innocent to the machinery of death.

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

       Reply

     • Goyim Product Recall: The German Jesus

       Fritz Veigel, born on May 4, 1908, in Heilbronn, passed the first theological service examination in Tübingen in the spring of 1931. As a city vicar in Blaubeuren, he was involved with the German Christians, also with propaganda writings. In 1935, Veigel moved to Thuringia. A return to the Württemberg pastoral service was denied to him due to his beliefs. He died as a soldier on March 7, 1942, at the Eastern Front.

       Source: Fritz Veigel, The Brown Church, Stuttgart-Berlin: W. Kohlhammer, n.d. (1934).

       “If one asks us: Is Hitler a Christian? we confidently say: Yes! For neither does saying “Lord, Lord” make one a Christian, nor have the speakers of the Christian churches outside their professional sermons used a more pious language than he. Moreover, it is nonsense to ask such a question. Have we not been tormented long enough with such trivialities or pieties as: Is Goethe a Christian? Is Emperor Wilhelm a Christian? If such questions must be asked, then was Christ a Christian? We are not a) humans, b) Christians, and it is not our Christianity that makes us just, but how we are human is what is measured—if at all measured by human standards. Truly, Christ did not come into the world as a foreign addition, but ‘he came into his own,’ and his dominion and glory do not stop at the church boundaries!

       To us, Hitler is the German man of God, who lives prayers in incomprehensibly great brotherly love and has affixed his will to God’s wonderful omnipotence. Just as Luther once fought the struggles and victories of an entire era in his breast, so Hitler is for us the dawn of a new millennium—the German history and church history. Just as Luther gave a great emphasis and a unified face to a fragmented, multi-voiced, noisy time through his faith and his deeds, so Hitler is for us the norm of the present and the guarantor of the future, and therefore all our pious insights, plans, and hopes also originate from this name.

       Luther took the leap out of the deepest, most pronounced piety of his time, went out of the monastery in faith into the world because he no longer wanted to fill God’s ears with his vain and arbitrary piety—and he believed.

       Hitler endured in the starkest reality and worldliness of the world, although and because it seemed completely abandoned by God, and did not want to suffer the divine blessing to leave this world—and he believed.

       And in both cases, the faith of a new century began with their deeds. And in both cases, armies of evil spirits were swept away as if by a blow. Mammonism, pacifism, materialism—the idols of the most recent past. Before the new faith, they become small wretchednesses.”

       Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Reply

   • How to correctly study and learn the Talmud.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Key Concepts for Studying the Talmud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Reply

2. In the Shadow of the Lie, In the Light of the Brit … Blood and Brit: A Judgment Against Revision and Hypocrisy.

   In the shadow of the past, they twist and turn,
   Revisionist tongues, where the embers burn.
   Genocide,” they cry—a hollow refrain,
   While Tora! Tora! fades in disdain.(1).

   Infamy cloaked in a selective veil,
   As kingdoms of Judea fade, their stories pale.
   Three crowns of defiance, in history’s grip,
   While the Arab presence slips, a phantom’s trip.

   Jordan’s grasp on Samaria, a name to erase,
   “West Bank” they call it, a political face.
   No state for the people, no dreams to ignite,
   Just shadows of rulers who vanished from sight.

   Egypt held Gaza, a fleeting charade,
   Yet Nasser’s ambitions left nothing but shade.
   Arafat’s embrace of a name, ’64 newly found,
   In the wake of recapture, the truth’s tightly bound.

   Revisionist whispers, like ghosts in the night,
   Denying the horrors, distorting the light.
   To compare Gaza as Holocaust, a vile, bitter jest,
   In the theater of history, they fail the true test.

   So let them rewrite, let them spin their tale,
   But the weight of the truth will forever prevail.
   For history’s not written by lies that deceive,
   Though buried in Arab sands of deception & fraud,
   Israel arises in Zion, on its own ancient National feet.

   WordPress participants, if you slap the term “genocide” onto Israel’s response to the Oct 7th Abomination War, then intellectual honesty demands you paste the same label on the Dec 7th, 1941 assault—the “day of infamy”—which launched America into World War II. Accusing Israel of genocide while excusing the Allies’ firebombing of Tokyo and atomic obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reveals either flagrant hypocrisy or ideological dishonesty.

   Revisionist hacks whitewash the role Arab states played between 1948 and 1967, fabricating a myth in which a sovereign Palestine once flourished—until Israel supposedly destroyed it.

   In truth, Jews rooted themselves in the land through three distinct political eras:

   The united Twelve-Tribe Kingdom,

   The Judean Republic under Persian suzerainty, and

   The Hasmonean Dynasty, which threw off Greek-Syrian domination through armed revolt.

   No Arab or Muslim polity ever ruled a sovereign state in the land now called Israel. Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan occupied Samaria—renaming it the “West Bank” in a rhetorical land grab—but never lifted a finger to forge a Palestinian state. The British Mandate for Palestine dissolved in 1948; no successor Arab government attempted to revive it. Arab states rejected UN 181, Britain’s feeble divide and conquer UN 242. Post the Nakba defeat and Israeli Independence, the UN has no authority to impose 194 – “right of return” upon the Jewish state. Despite the Goebbels repeated mantra refrain: Zionist entity Crusader State.

   Egypt, likewise, seized control of Gaza. Despite the 1950 UN condemnation (endorsed by every member state except England and Pakistan), Egypt’s monarch made no moves toward Palestinian statehood. Nasser later toppled that king, but Arafat didn’t even adopt the term “Palestine” until 1964—just three years before Israel’s recapture of both Gaza and Samaria. The PLO’s founding charter, penned under Arab occupation, refused to claim either territory; instead, it called for Israel’s destruction. Their silence about Gaza and the West Bank in 1964 screams louder than any later propaganda.

   Revisionist history mimics Holocaust denial by distorting the record, concealing cause and context, and blaming the victim for surviving.

   When Ben-Gurion and the Zionist leadership named the new state “Israel,” they didn’t merely select a name—they resurrected an identity. “Israel” evoked ancient sovereignty, tethered modern Jewish nationalism to ancestral roots, and announced a reborn nation. This name galvanized a people and reshaped geopolitics.

   Had the Jews named the state “Palestine,” the identity landscape might have fractured. For centuries, “Palestine” referred to geography—not Arab nationality. During the British Mandate, the term “Palestinian” often denoted Jews, not Arabs. Arabs roundly rejected both the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, which carved out a Jewish National Home. That rejection didn’t spring from a desire for Palestinian independence—it flowed from opposition to Jewish statehood.

   The Jerusalem Post bore the title Palestine Post during the Mandate, further underlining the term’s original association with Jews. The Zionist movement, founded on Herzl’s vision, drew legitimacy from the Balfour Declaration. Every Arab war against Israel traces back to Arab rejection of Jewish self-determination.

   Foreign propaganda outfits often deploy the word “created” to smear Israel as artificial or illegitimate. But in 1947, two-thirds of the UN voted in favor of Jewish self-determination in the Middle East. Following Israel’s Declaration of Independence, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union immediately recognized the Jewish state. Yet Arab states categorically rejected the British-sponsored UN Resolution 181 and waged war to erase Israel from the map.

   The emergence of a “Palestinian Arab” national identity didn’t arise in a cultural vacuum—it developed as a reaction to Zionism and the Jewish victory in the War of Independence. Jewish sovereignty forced clarity onto a region long trapped in imperial ambiguity.

   We didn’t steal a land. We reclaimed a homeland—and we won our war of national survival. Arab propaganda still clings to the word “created” because it cannot stomach the truth: Israel wasn’t manufactured by foreigners. Jews rebuilt it. Fought for it. Bled for it. Secured it.

   The Palestinian national identity emerged in opposition to Zionism, not as a longstanding expression of sovereignty. Historical facts—like the Jewish political presence across millennia, the origins of the term “Palestinian,” and the legitimacy of Israel’s statehood—have been distorted by propaganda.

   “There are those who parade mitzvos in public and butcher the brit in private.” Yet even as we confront the lies of nations, we must confront the lies we whisper to ourselves—in the shadows of our courts and the corners of our sanctuaries.

   They sculpt their piety for the crowd. They cloak themselves in tallit and tefillin while gutting mishpat behind locked doors. Their lips chant hallel; their hands extort, manipulate, betray. They don Torah like theater, not oath. They fear scandal, not sin. Exposure, not exile. They crave applause, not HaShem’s judgment. They hijack yirat shamayim and weaponize it for social control.

   “And there are those who break Torah laws in Zion, but build it in secret.”

   They offend the eye. They scandalize the synagogue. They clash with halakhic decorum. But when no one watches, they feed the widow, guard the convert, return the lost. They wrestle with the brit in the dead of night. No banners. No blessings. Just emunah forged in sweat and silence. They cut paths through darkness while the righteous sleep.

   “I prefer the latter.”

   The Kotzker doesn’t flinch. He scorches the hypocrite. He crowns the broken. He hunts the soul that bleeds for justice while the choir sings. Better the one who stumbles in daylight but plants mishpat in the shadows than the one who dazzles the crowd while hollowing out Sinai with assimilated Greek logic and statute halachic codes. Better the sinner who limps toward HaShem than the Cohen who flees like naked Adam who clothes himself in gold and titles.

   A Mashal: The Two Sons of the King: Yitzak & Yishmael

   To what may this be compared? To a King who had two sons.

   One son dressed each morning in royal garments. He walked the palace courts with a Koran under his arm and Molotov cocktail burning in the wind while publicly fasting on Ramadan to show honor to the homeless poor. When courtiers passed, he bowed low and recited Surahs & Ayahs in full voice. He offered tithes from the royal table and dipped his bread with flourish. But in the cellar—where no servant dared tread—his corrupted scales weighted profits from theft, scrolls smeared with lies, two separate accounting books. His voice rang holy; but his hands shed the innocent blood of corruption.

   The other son wore torn g’lut clothes and wandered the outer gates. He walked upon dusty roads while his lofty brother goose stepped upon paved sidewalks. He spoke roughly, fought openly, and refused to step into any court which switched the syllogism for פרדס(2). When he prayed tefillah within his heart, the k’vanna did not address any God in the Heavens, but rather he stood before the Torah ark and remembered the oaths sworn by the Avot. The ministers mocked him; the elders wrote him off. But by night he visited the sick. He buried the forgotten. He returned coins dropped by the blind. His door on Shabbat remained open to orphans and strangers. He studied Torah alone, by candle, and wept when he did not understand its common law פרדס inductive logic. No trumpet announced his deeds. No ledger recorded them but the King’s.

   When the Day of Reckoning came, both sons were summoned. The first stood proud, wrapped in Alba, Stole, Chasuble, Cincture, Pectoral Cross, and Liturgical Colors. The second stood silent, eyes lowered, hands crusted and scarred. And the King said:

   “Better the son who stumbles in the street but guards My brit in secret, than the one who honors Me with his lips but who Koran never once mentions the brit in print. (3) For I do not seek actors in My court, but servants who carry justice in the marrow of their bones.”

   Thus taught the Kotzker Rebbe: “Give me no angel wrapped in costume. Give me the soul that limps, bleeds, hides—but clings to HaShem with both fists.”

   Chagigah 5b:

   The baal teshuvah does not merely regret; he wrestles, burns, and rebuilds. He rips out the rotted beams of his past and drives Torah into new ground. No pedigree props him up. No ancestral merit shields him. He grafts emunah into the flesh of his heart and buries it deep within the souls of his children—where no eye sees, where only HaShem weighs the kiddushin mitzva of ‘fruitful and multiply’. He constructs his legal identity from the rubble of assimilation and statute laws. He births halakhic common law identity out of intermarriage chaos—not through inheritance, but through fire. Through sweat. Through judgment. Through t’shuvah.

   The righteous man who never falls may stand, but the baal teshuvah ascends. Not like a Cohen on temple steps—but like a soldier dragging himself up Sinai, gashed, ragged, but clutching the sworn oath brit in stained bloodied hands. The baal teshuvah climbs from the pit of assimilation and intermarriage ruin to build something stronger than innocence—he builds justice from ash.

   This Kotzker line doesn’t whisper piety. It shouts Torah common law. It carves a verdict: authenticity belongs to the one who fights for the brit in secret. The Rebbe doesn’t moralize—he judges. He cuts down the pius religious Jew who bases statute law Judaism code upon Greek foreign logic.

   ۞ Haqq al-Kadhib: The Truth of the Lie ۞
   In the cadence of ancient reproach

   Have they not claimed what they did not build?
   Have they not wept over stones they did not lay?
   Have they not called themselves what they were not named?

   Lo! The land spoke before their tongue.
   The hills bore witness before their fathers’ dust.
   Zion remembered her children—
   But they remembered not her name.

   They cry “return”—but whence did they come?
   From Kheibar? From Damascus? From the sands of Najd?
   Not from Yehudah, not from Shomron.
   Their fathers did not plant olives in Ephraim.
   Their mothers did not sing by the waters of Zion.

   Woe to the people who inherit envy.
   Woe to the nation born of grievance.
   They forged a people from negation.
   They raised a flag over a wound.

   And say: “Nakba! Nakba!”
   But who cast the first spear?
   Who heard the call of Mufti and Pharaoh?
   Who marched seven nations against one boy, wrapped in prophecy?
   And they were broken like clay jars on the threshing floor.

   And lo—they claim Jerusalem!
   Did their prophets anoint it?
   Did their songs rise from her gates?
   No—
   The Temple did not weep for them.
   The Cohonim did not speak their tongue.

   Say to them:
   You are Ishmael, son of the field—
   And we are Israel, bound to the altar.
   We remember the fire.
   You remember the sand.

   So perish the lie that cloaks itself in keffiyeh.
   Perish the myth born in Cairo’s tongue.
   The land knows her children.
   The stones cry out against their claim.
   And history is not mocked.
   ________________________________________________
   (1) “Tora” references the Japanese military code for “lightning attack” (totsugeki raigeki), famously transmitted during the Pearl Harbor assault on December 7, 1941. The line critiques modern willful ignorance or contempt toward historical warnings or aggression.

   (2) “פרדס” (Pardes) – A one-line footnote or aside explaining the four levels of Torah exegesis (Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod) might enhance the meaning of rejecting syllogism for covenantal reasoning.

   (3) The koran affirms earlier prophets but omits the concept of the brit as a legal-political alliance cut with Israel. The first word of the Torah בראשית contains ברית אש.

   Reply