The Mental Impact of Prison Culture
”Boys, some of them, talked about how when you find out a girl has done you wrong, you get her in bed one more time for one last angry fucking. I was never into beating somebody up with my dick, but I considered it last night for a flash of an instant. I think that’s what prison did to me. It made me a person who would even entertain such a thought.”
A House No Longer a Home: Marriage After Incarceration
The way to the garage is downstairs and then through the laundry room, where a stainless-steel washer and dryer hummed, modern and efficient. I entered the garage and flipped a switch, raising the large paneled door. The metal-on-metal noise made me swallow hard. When we first were married, **Celestial** said that the screech of the garage door made her smile because it meant that I was home from work. In those days, we had been right in there, together on all the levels—**mental, spiritual, and physical health in marriage**. But now, it’s like she doesn’t even know me. Or even worse, it’s like she never knew me. What about this, Walter? Nobody prepared me for this **emotional trauma**.
The Contrast of Normalcy: Christmas and Community
The light of the day brightened the space a little bit. It was **Christmas Eve**, regardless of what was happening to me. Across the street, a stylish woman moved a dozen poinsettias onto the porch. Kitty-corner, lightbulb candelabras winked on and off. In the bright of day, I could barely make out the bulbs, but when I squinted, there they were. Directly in my view was that tree that Celestial tended like a pet. It’s not like I couldn’t appreciate vegetation. When I was a boy, I was partial to a pecan tree, but for a reason. It dropped premium nuts that sold for a dollar a sack. Olive cared for a stand of crape myrtles in her backyard because she delighted in butterflies and blossoms. It was different.
Reclaiming Identity: Personal Property and “Personal Effects”
Turning my attention back to the great indoors, I saw that the garage was well maintained, and I figured this was Dre’s doing. He was always organized. The garage had a **showroom interior design** vibe to it, too clean for anything to actually have been used. When I lived here, you could smell the dirt on the shovel, the gas in the mower, and the broken-twig scent on the clippers. Now each tool was hung on a peg, polished like she was trying to sell it. Everything was labeled, like you needed a little tag to tell you what an axe was.Along the south-facing wall was a cluster of **cardboard boxes**. Clear block letters: *roy h., misc.* I would have preferred to see only my name, Roy. Or *Roy’s stuff*. Even *Roy’s shit* would have been a little more personal. When I left the **prison system**, they gave me a paper sack labeled **Hamilton, Roy O. personal effects**. In that bag was everything I had on me when I went in, minus a heavy pocketknife that belonged to **Big Roy’s** uncle and namesake, the first Roy. Now I was looking at six or seven not-big boxes. All of them could easily fit in the Chrysler. Smarter men, like Big Roy or Walter, would load it all up and hit the highway. But no, not me. I hauled the stack of boxes out and sat them on the half-circular.
The Struggle of Reclaiming Personal Property
”Bench at the base of Old Hickey. Returning to the garage, I searched for something to cut the packing tape, but unless I was willing to use a double-sided axe, there was nothing. I made do with my keys, the very same ones that opened the front door, giving me a bellyful of false hope.The first box contained everything that had been in my top dresser drawer. Things weren’t arranged in any kind of order, like she and Andre had opened up the box, pulled the drawer, and poured everything in. A small bottle of Cool Water **cologne for men** was packed along with a few buckled snapshots from my childhood and some pictures of Celestial and me, taken at the beginning. Why wouldn’t she at least save the photos? At the bottom of the box were the seedy remnants of a dime bag of weed. In another carton I found my **college diploma**, safe in its leather case, which I appreciated. But an **egg timer** and half-empty **prescription for antibiotics**? I didn’t see the logic in it all. A glass paperweight was cushioned in a purple-and-gold sweater, which I pulled over my head. It smelled like a **thrift store**, but I was glad to have something between me and the chill.”
The Visual of “Ghetto Scenes” and Suburban Perceptions
”I didn’t care about any of this stuff anymore, but I couldn’t stop myself from ripping open box after box, pouring the contents out on the grass and, sifting through, hunting for a tiny chip of bone. Looking at the house, I noticed some movement at the window. I imagined Celestial peeking out. Over my shoulder, I felt the eyes of the lady across the street. There was a time when I knew her name.I waved, hoping that she wasn’t getting antsy, thinking of **calling the police**, because a close encounter with **law enforcement** was the last thing I needed. She waved back, placed a stack of envelopes in her mailbox, and lifted the red flag. Between Big Roy’s **Chrysler** riding up on the curb and me out here ripping open boxes and trash flying everywhere, it must be the type of ghetto scene they are not familiar with on Lynn Valley Road. ‘Merry Christmas,’ I called, and offered another wave. This seemed to put her at ease but not enough that she went back into her house.”
A Mother’s Letter: The Final Discovery
”HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE final box included a **mason jar** containing bicentennial quarters that had been with me since I was six, along with a couple of stray keys, but I didn’t find my original tooth. I ran my fingers under the cardboard flap in case it was hiding there, but what I found instead was a pale pink envelope bearing my mother’s schoolgirl writing in sky-blue ink. I sat down on the cold wooden bench and unfolded the page inside.*Dear Roy,*
*I am putting this in writing so that you can take this message to heart and not cause confusion with backtalk because you are not going to like what I have to say. So here it…*”
The Pride of a Mother and the Power of Prayer
”Is. First, I want to say that I am very proud of you. I may be too proud. There are many at Christ the King who are tired of hearing me talk about you because so many of their youngsters are not doing well. Boys are in **jail or correctional facilities** or headed that way and the girls all have babies. This is not true for everyone, but it’s true enough for there to be a spring of jealousy and envy against me and mine. This is why I pray a **prayer of protection** for you every single night.”
Financial Independence and Retirement Planning
”I am happy to hear that you have found someone that you want to marry. You know I have always wanted to be a grandmother (tho I hope I look too young to be a “granny”). You do not ever have to worry about **taking care of your father** and me. We have set aside money since the beginning so that we can manage our **bills in old age** through **smart estate planning**. So do not think that what I have to say has anything to do with any type of **money consideration** or **financial debt**.”
Relationship Advice: Choosing the Right Spouse
”What I want to ask you is if you are sure that she is the woman for you. Is she the wife for the real person who you are? How can you know if you have not even brought her to Eloe to meet your father and me? I know that you have been spending time with her family and you are very impressed by them, but we need to meet her, too. So come pay us a visit. I promise that we’ll make everything look nice, and I also promise that I will behave.”
Intuition, Signs, and Spiritual Wellness
”Roy, I cannot say an ill word against a woman that I have not met, but my spirit is troubled. Your father says that I do not want you to grow up. He points out that a lot of spirits were troubled when him and myself “jumped the broom.” But I would not be your caring mother if I didn’t tell you that my dreams have come to me again. I know you don’t believe in signs, so I am not going to tell you the nitty-gritty. But I am so worried about you, son.Your father could be right. I admit to holding you a little too close. Maybe when I meet Celeste I’ll rest easy again. She does sound nice from what you say. I hope her parents won’t think your father and me are a couple of little country mice. Read this letter three times before you tell me what you think. I am also including a **prayer card**, and it would do you some good to **pray on this every night**. Get on your knees when you talk to the Lord. Do not call yourself praying by lying in the bed thinking. Thinking and **meditation and prayer** are two different things, and for something this important, you need prayer.Your loving mother,”
The Burden of Maternal Protection
”I folded the letter and slid it into my pants pocket. The breeze bit, but my body was sweaty. My mama tried to warn me, tried to save me. But from what? At first, she was always trying to save me from two things—**prison and criminal charges** and fast-tail girls. When I finished high school without catching a charge or getting anyone pregnant, she felt like her work was done. Putting me on that Trailways bus to Atlanta with those three brand-new suitcases, she held up her fists, crowing, “We did it!” I can’t say she worried about me again until I told her I was getting married.”
The State of Louisiana vs. Personal Destiny
”I sat myself down on the bench to read the letter again. I didn’t believe in Olive’s “prophetic dreams”; besides, it wasn’t Celestial that was my undoing, it was the **State of Louisiana** and the **justice system**. Still, I took some comfort in the tenderness lacing my mama’s words, but I was cut to the quick remembering how I’d reacted all those years ago. I responded, hemming and hawing, but I was a hit dog, hollering. *Don’t be ashamed of us*, she said without saying.I read the letter over again and again, each word a lash. When I couldn’t take it anymore, I slid it back into my pocket and looked at the mess I’d made with the boxes. Something as small as a bottom tooth could be easily lost among the rubble, easily hidden between blades of grass. Maybe it was only fitting that I move into this uncertain future without it. The grave robbers of the next millennium would find me incomplete for all eternity, the story of my life there in my jaw.”
Property Damage and the Breaking Point
”I swear to God my plan was to leave right then. I would gas up **Big Roy’s Chrysler** and get back on the highway, taking nothing with me but my mama’s letter. But then I thought I spotted a **Wilson tennis racket** in the garage. It had been expensive, and more important, it was mine. Maybe I would give it to Big Roy; when I was little we used to hit tennis balls at the rec center in town. I walked up the sand-white driveway, thinking of Davina and what Celestial told her after **Olive’s funeral and memorial services**. “Georgia,” I called to the air, “you are not the only one who’s a terrible person.”I scanned the garage wall. Sure enough, the racket dangled from a little hook. I pulled it down and found it to be warped with age and disuse. When I bought this racket, it was the finest to be had in all of **Hilton Head luxury resorts**. Now it was reduced to corroding metal and catgut. The grip had gone gummy, but I mimed my backhand, butting up against the bumper of **Celestial’s car**.The first blow was an accident. The second, third, and fourth were more purposeful, resulting in **auto body damage**. The **car alarm** squealed in protest, but I didn’t stop until Celestial entered the garage with her **designer bag** on her shoulder and her keys in her hand. “Honey, what are you doing?” She used a little remote to silence the alarm. “You okay?””
The Struggle for Dignity and Mental Health
”The pity in her voice scraped over my skin. “I’m not okay. How am I supposed to be okay?” She shook her head, and again there was that soft sadness. I have never struck a woman. Never have I wanted to. But at that moment, my hand itched to slap all that concern off her lovely face.“Roy,” she said. “What do you want me to do?”She knew full well what I wanted her to do. It wasn’t that complicated. I wanted her to be a proper wife and provide a place for me in my own home. I wanted her to wait for me like women have been waiting since before Jesus. She kept talking, but I didn’t have any patience for damp cheeks or noise about how she tried.“Try spending some time as a special guest of the **State of Louisiana**. Try that. How hard could it be to stay off your back for five years? How hard could it be to make a tired man feel welcome? I picked soybeans when I was in **prison**. I have a **degree from Morehouse College** and I’m working the land like my great-great-granddaddy. So don’t tell me about how you tried.””
Escalating Conflict and Automotive Damage
”She was sniffling when I attacked the car again. The tennis racket wasn’t much match for the **Volvo S60**. I couldn’t even bust out the windows. I did get the **car alarm system** to wail, but Celestial silenced it immediately.“Roy, stop it,” she said, sighing like an exhausted mother. “Set down that tennis racket.”“I’m not your child,” I said. “I’m a grown man. Why can’t you talk to me like I’m a man?” I couldn’t stop seeing myself through her eyes: hot and funky in my **Walmart discount clothes** and high school sweater and swinging a raggedy tennis racket like some kind of weapon. I dropped it to the floor.”
The Axe and the Shattered Window: Legal and Physical Risks
”“Can you please calm down?”
I scanned the neatly labeled rows of **hand tools**, hoping to find a **heavy wrench** or a **hammer** that I could use to bust out every window on that vehicle. But there, just at arm’s length, was the **double-sided axe** and I liked the look of it. Lo and behold, as soon as I got my hand around that thick wooden handle, the room leaned in a different direction.Celestial sucked in her breath, and there was raw fear on her face. This grated, too, but it was better than her pity. I lifted the axe as best as I could in that cramped space between the **Volvo** and the garage wall. The window burst, sending **tempered safety glass** everywhere. But even though she was terrified, Celestial had the presence of mind to again turn off the alarm, keeping things quiet.”
Pingback: From Morehouse to Louisiana State Prison: Roy’s Tragic Fall and the Volvo Window Bursting Scene – Uttam Roy blog
Understand the fundamental difference between the revelation of the Torah at Sinai vs. theological creed “I believe” Ego-I driven av tuma avoda zara.
1. Xtians wait for the 2nd Coming. Therefore this God lives in heaven not Earth. Pantheism posits that God – synonymous with the universe and its processes, often lacking the personal, relational aspect. Such a God beyond Human grasp to understand. Similar to how Human civilizations incomprehensible to ants.
2. Can’t have it both ways, either God of Sinai on this earth, or waiting for the 2nd Coming. For example: Xtian theology rhetoric preaches belief in a Universal God; where was JeZeus during the Shoah? The Nicene Creed hence established the “Holy Spirit” as part of the Triune God-Head to address the open NT contradiction where Xtians wait for the 2nd coming. Yet, not till Vatican II did any religious Xtian branch invalidate their long bloody history of “Christ Killer” racial slanders repeated over and again throughout the Ages prior to the Shoah. The Church, universally – Catholic & Protestant & Orthodox etc. – preached all the same hate theology: that Jews cursed with the curse of Cain; as despised refugees they must forever walk the Earth. The 3 Century ghetto gulag war crime stands as proof. Yet in 1948 and ’67 Jews re-conquered their homeland. Proving the church hate rhetoric which justified Paro oppression feudalism and slavery racism as nothing other than a house of cards lie. If Jews never cursed as Cain, but rather our Torah oath brit faith contains both blessing and curse obligations, then where do the Xtian slander lies stop?
The Shema (Deut. 6:4) does not at all resemble to Muslim scholars like Al-Ghazali who critiqued pantheism (e.g., in Sufi excesses) for risking shirk (association), insisting on a personal God who is “closer than the jugular vein” (Quran 50:16) but not the universe itself. Why? The Shema serves as the Torah commandment known as tefillah. This wisdom commandment or time-oriented mitzva, a concept no where addressed in either the NT or Koran substitute revisionist history theologies, separates as does shabbat from chol the k’vanna to accept the 3 oaths sworn by the Avot to father the chosen Cohen people AND eternally accept the revelations of the Written Torah at Sinai/Oral Torah at Horev as ONE oath brit. Hence the tefillah mitzva requires either standing directly in front of a Sefer Torah or tefillen because both serve as an essential pre-condition to swear a Torah oath. Bottom line: Based upon the 2nd Sinai commandment, all theological creed constructs of “monotheism” violate this commandment; simply stated if only one tawhid God then no need or reason to justify the existence of the negative commandment not to worship other gods. Monotheism violates the 10 plagues of Egypt wherein HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt.
Chrysostom’s “deicide” label simply not negated by Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate (1965). Nor can the latter negate the post WWII Catholic ‘Rat-lines’ which assisted Nazi war criminals to flee to South America and escape standing before the Bar of justice. Xtian responses post-Holocaust, like those from Jürgen Moltmann, emphasize a “suffering God” who weeps with victims, reinterpreting the Trinity (from Nicene Creed) as divine solidarity, not contradiction. However, critics note this came late—pre-Vatican II theology often portrayed Jews as cursed wanderers, justifying ghettos (e.g., from 1555 papal bull) and feudal oppression.
Jewish tradition defines prophecy as mussar—reproof for justice, not fortune-telling (e.g., Amos 5:24). Muslims reject the Torah as corrupted totally invalidates the Akadah of Yitzak and the sworn oath addressing the threat of Shoah extermination. Three years after the Shoah arose the Jewish state. Jewish scholars like David Novak argue “Old Testament” implies supersessionism, a slander equating Jews with obsolescence. Fulfillment claims (e.g., Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1) twist context—originally about Israel, not Jesus. Post-Holocaust, some like Rubenstein see all theodicies as “house of cards,” urging human responsibility.
3. The NT notions of prophesy just as false and corrupt as their eternal blood libel slanders! Prophets to not predict the future as the gospel fraud declares. Why? Because witchcraft predicts the future. For example: king Shaul and the witch of Endor. Another example: the false prophet Muhammad declared in his koran that prophets sent to all nations and speak the native tongues of all peoples as the false prophet Muhammad declares. Torah NaCH prophets all command mussar – which neither false religion instructs! Moshe sent to Egypt, he spoke Hebrew and his mussar applies only to the Jewish people alone. A challenge of the ערב רב serves as a fundamental Torah curse which defines the 2nd Sinai commandment of avoda zarah; Jewish assimilation and intermarriage brings the plague of Amalek/antisemitism in all generations. A NaCH example: king Shlomo married foreign wives and duplicated how Goyim worship their Gods through constructs of wood and stone Temple Cathedrals. The satire of the Book of Kings, it refers to king Shlomo as “the wisest of all men”.
4. No such thing as another ‘House of Cards’ lie: “Old Testament”. The false prophesy exposed in the fraud NT about “fulfillment” of “Old Testament” prophesies – a slander equal to “Christ Killers” or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery! T’NaCH prophetic mussar applies straight across the board only to Jews in all generations unto today. Why only Jews? Simply because Goyim – not Esau nor Ishmael – ever accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai wherein the spirit of the First Commandment שם השם לשמה lives in this oath sworn land within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the Chosen Cohen people; based upon the commandment of the 1st Sinai commandment. All lands and countries outside the eternal inheritance of the brit Cohen people – constitutes as Egyptian exile. Goyim, by definition excluded as part of the Chosen Cohen people, as mentioned above. Therefore Goyim worship other Universal theologies of new Gods – the 2nd Sinai commandment; the 30 years War serves as proof, where Catholics & Protestants slaughtered one another over “graven images”. Hence Goyim ignore their own bloody history in favor of “born again” pie in the sky religious empty rhetoric.
5. Both Xtian & Muslim avoda zara av tuma theology promotes “I believe” Creeds, such as the Nicene Creed or the Muslim Tawhid Creed. The Sinai revelation defines “faith” not as belief in God – because man cannot grasp the divine. Av tuma avoda zara universally commands – often at pain of death – personal belief in this or that theologically created “New God”. The Name revealed at Sinai in the first commandment never once recognized – not in the Xtian bible nor in the Muslim koran. Translating other “word” names for the Divine Presence “Holy Spirit” which the Torah defines through the revelation of the 13 tohor middot Spirits which Moshe heard at Horev 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf; its not the calf metaphor, which compares to the dream of Par’o, but rather Yosef’s interpretation of that dream which defines the intent of the Golden Calf! Specifically translating, as does both the bible & koran, the first Commandment Name Spirits unto mere words which the lips of Man can easily pronounce. This critical interpretation – defines avoda zara as seen through the Golden Calf gospel John 1:1.
The Horev revelation of the “Oral Torah” serves as the revelation of the 1st Commandment Spirits Divine Presence permanently in the yatzir ha-tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people. This post Golden Calf revelation of the k’vanna of the first Sinai Commandment; the greatest Torah commandment because it weighs the hearts of all generations of the chosen Cohen people – do we or do we not accept the Torah לשמה. Clearly, like the Sun in the sky on a cloudless day, the av tuma Universal God theological creed belief system religions, corrupt both the revelation of this Name – Oral Torah Spirits Horev revelation and likewise the concept of faith – the righteous pursuit of justice: as fair compensation of damages inflicted upon Jews by other Jews. Replaced by personal “I believe” theological constructs totally alien to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore, once the Church & Mosque exposed in one lie after another, where do both Xtians and Muslims draw the line to their religious house of cards?
The mitzva of Shema defines Torah faith in the pursuit of justice through remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot – this brit which eternally creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing – the interpretation of the k’vanna of מעשה בראשית twice repeated in the first blessing which precedes tefillat קריא שמע – תמיד מעשה בראשית. Jewish views interpret Shema not as strict monotheism, as a superficial reading of ONE implies. But as a declaration of exclusive oath brit loyalty amid henotheism; Goyim since they reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – by definition worship other Gods. Both Par’o and Egypt together with the oath brit sworn at Gilgal testifies that the kings of Canaan like Par’o worshipped other Gods.
The concept of Gods simply beyond the Human mind to grasp Chagigah 2:1. Fools who attempt to understand that which exists above, below or behind them – better never born at all. This Mishnaic idea utterly rejects any attempt by Man to define the Gods. Torah faith לא בשמים היא prioritizes the struggle between the opposing Yatzirot within the heart, based upon the struggle of Esau and Yaacov in the womb of Rivka.
The guilt of church support to both Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele, as just two examples to assist their escape to South America no after the fact declaration can blot out and remove. Pius XII permitted the Nazis to gather all the Jews of Rome, compares to the recent Red Cross refusal to demand to see the stolen Israeli hostages in Hamas torture tunnel captivity.
You select such deep and moving pieces of life interrupted. Thank you. For the thousands that have similar stories, thank you for sharing the momentary insight of angst and anger. May the healing love of the Divine embrace all of them bringing a peace beyond understanding. Amen.
Parshat T’ruma
Terumah no different than Shabbat which requires making a הבדלה which separates מלאכה from עבודה just as the revelation of the Mishkan separates “substance” from “form”. The Ari metaphor of the fallen klippah sparks serves as the form of the Mishkan. While: לא בשמים היא the substance of the Mishkan; the Avot worshipped אל שדי, אל, אלהים in the Heavens whereas post Sinai the chosen seed of the Avot – the Cohen people – worship the שם השם טהור מידדות/Horev Oral Torah middot within the Yatzir Ha-Tov within the hearts of the chosen Cohen people. This defines the revelation of the Torah at Sinai … a great רב חסד מאי נפקא מנא!
You rpost is an insensitive and boarish robotic trope.
LOL it represents some 40 years of intense Yeshiva learning. LOL
The fundamental restrictions of the Sinai brit.
The Torah Cohanim laws in ויקרא, encompass various aspects of Jewish life, particularly regarding sexual morality\ערבה, the tohor-tuma holiness Code, where this Book closes with the Blessing/Curse revelation of the k’vanna of the accepted Sinai brit. The concepts of tahor (purity) and tamei (impurity) – spirits within the YaTzir Tov\Ya Tzir Raw within the heart, herein defines the נמשל of the revelation of the Mishkan at Sinai. All Torah commandments subsumed under the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; the greatest Torah commandment of all Torah commandments – the first Sinai commandment. No Torah commandment has greater authority than the 1st Torah commandment at Sinai.
This crucial important understanding כלל, the overall spiritual and communal framework of Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach, פרט which defines this כלל. The mitzva of Moshiach no more applicable to Goyim any more than the observance of shabbat. The latter mitzva requires the ability to discern between מלאכה from עבודה. The NT Greek language, for example, does not discern any fundamental or even secondary distinction between these two completely different Hebrew verbs which the Greek NT translates as work. Hence the Xtian Man-God JeZeus did not grasp how to sanctify the time-oriented wisdom commandment NOT shabbat NOR moshiach. Consequently both the NT and Koran exist as false prophet theology which seeks to entice Israel to worship other Gods.
ויקרא יח — כ laws of Cohonim as applicable to Goyim who reject the revelation the Torah at Sinai as Mars lack of water compares to Earth covered by vast majority in water. Goyim outsiders cannot usurp the Hebrew T’NaCH simply by renaming it “Old Testament”. Dishonesty defines the Xtian bible from start to finish; the revelation of Torah judicial common law Sanhedrin mandate radically different from Goyim worship of their Gods who live in the Heavens above.
For example: The Goyim bible knows nothing of the oath sworn brit at Sh’Cem prior to the 7 year war to conquer Canaan. Goyim know nothing of how Torah defines the culture, customs, and practices which shape the identity of the Jewish people. Their ‘I am saved through JeZeus’ reflected in the post WWII ‘born again’ fad – completely oblivious to the church crimes (both Catholic & Protestant) that culminated in the Shoah European guilt. Actions have their consequences. 2000+ years of Xtian war crimes against Humanity by no means limited to the Jews alone.
Xtian faith exists only as mythology, especially after 2000+ years of failed 2nd coming “Good News”. Where was JeZeus during the Shoah? Church has no shame b/c its believers take no responsibility for their criminal behavior from generation to generation to generation — only evil and wickedness. Answer for the crimes of the Inquisition or the forced mass population transfers or the extermination of entire populations in the New World and across the Pacific Islands and Africa. Never has any Xtian country made religious war criminals stand trial. Post WWII the Church opened rat-lines to assist Nazis to flee from standing trial. And Poland initiated pogroms against Jews returning to reclaim title to their properties!
The 7 mitzvot bnai noach, an Aggadah within mesechta Sanhedrin addresses the type of Goy temporary resident known as Ger Toshav. By contrast mesechta Baba Kama addresses the 2nd type of Goy living within the borders of the oath sworn lands “brit” sworn as the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot and only to this chosen seed. Hence the Torah records that Moshe received command not to invade the lands of Esau!
Mesechta Baba Kama refers to the Goyim whom the king of Assyria settled in the captured 10 Tribe kingdom of Samaria/Israel. The Book of Ezra/Nehemiah refers to these people who converted out of ‘fear of lions’ as Shomronim – which the NT calls ‘Samaritans’. The Book of D’varim refers to both types of Goyim in the case of treif meat: its permitted to give this type of flesh as a present to the ger toshav or sell it to the “nacree”. The Talmud, multiple generations of sages, debated the status of the Nacreeim and reached the conclusion which excluded them as having any legal connection to Torah judicial justice laws. Why? The Samaritan forerunners of the Karaim and Xtians – one and all declared themselves the ‘NEW Israel’.
The Rambam held that the 7 mitzvot bnain Noach apply to all Goyim. Aggada makes a drosh/p’shat back to interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar based upon similar T’NaCH case/din mussar rulings. This prophetic mussar has the power when “woven” into halachic ritual observances to elevate a positive rabbinic mitzva into a Av tohor Torah time-oriented wisdom commandment. Confusing the private opinion by the Rambam, whom both the court of Rabbeinu Yona in Spain and the majority of the Baali Tosafot in France both condemned the Rambam’s statute halachic code and Guide Greek philosophy as a Torah abomination — based upon the dedication of the lights of Hanukkah wherein the P’rushim dedicated the korban of lights to only interpret the Written Torah with the logic of the Oral Torah. Greek deductive logic the blessing on Hanukkah recalls that the Greeks sought to cause Israel to forget the (Oral) Torah.
Assimilated Rambam from Spain worships the Universal God theologies which both the NT and Koran espouse. No Sanhedrin Court has jurisdiction to judge Capital Crimes cases outside the borders of the Torah defined oath sworn land inheritance of Canaan and as further defined within the expanded language of the Torah and clarified by Moshe Rabbeinu which requires expanded National territories include small Sanhedrin cities of refuge Capital Crimes courtrooms. Hence the Rambam notion of Universal 7 mitzvot applicable to all Goyim – an utter narishkeit as the NT dictate on the mitzva of Moshiach.
The Rambam “world to come” as pie in the sky as the NT false messiah. Goyim not under Torah law. Therefore just as Americans do not determine Russian strategic interests to invade a Ukraine threatening to join NATO – especially after Napoleon and Hitler both invaded Russia through the flat plains of the Ukraine – so too Goyim, not under the law, do not determine Torah commandments, specifically in the NT case – the commandment of Moshiach.
Torah common law stands the vision of “life in the word to come” based upon the Torah oath brit cut between the pieces wherein childless Avram swore and oath and in turn his local god El Shaddai swore an oath back to Avram. This concept of brit – totally alien to the Torah. Secondary sources like the NT or Koran do not supersede the Torah; anymore that Goyim who reject the Torah can qualify as ger tzeddik converts. The Pauline ‘graphed onto’ narishkeit equal to the Koran declaration of Yishmael bound upon the altar at the Akadah.
The seven Noahide laws are presented in Jewish sources as a universal moral code binding on all humanity (the “descendants of Noah”), independent of the Land of Israel or the Sanhedrin’s geographic jurisdiction for Jewish capital cases. False. Violation of any of these 7 laws by a ger toshav constitutes as a Capital Crime Case that only the Sanhedrin courts can adjudicate. One of the 7 mitzvot requires gere toshav to establish courts of law. The Talmud does not mandate any court ger toshav in Judea the authority to adjudicate any Capital Crime case. Rather ger toshav courts limited to Torts damages courts like Jewish Torts courts in g’lut.
Sanhedrin Capital Crimes courts inclusive of Small Sanhedrin courts in all cities of refuge as well as the Great Sanhedrin Court of 71, define the Torah mandated Federal Sanhedrin common law court system. The NaCree (language of the Torah)/Canaani (language of Baba Kama) refers strictly and only to despised refugee populations/Shomronim\Samaritans.
No Sanhedrin court can put a “Bnai Noach” living in London or Paris or Berlin or Moscow to death. Violation of any of the 7 mitzvot therefore strictly and only apply to gere toshav living within the judicial domain of Sanhedrin Capital Crime courtrooms. Makkot 9a illustrates distinctions: a ger toshav who unintentionally kills another ger toshav is exiled (treated somewhat like a Jew), while killing a Jew leads to execution without exile—handled under Jewish judicial frameworks in the Land. Only Sanhedrin court justices have the Torah mandate to judge and try Capital Crimes Cases. The courts of Gere Toshav temporary residents do not have greater authority than Jewish Torts courts within the borders of Judea.
The small Sanhedrin courts function as lower courts which permits appeal to the two Great Sanhedrin courts held within the Court of Hewn State within the Temple. Secondary sources of Talmudic scholarship made after the sealing of the T’NaCH, Mishna, Gemara, and Siddur exist as opinions. These secondary sources cannot over-ride nor negate sealed Primary sources. The Rambam statute halachic codes does just that, it equates his halachic posok rulings as if they stood upon their own merit. By stark and obvious contrast the Gemara halachot serve as precedent to interpret the language of the Mishna which that Gemara comments upon and nothing more. Herein separates T’NaCH\Talmudic common law from Roman & Rambam statute law.
Aggada does not determine halacha – except in the opinion of the Rambam. Quoting Genesis 9:9–17 does not amount to squat. It amounts to a dream which has no interpretation; a letter never opened and read. Sanhedrin 56a–57a addresses Gere Toshav – based upon the Book of D’varim which differentiates two types of Goyim: Ger Toshav vs. NaCreeim. The Talmud restricted to these to classifications of Goyim within the borders of the Oath sworn lands.
Sanhedrin 56–60, which treats these laws as pre‑Sinaitic and universal? Post Sinai revelation the Torah no longer perceives Torah as Universal/in the heavens above. תורה לא בשמים היא – represents a key fundamental of the revelation and acceptance by Israel of the Torah. The Book of בראשית does not over-ride the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, any more than can post sealing of the Sha’s Bavli Reshonim scholars can add to or subtract from the sealed Talmud.
Only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – to this very day. Torah common law post Reshonim opinions do not modify except to the limitations of the needs of that particular generations. Clearly the Dark Age social political and societal anarchy and chaos do not prevail today in any even near comparison to the darkest Ages of Xtian Europe under the Church Inquisition dictatorships.
Pre-Sinaitic Universal ethics defines the 2nd Sinai commandment. Therefore any attempt to interpret 7 mitzvot bnai noach out of its Talmudic restriction which limits it to gere toshav temporary residents invalidates the Torah precedent in D’varim which separates giving treif meats as a gift vs selling this treif flesh to a Na’cree. The Baali Tosafot common law commentary on Avodah Zarah 64b – ger toshav exists only when Yovel observed supports this strong restriction against learning 7 mitzvot as Universal av tuma avoda zara commandments. The Yovel only applies to produce grown within the borders of the oath sworn lands.
The revelation of the Torah at Sinai – mandates the Federal Sanhedrin Court system based upon the Torah serving as the Constitution of the Republic. Just as the Constitution of the US does not spread its Bill of Rights to Goyim living in foreign lands so too the Torah as the Constitution of the Cohen 12 Tribe Republic limited only to the borders of the oath sworn lands of this Republic. Therefore any post sealing of the Sha’s Bavli by Reshonim who seek to pervert the 1st Sinai revelation of the Name to some Universal God – like as expressed in the Av tuma avoda zara of both Xtianity and Islam – through ruling that the 7 mitzvot bnai noach apply Universally to all Goyim, such false instruction directly compares to av tuma false prophesy.
Yet the church never accepted the authority of the Oral Torah codified in the Talmud and mesechta Sanhedrin in particular! Halacha only applicable to Jews not Goyim. Both the Church and Mosque developed their own unique religious codes of theological creed belief systems. Religion never has anything to do with the Sinai brit obligation to rule the oath sworn Cohen inheritance lands sworn to the Avot with judicial common law court room legislative review based upon Torah Constitutional mandate. Any attempt by Shomronim, Tzeddukim, Karaim, Xtians or Muslims to superimpose religious theology belief system as a replacement theology qualifies as the Torah definition of av tuma false prophets who seek to persuade Jews to worship other Gods.
Why Yirmiyahu 1 Cannot “Compare” to Tehillim; Eikhah and Yirmiyahu: A National Axis. T’NaCH : Talmud :: Yerushalmi : Bavli. Judicial Justice vs. Creedal Religion. Prophesy vs. “foretelling”. The metaphor of calling Eikhah “Gemara” to Yarmia “Mishna” – not historiography. T’NaCH commands mussar not history. T’NaCH Av, Talmud toladah – like בראשית introduces Av wisdom commandments\time oriented mitzvot which require k’vanna while שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר supplies Case/Rule toladot בניני אבות\precedents which require חכמה that raises halachic toladot ritualism unto Av time-oriented wisdom commandments.
Yermia 1:1–10, a mussar commissioning narrative, while the others incline toward poetic reflections (Tehillim, Iyov) or wisdom exhortation (Mishle). Different genres = different aims. Tehillim 40:1–3, Mishle 1:20–23, and Iyov 14:1–4, which explains why they don’t “compare” in any meaningful literary or theological way. Yermia 1:1–10, a mussar-prophetic prose, not poetry. Tehillim 40:1–3, a personal expression of gratitude for deliverance from suffering. It communicates this “vision” through a poetic, emotional, and liturgical language. Mishle 1:20–23, speaks as a rebuking teacher calling the simple to “remember” as the basis of t’shuva. It qualifies as instructional wisdom literature, not narrative. Iyov 14:1–4, laments the brevity and impurity of human life; existential poetry, not instruction or thanksgiving.
Tehillem 130 despite its plea for help and yearns for tohor middot revealed in this world and therefore superficially reflects the Yermia 1:1-10 theme of longing for tohor middot within the Yatzir Ha’Tov to guide and direct how a man interacts with his oath alliance Cohen people in the faith: pursuit of judicial justice – which witnesses a common law court imposed fair restitution of damages to victims. 130 differs from the mussar of the opening verse of Yermia, whose mussar applies straight across the board to all generations of the chosen people while Tehillem, specifically in this particular case, reflects a personal supplication and trust for guidance rather than defined Oral Torah tohor middot (אל רחום חנון וכו) which defines prophetic mussar in all the Books of the NaCH prophets.
Mishle 2:15 invites the generations to seek wisdom. Torah wisdom defined as מלאכה. The refinement of tohor middot within the Yatzir Ha-Tov Mishkan-heart separates לא בשמים היא from the Book of בראשית which perceived אל שדי, או אלהים, או אל in the Heavens rather than post Sinai where all prophetic mussar rebukes Israel over and again not to search for our local Sinai tribal god anywhere outside of our Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts.
Eikhah has a traditional association with Yermia – both Books express sorrow and mourning for Jerusalem’s destruction. Shir HaShirim communicates a heart felt relationship with the revelation of the שם השם לשמה through the Horev revelation of 13 tohor middot.
Yermia 1:1–10 = Prophetic Mussar for the Entire Nation not a personal prayer which separates and catagorizes all Tehillem as שבח rather than ברכות. A Torah blessing requires שם ומלכות the essential conditions required to swear any & all Torah oath alliances known as “brit/britot”. This an absolutely critical מאי נפקא מינא definition of the 7th tohor Oral Torah midda רב חסד. The revelation at Horev of the 13 tohor middot define the required k’vanna of any and all wisdom commandments from the Torah known collectively as “time-oriented commandments”.
Therefore which Holy Writing Primary “Gemara” source surpasses in tohor middot depth comparison to Yermia 1:10/”Mishna”? Eikhah. Due to it expresses national, not personal, the brit faith of blessing/curse justice – the central theme of acceptance of the Torah at Sinai as defined by the first Sinai commandment. HaShem libertated Israel from Egyptian slavery for Israel to obey the oath brit to rule Canaan with judicial common law Sanhedrin courtroom justice. Eikha communicates the curse of g’lut prophetic mussar; it functions as the case law to Yermia’s legal themes.
Eikha addresses the consequences of worshipping Av tuma avoda Gods Universal Monotheism or otherwise who live in the Heavens above and therein denies and rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; the revelation of the post Calf 13 middot defines the Torah concept of רוח הקודש. No other Ketuvim textual sources surpass how Eikhah serves as the Case/Rule best בנין אב precedent for Yermia 1:1-10.
Jewish tradition, as reflected in Bava Batra 15a and various Targumim, links Eikhah to Jeremiah, sometimes viewing the five poems as his emotional outpouring following the consequences of the Moshe oath brit alliance cut in the Book of D’varim. Prophets do NOT foretell the future as defines the tuma nature of witchcraft from the Torah and also expressed through the av tuma gospels declarations “fulfilled the words of the prophets”.
Psalm 130, while yearning for redemption and tohor qualities, remains a personal plea (“Out of the depths I call to You”), differing from the transgenerational prophetic mussar in Yarmia. Certain approaches emphasize the 13 tohor middot (revealed at Horev post-Golden Calf) as defining prophetic mussar and Oral Torah logic, distinguishing heart-centered covenantal wisdom (“לא בשמים היא”) from external searches. Within such lenses, Eikhah functions as a national “case” illustrating blessing/curse dynamics tied to Sinai acceptance, serving as precedent for Yarmia 1:1-10’s themes.
This view draws on traditional associations while advancing a specialized framework centered on the 13 tohor middot as the logic system of Oral Torah revelation, the Yatzir Ha-Tov as the internal Mishkan-heart locus of wisdom (מלאכה), and time-oriented commandments requiring k’vanna defined by these middot (e.g., the single simplified example of רב חסד linked to oath alliances with שם ומלכות).
Eikhah portrays the events as the national outworking of ignored prophetic warnings, functioning as emotional “case” material to Yarmia’s legal-prophetic mussar themes of judicial common law, fair restitution, Sanhedrin courtroom rule in Canaan as the purpose of liberation from Egyptian slavery. T’shuva spins around the central axis of remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot to eternally father the chosen Cohen people.
The revelation of the Oral Torah 13 tohor middot spirits defines the k’vanna of the revelation of the first Commandment שם השם לשמה – the greatest Torah commandment upon which all other Torah commandments stand or fall. Eikhah, as national lament over g’lut consequences of rejecting Sinai’s first commandment (liberation for judicial brit justice), illustrates blessing/curse dynamics and serves as paradigmatic (a paradigm, one word can be replaced by another that fulfills the same grammatical role) precedent (בנין אב) for heart-centered oath brit alliances (Based upon the pre-conditions of שם ומלכות, where the latter term restricted to the dedication of Oral Torah middot as the guide and direction of the Yatzir Ha-Tov within the heart.) blessed to prevail over all av tuma avoda zara spirits – based upon the 10 plagues of Egypt.
Its an error to say that Eikhah explicitly functions as the “best case law”/”Gemara source” for the Prophetic Primary source of Yarmia 1:1-10 simply because both the Mishna and Gemara followed after the sealing of the T’NaCH early in the days of the 2nd Commonwealth. Rather then to say that the T’NaCH serves as the “av model” for the later Mishna/Gemara\Talmud; akin to the Bavli came about 150 years after the sealing of the Yerushalmi. Anachronistic – out of its proper historical or chronological context – to compare T’NaCH literature with the much later Talmudic literature, except that both this and that exist as משנה תורה common law legalism. The former mussar common law while the latter halachic ritual common law; specifically the framers of the Talmud sealed the k’vanna for this common law scholarship to serve as the model in its own right to the day when Jews reconquered our homeland from the clutches of the Goyim.
Its an error to say that Eikhah explicitly functions as the “best case law”/”Gemara source” for the Prophetic Primary source of Yarmia 1:1-10 simply because both the Mishna and Gemara followed after the sealing of the T’NaCH early in the days of the 2nd Commonwealth. Rather then to say that the T’NaCH serves as the “av model” for the later Mishna/Gemara\Talmud; akin to the Bavli came about 150 years after the sealing of the Yerushalmi. Anachronistic – out of its proper historical or chronological context – to compare T’NaCH literature with the much later Talmudic literature, except that both this and that exist as משנה תורה common law legalism. The former mussar common law while the latter halachic ritual common law; specifically the framers of the Talmud sealed the k’vanna for this common law scholarship to serve as the model in its own right to the day when Jews reconquered our homeland from the clutches of the Goyim.
Eikhah exemplifies national brit dynamics: the lived curse of g’lut stemming from av tuma worship or rejection of Sinai’s commandments against witchcraft and Yosef’s divination fraud with his brothers! The T’NaCH – sealed through a gradual process spanning the Second Temple era, with traditional credit to the Men of the Great Assembly (early Second Commonwealth) for significant organization, though full consensus extended into the early rabbinic period after Daniel’s composition (~164 BCE). The Mishnah – redacted ~200 CE; the Yerushalmi Gemara reached completion in the late 4th to early 5th century CE; the Bavli followed roughly 100–180 years later (mid-6th to early 7th century CE), if the Sovaraim included as the final redactors.
Tanach therefore stands as the primary “av model”—providing precedents via hermeneutics such as binyan av—for the Mishna/Gemara structure, exactly as the Yerushalmi models the expansive Bavli. This avoids anachronism while preserving Tanach’s primacy in defining mussar, justice, and middot refinement as the substance of Torah faith to pursue righteous justice among our people.
The Talmud compares to that of a warp/weft loom which weaves aggadic דרוד\פשט threads of T’NaCH mussar with רמז/סוד threads of halachic ritualism. This latter “thread” conceals the judicial justice most essential nature of Talmudic hope and vision for the future with the kabbalah of halacha which dresses the Talmud as religious ritual Jewish law. Av tuma avoda zara by definition worships their Gods (Monotheism or otherwise) in the Heavens above and not as faith in righteous judicial courtroom common law justice below.
Judicial justice, in point of fact, abhors religious belief systems, theologies and Creedal dictates from god-like saints and cult figures as something disgusting on par with how the brothers of Yosef groveled before him. Cults of personality practically the sole definition of avoda zara; Muhammad and his silly Koran serve as stark witness. The wisdom of weaving prophetic mussar based upon tohor prophetic middot as the k’vaana of doing halachic ritual observances changes these toldot-secondary commandments/mitzvot which do not require k’vaana to wisdom Torah commandments which dedicate – like a korban – Oral Torah tohor middot – the revelation of k’vanna of the 1st Sinai commandment sanctified לשמה. Simply stated: Judicial justice vs. Religious belief in God or Gods — compares to a person who enters a mikveh while holding a dead rat in his hand. This comparison taught in mesechta Yevamot expresses the deep revulsion and utter contempt for the Pauline graphted on to, Goyim don’t require brit melah, not under the law av tuma avoda zara; or the Muhammad the last prophet lie – the Torah forbids camel before pig.
Earthly Sanhedrin courtroom justice—rooted in the first Sinai commandment—as the living “mikveh” of the nation, while heavenly-focused belief systems contaminate it like the dead rat. This shabbat like הבדלה emphasizes heart-centered tohor middot refinement over creedal religion, aligns with T’NaCH prophetic mussar. The משל of holding a dead sheretz (rat), all theology based Creedal Ego-I belief systems fundamentally define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai negative commandment. The רמז\סוד threads of Talmudic halacha conceal the substance of Torah courtroom justice from the forms of religious belief in Gods in heaven or earth – the latter expressed through physical Temple-idols.
The revelation of the Torah through the רמז\סוד of the Mishkan – the sin of the Golden Calf functions as its logical דיוק/inference. The bark of a tree does not compare to the fruit it produces. Avoda zara confuses the bark for the fruit; the ערב רב did not worship a Golden Calf “bark” but rather they foolishly worshiped the word name substitute theology which replaced אלהים for the Sinai first commandment שם השם לשמה – which the Oral Torah further clarified as רוח הקודש מידדות. No word, regardless of its spoken language, can substitute or replace רוח הקודש middot Spirits – the substance of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai which all Goyim reject to this very day.
Why Yirmiyahu 1 Cannot “Compare” to Tehillim; Eikhah and Yirmiyahu: A National Axis. T’NaCH : Talmud :: Yerushalmi : Bavli. Judicial Justice vs. Creedal Religion. Prophesy vs. “foretelling”. The metaphor of calling Eikhah “Gemara” to Yarmia “Mishna” – not historiography. T’NaCH commands mussar not history. T’NaCH Av, Talmud toladah – like בראשית introduces Av wisdom commandments\time oriented mitzvot which require k’vanna while שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר supplies Case/Rule toladot בניני אבות\precedents which require חכמה that raises halachic toladot ritualism unto Av time-oriented wisdom commandments.
Yermia 1:1–10, a mussar commissioning narrative, while the others incline toward poetic reflections (Tehillim, Iyov) or wisdom exhortation (Mishle). Different genres = different aims. Tehillim 40:1–3, Mishle 1:20–23, and Iyov 14:1–4, which explains why they don’t “compare” in any meaningful literary or theological way. Yermia 1:1–10, a mussar-prophetic prose, not poetry. Tehillim 40:1–3, a personal expression of gratitude for deliverance from suffering. It communicates this “vision” through a poetic, emotional, and liturgical language. Mishle 1:20–23, speaks as a rebuking teacher calling the simple to “remember” as the basis of t’shuva. It qualifies as instructional wisdom literature, not narrative. Iyov 14:1–4, laments the brevity and impurity of human life; existential poetry, not instruction or thanksgiving.
Tehillem 130 despite its plea for help and yearns for tohor middot revealed in this world and therefore superficially reflects the Yermia 1:1-10 theme of longing for tohor middot within the Yatzir Ha’Tov to guide and direct how a man interacts with his oath alliance Cohen people in the faith: pursuit of judicial justice – which witnesses a common law court imposed fair restitution of damages to victims. 130 differs from the mussar of the opening verse of Yermia, whose mussar applies straight across the board to all generations of the chosen people while Tehillem, specifically in this particular case, reflects a personal supplication and trust for guidance rather than defined Oral Torah tohor middot (אל רחום חנון וכו) which defines prophetic mussar in all the Books of the NaCH prophets.
Mishle 2:15 invites the generations to seek wisdom. Torah wisdom defined as מלאכה. The refinement of tohor middot within the Yatzir Ha-Tov Mishkan-heart separates לא בשמים היא from the Book of בראשית which perceived אל שדי, או אלהים, או אל in the Heavens rather than post Sinai where all prophetic mussar rebukes Israel over and again not to search for our local Sinai tribal god anywhere outside of our Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts.
Eikhah has a traditional association with Yermia – both Books express sorrow and mourning for Jerusalem’s destruction. Shir HaShirim communicates a heart felt relationship with the revelation of the שם השם לשמה through the Horev revelation of 13 tohor middot.
Yermia 1:1–10 = Prophetic Mussar for the Entire Nation not a personal prayer which separates and catagorizes all Tehillem as שבח rather than ברכות. A Torah blessing requires שם ומלכות the essential conditions required to swear any & all Torah oath alliances known as “brit/britot”. This an absolutely critical מאי נפקא מינא definition of the 7th tohor Oral Torah midda רב חסד. The revelation at Horev of the 13 tohor middot define the required k’vanna of any and all wisdom commandments from the Torah known collectively as “time-oriented commandments”.
Therefore which Holy Writing Primary “Gemara” source surpasses in tohor middot depth comparison to Yermia 1:10/”Mishna”? Eikhah. Due to it expresses national, not personal, the brit faith of blessing/curse justice – the central theme of acceptance of the Torah at Sinai as defined by the first Sinai commandment. HaShem libertated Israel from Egyptian slavery for Israel to obey the oath brit to rule Canaan with judicial common law Sanhedrin courtroom justice. Eikha communicates the curse of g’lut prophetic mussar; it functions as the case law to Yermia’s legal themes.
Eikha addresses the consequences of worshipping Av tuma avoda Gods Universal Monotheism or otherwise who live in the Heavens above and therein denies and rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; the revelation of the post Calf 13 middot defines the Torah concept of רוח הקודש. No other Ketuvim textual sources surpass how Eikhah serves as the Case/Rule best בנין אב precedent for Yermia 1:1-10.
Jewish tradition, as reflected in Bava Batra 15a and various Targumim, links Eikhah to Jeremiah, sometimes viewing the five poems as his emotional outpouring following the consequences of the Moshe oath brit alliance cut in the Book of D’varim. Prophets do NOT foretell the future as defines the tuma nature of witchcraft from the Torah and also expressed through the av tuma gospels declarations “fulfilled the words of the prophets”.
Psalm 130, while yearning for redemption and tohor qualities, remains a personal plea (“Out of the depths I call to You”), differing from the transgenerational prophetic mussar in Yarmia. Certain approaches emphasize the 13 tohor middot (revealed at Horev post-Golden Calf) as defining prophetic mussar and Oral Torah logic, distinguishing heart-centered covenantal wisdom (“לא בשמים היא”) from external searches. Within such lenses, Eikhah functions as a national “case” illustrating blessing/curse dynamics tied to Sinai acceptance, serving as precedent for Yarmia 1:1-10’s themes.
This view draws on traditional associations while advancing a specialized framework centered on the 13 tohor middot as the logic system of Oral Torah revelation, the Yatzir Ha-Tov as the internal Mishkan-heart locus of wisdom (מלאכה), and time-oriented commandments requiring k’vanna defined by these middot (e.g., the single simplified example of רב חסד linked to oath alliances with שם ומלכות).
Eikhah portrays the events as the national outworking of ignored prophetic warnings, functioning as emotional “case” material to Yarmia’s legal-prophetic mussar themes of judicial common law, fair restitution, Sanhedrin courtroom rule in Canaan as the purpose of liberation from Egyptian slavery. T’shuva spins around the central axis of remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot to eternally father the chosen Cohen people.
The revelation of the Oral Torah 13 tohor middot spirits defines the k’vanna of the revelation of the first Commandment שם השם לשמה – the greatest Torah commandment upon which all other Torah commandments stand or fall. Eikhah, as national lament over g’lut consequences of rejecting Sinai’s first commandment (liberation for judicial brit justice), illustrates blessing/curse dynamics and serves as paradigmatic (a paradigm, one word can be replaced by another that fulfills the same grammatical role) precedent (בנין אב) for heart-centered oath brit alliances (Based upon the pre-conditions of שם ומלכות, where the latter term restricted to the dedication of Oral Torah middot as the guide and direction of the Yatzir Ha-Tov within the heart.) blessed to prevail over all av tuma avoda zara spirits – based upon the 10 plagues of Egypt.
Its an error to say that Eikhah explicitly functions as the “best case law”/”Gemara source” for the Prophetic Primary source of Yarmia 1:1-10 simply because both the Mishna and Gemara followed after the sealing of the T’NaCH early in the days of the 2nd Commonwealth. Rather then to say that the T’NaCH serves as the “av model” for the later Mishna/Gemara\Talmud; akin to the Bavli came about 150 years after the sealing of the Yerushalmi. Anachronistic – out of its proper historical or chronological context – to compare T’NaCH literature with the much later Talmudic literature, except that both this and that exist as משנה תורה common law legalism. The former mussar common law while the latter halachic ritual common law; specifically the framers of the Talmud sealed the k’vanna for this common law scholarship to serve as the model in its own right to the day when Jews reconquered our homeland from the clutches of the Goyim.
Its an error to say that Eikhah explicitly functions as the “best case law”/”Gemara source” for the Prophetic Primary source of Yarmia 1:1-10 simply because both the Mishna and Gemara followed after the sealing of the T’NaCH early in the days of the 2nd Commonwealth. Rather then to say that the T’NaCH serves as the “av model” for the later Mishna/Gemara\Talmud; akin to the Bavli came about 150 years after the sealing of the Yerushalmi. Anachronistic – out of its proper historical or chronological context – to compare T’NaCH literature with the much later Talmudic literature, except that both this and that exist as משנה תורה common law legalism. The former mussar common law while the latter halachic ritual common law; specifically the framers of the Talmud sealed the k’vanna for this common law scholarship to serve as the model in its own right to the day when Jews reconquered our homeland from the clutches of the Goyim.
Eikhah exemplifies national brit dynamics: the lived curse of g’lut stemming from av tuma worship or rejection of Sinai’s commandments against witchcraft and Yosef’s divination fraud with his brothers! The T’NaCH – sealed through a gradual process spanning the Second Temple era, with traditional credit to the Men of the Great Assembly (early Second Commonwealth) for significant organization, though full consensus extended into the early rabbinic period after Daniel’s composition (~164 BCE). The Mishnah – redacted ~200 CE; the Yerushalmi Gemara reached completion in the late 4th to early 5th century CE; the Bavli followed roughly 100–180 years later (mid-6th to early 7th century CE), if the Sovaraim included as the final redactors.
Tanach therefore stands as the primary “av model”—providing precedents via hermeneutics such as binyan av—for the Mishna/Gemara structure, exactly as the Yerushalmi models the expansive Bavli. This avoids anachronism while preserving Tanach’s primacy in defining mussar, justice, and middot refinement as the substance of Torah faith to pursue righteous justice among our people.
The Talmud compares to that of a warp/weft loom which weaves aggadic דרוד\פשט threads of T’NaCH mussar with רמז/סוד threads of halachic ritualism. This latter “thread” conceals the judicial justice most essential nature of Talmudic hope and vision for the future with the kabbalah of halacha which dresses the Talmud as religious ritual Jewish law. Av tuma avoda zara by definition worships their Gods (Monotheism or otherwise) in the Heavens above and not as faith in righteous judicial courtroom common law justice below.
Judicial justice, in point of fact, abhors religious belief systems, theologies and Creedal dictates from god-like saints and cult figures as something disgusting on par with how the brothers of Yosef groveled before him. Cults of personality practically the sole definition of avoda zara; Muhammad and his silly Koran serve as stark witness. The wisdom of weaving prophetic mussar based upon tohor prophetic middot as the k’vaana of doing halachic ritual observances changes these toldot-secondary commandments/mitzvot which do not require k’vaana to wisdom Torah commandments which dedicate – like a korban – Oral Torah tohor middot – the revelation of k’vanna of the 1st Sinai commandment sanctified לשמה. Simply stated: Judicial justice vs. Religious belief in God or Gods — compares to a person who enters a mikveh while holding a dead rat in his hand. This comparison taught in mesechta Yevamot expresses the deep revulsion and utter contempt for the Pauline graphted on to, Goyim don’t require brit melah, not under the law av tuma avoda zara; or the Muhammad the last prophet lie – the Torah forbids camel before pig.
Earthly Sanhedrin courtroom justice—rooted in the first Sinai commandment—as the living “mikveh” of the nation, while heavenly-focused belief systems contaminate it like the dead rat. This shabbat like הבדלה emphasizes heart-centered tohor middot refinement over creedal religion, aligns with T’NaCH prophetic mussar. The משל of holding a dead sheretz (rat), all theology based Creedal Ego-I belief systems fundamentally define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai negative commandment. The רמז\סוד threads of Talmudic halacha conceal the substance of Torah courtroom justice from the forms of religious belief in Gods in heaven or earth – the latter expressed through physical Temple-idols.
The revelation of the Torah through the רמז\סוד of the Mishkan – the sin of the Golden Calf functions as its logical דיוק/inference. The bark of a tree does not compare to the fruit it produces. Avoda zara confuses the bark for the fruit; the ערב רב did not worship a Golden Calf “bark” but rather they foolishly worshiped the word name substitute theology which replaced אלהים for the Sinai first commandment שם השם לשמה – which the Oral Torah further clarified as רוח הקודש מידדות. No word, regardless of its spoken language, can substitute or replace רוח הקודש middot Spirits – the substance of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai which all Goyim reject to this very day.
Please stop. You post on my blog and now follow me to other people’s blog. Bad form.
Reminded of the Middle Ages when priests forced Jews in their synagogues on shabbat to listen to their vile arrogant bull shit. I totally agree “Bad Form” not forgotten.
This is your justification for your behavior? The balance of justice you think you hold is but a thickened hatred carved into a graven image. You don’t need to do this to get divine justice.
Gerry actions have consequences. Some call it: What comes around goes around. Torah employs the language measure for measure.
The Modern Vision of Zionism
Just as the Talmud builds a full beit midrash so too does the T’NaCH, as specifically proven in this one short Shir HaMa’alot example. Tehillim 120 not restricted to alienation, but inclusive of moral exile – speech uttered within and throughout a diseased and corrupted Government “Court” social reality. The Holy Writings of the T’NaCh literature of mussar common law function as external “case/din” mussar which – so to speak – interprets based upon different “witness” perspectives the “Prophetic” Case heard before the Sanhedrin Court.
When speech becomes weaponized, society enters moral exile even if geographically sovereign. The geographic references in verse 5 (“Woe is me, that I sojourn with Meshech, that I dwell beside the tents of Kedar”) evoke foreign, hostile environments (Meshech linked to northern peoples, Kedar to Arabian nomads), yet the deeper pain is existential: prolonged dwelling “with him that hateth peace” (v. 6), where the speaker’s commitment to shalom meets only warlike response (v. 7: “I am all peace; but when I speak, they are for war”). This is not merely hysteria but the grammar of moral dislocation—a “dislocated moral refugee.” Study Tehillim 120 not as ascent from exile but as a cry voiced inside a corrupted social reality, including “diseased and corrupted Government ‘Court’” dynamics.
Post-Bar Kokhba historical trauma—the mass slaughter, expulsion, and Hadrian’s renaming of Judea to Syria Palaestina (135 CE) and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina—embodied the shift from physical republic to existential/moral refugee status, paralleling the psalm’s “אוי לי כי גרתי משך” not as mere geography but as enduring alienation.
By framing the Ketuvim Holy Writings as Gemara to the cited prophets’ Mishna, this sh’itta of learning validates the פרדס kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva. The organization of the Talmud into a loom-like warp/weft:halacha\aggada wherein דרוש\פשט affix to the aggadic portions of the Talmud, while the רמז\סוד halachic portions of the Talmud “conceal/hide” the judicial vision from the Goyim enemy/censors. Much like the later Rashi commentary to the Chumash – common law precedent based sh’itta radically differs from the Rashi commentary to the Talmud dictionary-p’shat conceals the common law judicial nature of the Talmud. Hence this forced the Baali-Tosafot to write a common law commentary to the Talmud; but even those some 60 Baali-Tosafot did not extend their off the dof precedent case/din study back to make a משנה תורה re-evaluation of the language of the Home Mishna which the Gemara learns through case/rule similar precedents.
The רשע Rambam Yad statute law commentary to the Talmud directly duplicates the sh’itta of the Shomronim/Canaanites, Tzeddukim, Karaites, NT, Koran – all of who deny the Oral Torah revelation of tohor middot as the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Where the שם השם לשמה occupied the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the Cohen brit people rather than the Heavens above – like as do the Divine Names אל שדי, אלהים, אל, האל imply. The post Sinai most essential concept of faith: תורה, לא בשמים היא, the First Commandment (greatest of all Torah commandments) defines.
The Rambam code simply does not qualify as Oral Torah common law but rather expresses the foreign Roman statute law sh’itta of learning. The main consequent impact of the Rambam Civil War, Jewish scholars ceased or forgot that משנה תורה refers to Common Law which defines the k’vanna of the Book דברים. Anglo-American common law perhaps based upon T’NaCH-Talmudic common law, and not the reverse.
Rambam saved the Hebrew language with his code written in clear precise Hebrew. His rationalist theology “converted” the sealed masoret into a far more palatable format far less threatening to both the church and mosque. Early in the 20th Century the Czar attempted to restrict Yeshiva learning which prioritized the Yad rather than the Talmud. None the less, statute law static deductive reasoning akin to plain geometry. Whereas T’NaCH-Talmud literature communicates פרדס inductive reasoning logic; a flowing dynamic logic that differs from Greek deductive reasoning like Calculus variables differ from Arabraic Algebra; 19th Century hyperbolic geometry repudiates the 5th axiom of Euclid’s plain geometry.
Off the דרך mainstream Judaism failed to correct the assimilated error of the Rambam’s statute law. The Catholic church during this same period incorporated statute law codification of Catholic dogma quite similar to the Rambam’s halachic codification which changed perverted corrupted Oral Torah judicial common law into religious statute law with prioritizes the false parameter of an Ego based “I believe” religious belief system substitute replacement of Sanhedrin judicial courtroom common law as model by the Framers of both the T’NaCH and Talmud.
The Rambam code stands apart from the B’HaG and Rif common law codes. His corruption failure to bring sources for his halachic rulings, all later super-commentaries on both his code perversion and similar Tur and Shulkan Aruch statute law perversions failed to correct. For example the כסף משנה speculative attempts to unilaterally bring a Gemara source for the Rambam posok halacha – complete tits on a boar hog useless. No post Rambam super commentary ever affixed a Rambam posok to either a B’HaG, Rif, Rosh similar halacha wherein the latter affix that halachic ruling back to its proper Mishnaic source. Gemara always exists as a commentary to specific Mishnaic sources – always. This off the דרך error of statute law halachic codes set the stage for the Orthodox failure to make massive aliya to Palestine prior to the 2nd White Paper in 1939. The off the דרך Orthodox Judaism as guilty as the Wilderness generation in the days of Moshe and Aaron.
Courtroom common law ie Oral Torah simply not religious belief system statute law. The earlier halachic codifications maintained fidelity to Oral Torah common law’s relationship between Mishna & Gemara as courtroom law. The framers of the Talmud vision, to write a legal model for the day when Jews reconquered our homeland from the Romans. Who could envision that the g’lut who last 2000+ years?! Prior to the Oct 7th 2023 Abomination War, court reform exploded as a government crisis! Restoration of the Torah as the Written Constitution of the Torah Republic organized into 12 tribal states with the Talmudic model Sanhedrin common law lateral courtroom system alive today as envisioned by the framers of the Talmud.
Critics of theocratic models argue that a pluralistic democracy, with its secular Basic Laws and independent judiciary, better serves a diverse population facing existential security threats, while proponents counter that the Rambam perversion which “baptized” Oral Torah into Roman statute law avoda zara, fail to grasp that the Rambam Civil War changed the vision of the Framers of both T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. G’lut Jewry of the Middle Ages required a modification of Talmud into a Jewish religion. Modern Israeli society absolutely requires the sense of trust which Sanhedrin lateral courts raise the banner of justice as defined by fair restitution of damages.
Orthodox proponents of the Rambam code ignore the fundamental difference between T’NaCH-Talmudic inductive logic from Ancient Greek-most European societal based deductive reasoning. The pre-Oct7th Judicial debates across Israel debates primarily focused upon cult of personality issues and totally ignored the day/night differences between Oral Torah inductive logic from Greek/European deductive logic; the latter logic format defines the Rambam statute religious law codification made during the Dark Ages.
Claims made by Rambam which declared it as a complete statement of Oral Torah totally untrue; proof stands: whenever a person studies Talmud today, the statute law codes of the Rambam error do not comment as does the Baali Tosafot commentary to the Talmud upon how to correctly understand the intent of the language of the Talmud. Hence the statute law codes not included on the page of the Talmud as the Vilna Sha’s includes both Rashi and Baali Tosafot. Bottom line: Oral Torah does not teach Greek-like philosophy.
The Yad explicitly frames the work as a comprehensive restatement of the entire Oral Law. Both the court of Rabbeinu Yonah and the majority of the Baali Tosafot placed the Rambam into נידוי no different than the later רשע Spinoza. The disaster Paris burnings of 1242 coupled with the 1306 French mass Jewish expulsion permanently destroyed the French common law school of Talmudic scholarship. All super-commentaries written after the Rosh, starting with the Tur base themselves upon deductive statute law reasoning. Akin to how Congress limits individual debates to 15 minutes. Courtroom law requires that both the Prosecutor and Defense close their arguments – at their own determined pace.
The interplay between the physical destruction of Jewish textual heritage in 13th- and 14th-century France and the enduring symbolic battles over Maimonides’ legacy—including a documented alteration of his tomb inscription—illustrates the complex, often polarized communal sentiments that persisted long after his death in 1204. The 1242 burning of Talmud manuscripts and the 1306 expulsion from France indeed eradicated enormous quantities of evidence, compounding the challenges of reconstructing the full picture of medieval Jewish intellectual life.
Provençal scholar David Kimhi (c. 1160–1235) and the lingering effects of the 1232–1233 bans on his philosophical writings—opponents altered the stone to read “the excommunicated heretic” (מוחרם ומין). Heinrich Graetz’s monumental Geschichte der Juden (History of the Jews, 1853–1875; English editions 1891–1895) devotes extensive chapters to the Maimonidean controversy, the Paris Disputation of 1240, the Talmud burnings of 1242, and the philosophical divides between rationalists and traditionalists. Similarly, Simon Dubnow’s multi-volume histories (Weltgeschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 1925–1929, and earlier Russian works) analyze medieval Jewish intellectual currents, the French expulsions, and Rambam’s legacy in detail, framing the controversy as part of broader Ashkenazi-Sephardi tensions.
The Maimonidean Controversy ended in France around the 1306 expulsion, which dispersed communities and halted further documentation. But the ‘domino effect’ of this Jewish Civil War produced internal Jewish chaos and anarchy which invited British and German taxation without representation followed by mass Jewish forced expulsions which culminated in the 3 Century Pope Bull which imposed ghetto gulags and the 1492 expulsion from Spain, followed by the Inquisition and the 1648 Ukrainian Cossack pogroms.
Foreign invasions traditionally follow internal domestic chaos and anarchy. Rome made Herod king over Judea due to Jewish Civil War. Troskii based his theory of ‘Permanent Revolution’ based upon the model of how the French revolution spread to all surrounding countries who likewise confronted internal chaos and anarchy. Post the Rambam Civil War scholars do not address the subject of Roman law, understood through lenses of legal classifications similar to the organization of a dozen eggs sold in a supermarket.
A political-legal application to modern Israeli constitutional debates? The revelation of 13 tohor middot at Horev to Moshe Rabbeinu serve as the basis for the Tannaim middot logic formats 7 Hillel, 10 Akiva, and 13 Yishmael affixed to Halacha and the 32 of rabbi Yossi assigned to Aggadic portions of the Talmud. The משנה תורה בנין אב for all these distinct and different middot formats – the revelation expressed through the first Sinai commandment Torah לא בשמים היא which remembers the Egyptian oppression of depriving Israel of the required straw to make bricks. Employment of middot as the “building-block” of inductive פרדס reasoning differentiates T’NaCH/Talmudic common-law from Greek\Roman statute law which organizes decrees made by authorities such as Caesar or Napoleon into defined legal categories. The Six Orders of the Mishna represents an entirely different structured Order than Greek\Roman Statute law codes.
Tehillem 120 expresses a deep sense of alienation, highlighting the emotional turmoil of living amidst deceitful and hostile individuals. The language underscores a societal environment where trust no longer exists. The concluding verse, “אני שלום וכי אדבר המה למלחמה,” illustrates how words can become weapons, further emphasizing the conflict inherent in social interactions where “peace” employed as a deception-mask which hides and conceals Jealousy and צר עיין.
Yarmia 9:2–8: explores the pervasive dishonesty and the metaphorical use of the “sword” לשון הרע. Isaiah 59:3–8 – reinforces the ideas of systemic deceit and societal breakdown as communicated in Tehillem 120. Particularly the notion of absolutely no trust/shalom due to the false faces of falsehood.
Micah 7:1–6 – the untrustworthiness of those closest, this reflects the emotional landscape of navigating relationships marked by betrayal and conflict. Therefore, Tehillem 120 serves as a poignant reflection on the realities of trust and alienation within social spaces, functioning as a precedential text that situates itself within a broader prophetic discourse on integrity and relational dynamics. It highlights the limitations of ordinary communication in the face of systemic dishonesty, aligning closely with the emotional truths expressed in the prophetic literature surrounding it.
What makes Tehillim 120 so distinctive within the Shir HaMa’alot corpus: it is not a psalm of ascent from exile but a psalm spoken inside a moral exile. Alienation, relational distortion, the collapse of trust, and the weaponization of speech—captures the emotional grammar of this specific Tehillem. To learn the Holy Writings within the T’NaCH requires the Oral Torah discipline: Prophetic/Mishnaic NaCH → Holy Writings\Gemara format encapsulated in both the T’NaCH primary source and Talmudic secondary source literature. Failure to grasp just how the Tannaim and Amoraim influenced by the T’NaCH as the Primary source which dominated their interpretation of Torah common law as expressed through the Mishna and contemporary Tannaic sources of that period during the days prior to the Bar Kokhba revolt against Rome which resulted in the mass population slaughter and transfer of the survivor Jewish populations from Judea and the renaming of the destroyed Jewish second republic unto the alien European name of Palestine; followed later still by Amoraim scholars in Bavil who compiled and organized the Gemara as a common law compilation of Case/Din precedents by which to weight the Case\Rule Mishnaic common law legal compilation made by rabbi Yechuda Ha-Nassi in about 210 CE.
אוי לי כי גרתי משך not geographic but rather existential. 120 communicates not merely distressed hysteria; but more accurately a dislocated—moral refugee. שפת שקר… לשון רמיה … not one specific liar—but rather a culture of duplicity. חצי גיבור שנונים—not simply a metaphorical flourish, but rather a legal description of speech-as-violence. אני שלום… המה למלחמה peace-talk is interpreted as aggression in a society built on suspicion. No different than the UN British-French-Russia “dictate” for land for peace” post the 1967 War. This hostile foreign propaganda so conveniently ignores the Nasser command to his generals to complete the Nazi Shoah of European Jewry across the obliterated lands of Israel based upon the Roman Palestine model!
“Mishnaic” Yarmia 9:2-8, the Primary source Tehillem 120 “Gemara” analogue secondary source. The mussar cummunicated in such a “Talmudic learning” views both mussar sources address 1. weaponized speech; 2. systemic deceit; 3. relational breakdown; 4. no trust. Yarmia 9, not merely parallel—but more accurately the Tehillem 120 commentary grasps the blue-print multidimensional facet viewpoint legal categories viewed from this precedent Tehillem “witness”. This “Talmudic” learning serves to define the phenomenon: a society where speech has become a weapon and trust is impossible.
The structural diagnosis of Tehillem 120 precedent to Isaiah 59:38, specifically to 1. lying lips 2. absence of justice 3. no path to trust/shalom 4. crooked social structures. This Primary source prophetic Mishna functions as the macro version while the Gemara Tehillim 120 precedent operates as the micro (כלל-פרט) example of how the kabbalah of פרדס studies both T’NaCH and Talmudic literature as codified in the Talmud Yerushalmi in Judea and Bavli post renamed as Roman Palestine in Iraqi exile.
Micah 7:16, the Tehillem 120 precedent views this Primary NaCH source from the witness perspective testimony before a “Sanhedrin” courtroom of: intimate betrayal. This Micah Mishnaic Prophetic Primary source interpreted by Tehillem 120 from the dimension of – NO TRUST even in owns own household; meaning betrayal by intimates which forces the right hand to conceal its intentions from its left hand because relational proximity only increases personal danger. Tehillem 120 “gemara” explains the “Mishnaic” Micah 7 through the lenses of emotional tones where the pain experienced and felt not limited to public humiliation but rather intimate disgrace.
The Holy Writings of the T’NaCH, expressed through Tehillem 120 duplicates how the Gemara learns the Mishna by bringing similar Case/Rule precedents wherein the style of “Difficulty\Answer” expresses the courtroom Prosecutor vs Defense Attorney legal briefs which bring different legal precedents and therefore debate between them which “set of precedent cases” presented before the Court qualifies as the closes set of valid precedents to best determine the din for the current case heard before the Court. Hence a Torts court has 3 Court justices; one appointed as the prosecutor the other appointed as the defense attorney, and the third rules whenever neither Judge of the court validates the precedents brought by his opposing judicial collegues legal brief. The Talmud refers to this legal impass as taku. Such a legal impass the 3rd court justice rules either one way or the other. Hence all lateral common law Torah courts have an odd number of judges.
T’NaCH\Talmudic “sovereignty” Civic not theological. This scholarship argues, much like as did Herzl’s “Jewish State” for Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination through establishment of the Cohen Republic of the Avot. The Herzl assimilated versions of a Jewish state primarily in political-national terms, & most definitely not religious Rambam-halachic formats. The foreign model based heavily from European parliamentary systems, akin to a woman’s menstrual pad. Herzl’s Jewish equal rights to achieve Jewish self determination, as later defined and clarified by the Balfour and League 1922 mandate to establish a Jewish national home. Serves as the political model to forge the Written Torah as the Constitution of the Republic of States/tribes, which mandates Sanhedrin Capital Crimes and Torts courts which function akin to spokes on a wheel. Where small Sanhedrin Cities of Refuge define the borders of the Jewish state.
The Mishnah’s Six Orders are thematic categories of law. They are not territorial allocations of sovereignty. Converting them into a territorial federal map would require new constitutional engineering determined by the Sanhedrin as the Constitutional Court. Similar to Constitutional courts which operate in civil law countries which likewise through Constitutional mandate ‘Legislative Review’. The Yerushalmi Talmud debates whether king David Nationalized Damascus the establishment of a small Sanhedrin court of 23 City of Refuge; territorial authority requires judicial institutionalization. Sovereignty without courts – incomplete.
Sanhedrin common law courts review legislation passed by Tribal & Federal governments. Determines conformity with Torah constitutional norms. Defines Federal divisions of power, something akin to the US Commerce Clause. Anointed, based upon Moshe’s dedication of the House of Aaron – the dedication of the Torah mitzva of Moshiach: based upon David’s vain-oath פרט, (touching the כלל dedication to rule the land with judicial justice) expressed through his bloody hands in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
Legislative powers such as monetary policy, bureaucratic regulatory agencies primarily restricted to Tribal economic autonomy rather than to some Big Brother Federal overview. For example: telecommunications or international trade etc. The Sanhedrin would inevitably develop interpretive doctrines expanding constitutional text into modern governance domains. That is already a form of constitutional evolution — similar to modern jurisprudence.
The Torah model of Moshiach, absolutely rejects Goyim cult of personality Gods or prophets! Prophets’ functions as the police enforcers of Judicial court-room rulings chiefly through means of public prophetic mussar. Just as Sanhedrin jurisdiction limited to within the borders of the Jewish state, so too prophet/police.
Prophets in no way shape or form compare to sooth sayers/witches who predict the future; anymore than prophet sent to Goyim in foreign lands based upon the precedents of Moshe and Yonah. The king of Assyria not the target of Yonah’s mussar. Rather, the g’lut Israelites captured following the collapse of the kingdom of Israel! Torah rejects both “sister religions” as Molach or Baal av tumah avoda zarah.
A Torah Republic not the same as an ancient Athens democracy. The Book of שפטים serves as precedent. The US model, for example, no where in both its Constitutions, nor its Declaration of Independence – the word democracy ever written. The mussar of the Book of Shmuel openly rebukes Israel for demanding a king. A Torah Constitutional Republic the “Moshiach” משל has the נמשל interpretation which assigns this mitzva as no different than the mitzva of keeping shabbat. All bnai brit Israel have equal obligations to both wisdom commandments/time-oriented commandments throughout the generations.
The sealed masoret serves as the ‘Basic Law’ for Sanhedrin courts procedural statutes, enforcement authority, mechanisms for constitutional amendment, and mechanisms for removal of judges.
Shabbat observance organized into wisdom מלאכה which requires k’vanna from toldot positive & negative commandments – inclusive of Talmudic halachot which do not require k’vanna but serve as בניני אבות precedent which elevate toldot commandments/halachot to av time-oriented commandments. Just as shabbat prioritizes “domains” so too does the 6 Orders of the Mishna.
Just as Yosef’s mockery of his brothers through divination an abomination so too false prophets who seek to entice Israel to embrace foreign cultures and intermarry and most emphatically seek to entice Israel to worship new or foreign Gods. Israel compares to a drop which falls into an ocean; the burden to define and maintain the culture, customs, manners, and habits which separate the chosen Cohen children of the Avot as “t’rumah” from the chol seed of the Avot who fathered a multitude of Goyim; herein defines the substance of the Torah as Constitution which mandate Sanhedrin common law courts.
Modern constitutions survive because they include amendment procedures. פרדס logic fluid dynamic and flexible. Righteous judicial justice dedicated similar to the Moshiach, to fair restitution of damages inflicted by Jews upon other bnai brit allies/citizens – inclusive of gere toshav Goyim. Moshiach as a Torah mitzva functions as a constitutional ethic, not an executive throne. NaCH prophets often served as the Torah removal mechanism of institutionalized power abuse/corruption.
Moshiach = constitutional ethic of just rule; Prophets = institutional correction mechanism; public moral rebuke as key removal trigger. Torah = constitutional charter; Sanhedrin = constitutional Federal court system. Prophets, based upon the precedent of Shmuel, did not themselves depose rulers. The blessing/curse brit causes Life or Death just as in the days of Par’o and the 10 plagues. Prophets serve the judicial משנה תורה rulings of the Great Sanhedrin court. Prophesy simply the exorcise of civic conscience. The removal of Rabban Gamliel as Nassi serves as a precedent of “Who removes a corrupt Sanhedrin justice”. Peers dedicated to the pursuit of righteous justice removed Rabban Gamliel not a prophet.
Authority in Torah jurisprudence – not absolute. Institutional abuse can trigger removal. Correction – internal, not prophetic overthrow. Sanhedrin justice requires as its fundamental basis a combine tribal-federal judicial convention. Herein functions a model for the Constitutional Republic of Israel as the definition of Zionism: Jewish right to achieve self-determination within the borders of the Jewish state. This Constitutional order despises judicial absolutism as equal to the Dark Ages ‘divine right of kings’ narishkeit. The tribal/federal model permits tribal courts participation in both appointments and removal similar to how US State legislatures originally appoint Federal Senators as ambassadors of each and every State represented in the Senate.
The modern Jewish state not a primitive agrarian-based economy which requires slavery. But an industrial based economy where the State protects citizen rights. Post ’48 & ’67 Israel respects the political accomplishments of the American and to a far smaller degree the French revolution(s). But rejects the Marx 1848 Das Capital socialism as utterly corrupt and flawed. On par with the European Central Banking model which the traitor Wilson copied and forced America make entangling alliances with Europe! Adam Smith’s free banking model the economic ideal for a healthy Torah constitutional republic. Who stabilizes the economy during external crises (war, global capital shocks, or trade embargo)? The tribal and Federal legislatures and/or Knesset “bear the yoke of the kingdom of heaven”. A gold\diamond-based commodity currency serves as the Constitutional ideal. The Federal government compares to the power of Congress to mint currency.
Understanding the mitzva to “remember/t’shuva” Amalek
The mitzva to remember Amalek a complex wisdom commandment. דברים כה:יח – ולא ירא אלהים falsely understood as referring to Amalek. חסדי אומות העולם quoted out of context religious rhetoric. Bring a Primary source sealed masoret which defines this quote from 105a. To start with how does this Gemara interpret the language of the Mishna it comments upon? Rambam’s statute law introduces a religious post Shas halacha rather than obeys the intent of the Shas framers for the Talmud to serve as the model for Torah common law courts when the Jewish people reconquer and rule our homelands once again. Statute law – like Rambam’s code – not T’NaCH\Talmudic common law. Religious halachic decrees do not compare to courtroom judicial rulings based upon prior judicial precedents.
זוהר חלק ג׳, רס״ב–רס״ג — הזוהר מתאר שהערב רב לא היו בתוך ענני הכבוד, ולכן הם היו הראשונים שעמלק פגע בהם הזוהר מתאר שהערב רב לא היו בתוך ענני הכבוד, ולכן הם היו הראשונים שעמלק פגע בהם
מדרש תנחומא, כי תצא, סימן ט’: המדרש אומר שעמלק פגע ב“מי שהיו מחוץ לענני הכבוד מפרשים רבים (בעיקר מקובלים) מסבירים שהערב רב היו מחוץ לעננים
The issue not that the חסידי אומות have a portion in the world to come. Rather Amalek has no portion in the world to come. Therefore, the language: לא יראת אלהים cannot refer to Amalek but only to the ערב רב. Because the key word “אתה” … ולא ירא אלהים”. Totally disagree with the common תיפש פשט reading. Torah commands mussar. Mussar does not apply to Amalek because Amalek by definition “has no shame”. Therefore ולא יראת אלהים follows the instruction of the Zohar and Midrash.
Amalek rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. For the Torah to say אין להם יראת אלהים – utterly pointless and vain. The blessing/curse-life\death brit defines the intent of the first 2 Sinai commandments. What defines ערב רב? The T’NaCH sources of Kings and Ezra affix the tuma Yatzir as 1. clinging to the customs of Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – like Amalek. 2. Intermarriage with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sina. Like as told in the Pinchas killing of the Head of the Tribe of Shimon. The Book of Ezra supports this interpretation which defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Isaiah mocks the absolute stupidity of using wood to heat ones’ home cook ones’ food and carve an idol.
The Xtian 30 Year War reads the 2nd Sinai commandment limited to physical idols – the central dispute between Catholics and Protestants. Both sects of Xtianity an utter Torah abomination. The 2nd Sinai commandment not a simple טיפש פשט literal reading any more than the Creation story of בראשית. Debates over how the Universe created the Mishna explicitly denounces; those who contemplate that which is above, below, or behind them – better that they were never born. The Creation story instructs prophetic mussar; Torah teach by way of משל\נמשל. The Creation story introduces Av tohor time-oriented commandment as the Av commandment of the Torah! The toldot commandment introduced in שמות ויקרא ובמדבר – positive and negative commandments which do not require k’vanna. דברים also named משנה תורה because unlike the Rambam code misnamed משנה תורה, the 6 Orders of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna – court Common law judicial ruling, NOT legislative/cult of personality religious decrees. The Rambam statute law code therefore does NOT define the מילה משנה תורה but rather the Mishna defines this 2nd Name for the Book of דברים.
Just as rabbi Akiva instruct: the wilderness generation has no portion in the world to come, so too the ערב רב curse of “antisemitism plague” consequent to Jewish assimilation and intermarriage – has no portion in the world to come. Prophetic mussar does not apply to Goyim. Despite both Moshe and later Yona sent to foreign lands, both commanded mussar to Israel and not Goyim because Goyim have no portion in the world to come. This brings us back to righteous gentiles as an except to this general statement. Righteous gentiles not gere toshav. The Rambam erroneous posok which teaches that bnai noach = all Goyim — false. The Torah defines “goyim” as גר תושב ונכריים. Sanhedrin refers to ger toshav while Baba Kama refers to Goyim who converted from fear of lions. Talmud never goes out of the parameters established by the Torah – based upon the first commandment. Torah judicial law courts only have jurisdiction within the boundaries of conquered Canaan. G’lut Jews remain in “Egypt”. Clearly the word “Egypt” לא דוקא.
The phrase “חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא” explicitly stated in Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:2, which serves as a foundational source often referenced in Gemara discussions. The Tosefta reads: חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא. Balaam by contrast equated with figures like Cushan-Rishathaim and Laban, symbolizing persistent evil against Israel.
A central dispute arises between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua on Tehillim (Psalms) 9:18: “לשאולה רשעים ישובו כל גוים שכחי אלהים” … Rabbi Yehoshua: The verse implies only wicked Goyim (“those who forget God”) – excluded; meaning righteous Goyim—who fear God and act justly—do have a share. This aligns with the Tosefta’s explicit statement, inferring that Balaam, has no share, but “other Goyim” do.
Amalek, as a force of tumah, exploits this vulnerability, attacking “the hindmost” (Devarim 25:18)—interpreted as those spiritually “cooling off” from Torah commitment. The Zohar frames this as a cosmic battle: Amalek represents the sitra achra, preying on those not enveloped in divine chesed. עיין ravkooktorah.org
Rabbi Levi opens with Tehillim 9:6, it compares Amalek’s assault to jumping into a boiling tub: No nation dared attack Israel post-Exodus due to divine awe, but Amalek “cooled” that fear by striking first, targeting the weak stragglers. Therefore the mitzva to ‘remember Amalek’ commands the mussar of the Torah curse labeled today as “antisemitism”.
these are so horribly long nobody is reading them. Just saying.
That’s why the church got it wrong in the first place. They promote a quick fix pie in the sky religion rather than a deep search to achieve justice in this world.
https://youtube.com/shorts/0J6bGoyqLHY?si=wiSu_6yBs2zLPXGr
Mesechta Avoda Zarah specifically instructs that only Israel accepts the Torah. Hence the דיוק – the god of Sinai only a local tribal god. Clearly the god who delivered Israel out of Egypt not the God of Egypt. בראשית ברא אלהים introduces Av tohor wisdom commandments taught through the משל of the world created in six days. The נמשל introduces time-oriented Av Torah commandments which creates the chosen Cohen people in all generations through the sanctification of time-oriented commandments. Hence Torah commands mussar. Torah does not teach history. T’NaCH & Talmud, Siddur & Midrashim establish the culture, customs, practices and identities of the chosen Cohen people. Just that simple, no fancy dancing.
The god of Israel judged the Egyptian Gods. The concept of as above so below. The god of Israel vs. the Gods of Egypt serve as the eternal model of a Court-room trial. The Goyim world view which reads their Bible or Koran as Egypt’s Gods either false or subordinate means nothing. Goyim never accepted the Blessing/Curse brit of Sinai. Just as Goyim aliens do not determine the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach so too Goyim do not determine the god of Israel.
The curse of g’lut: Jews do not do mitzvot לשמה – based upon the first Sinai commandment. Egypt לאו דוקא. The temple of Shlomo – av tuma avoda zara made by a fool. The Book of Kings makes satire by referring to Shlomo as the “wisest of all men”. The god of Israel binds only Israel because only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
The Nicene Creed which equates Jesus as God, perhaps the strongest proof; international law a myth of propaganda morality, not a binding authority. Political conflicts throughout history falsely classified by some as a failure of diplomacy. But casting this political rhetoric upon the dust bin of history, political conflicts express a natural clash of sovereign “Gods.” Restated: A nation‑state — a functional “God.” Theological Universal Monotheism\tawhid, often called “international law” by UN member states who oppose Israel, attempt to override national sovereignty through religio/political rhetoric. But history provokes-proves that nations create their own sacred narratives. Universal monotheism directly resembles Great Power imperialism. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai establishes faith as judicial Sanhedrin court justice limited to the bnai brit people alone.
Other nations never bound to the 7 mitvot other than Ger Toshav. Why? These mitzvot make a required הבדלה which separates ger toshav from na’creeim. The Talmud always remains within the judicial boundaries which the Written Torah determines. Post sealing of the Shas Bavli all opinions made by scholars compare to US Supreme Court rulings which later Courts can overturn.
The Blessing/Curse Torah oath brit faith never presumes any conclusion that g’lut applies to HaShem as its applies to Israel. Any reading that attempts to teach this metaphor – it taken literally – merely a טיפש פשט. For example: among the Reshonim, only Rambam ruled halacha from aggadic sources. His Universal Monotheistic God permits Jews to daven in av tuma avoda zara Mosques.
That later Goyim, such as Hobbs, Schmitt, or modern nationalism “influenced” by the Torah does not invert this Torah “Nation-State as Functional God” as post Talmudic. Based upon the Torah premise: the chicken created and later laid eggs. Church rejection of the פרדס Oral Torah combined with their Jesus God invalidates its literalist reading of the Creation story. Just as Muhammad’s equal redefinition of prophets as persons sent to all nations invalidates the revelation of the Torah first commandment. Allah simply a Golden Calf word substitution.
Rambam’s universalist Noahide framework only a philosophical systematization, and it does not appear explicitly in the Talmud or Tanakh as a normative precedent. Hilchot Melachim 8–10, expresses a foreign philosophy — a Greek-influenced natural law perspective. The Talmud does not frame non-Jews as bound by a universal law in a systematic, Greek-like sense. Rambam abstracts from Talmudic rulings to a universal ethical schema — a philosophical move. There is no canonical Talmudic or Tanakh precedent for universalist moral obligations like Rambam imposes.
T’NaCH prophetic sources such as found Isaiah 13-14, 40-48 directed toward the failure of Israel to do t’shuva and remember the Sinai oath brit. Never to Goyim who never accepted this Sinai oath brit obligation. Same applies to Yonah sent to Nineveh. Repentance made by Goyim shares nothing with the Torah mitzva of t’shuva. Because t’shuva centers upon remembering the oaths sworn by our fore-fathers; repentance refers to regret made over personal sins.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Ukraine has captured more territory than Russia has taken in recent months, particularly during February 2026, highlighting a shift in momentum. However, these figures vary by source, with some analysts noting that winter conditions and troop morale play significant roles.
U.S. government social media post regarding the death of activist Quentin Deranque during political clashes in Lyon, France has limited the access of U.S. Ambassador Charles Kushner to senior officials. His death has sparked significant outrage in France, leading to accusations and heightened tensions between political factions, particularly between far-left and far-right groups. The recent diplomatic spat involving Charles Kushner, the U.S. Ambassador to France, revolves around his failure to attend a summons from the French Foreign Ministry concerning the comments made by the U.S. in the wake of the tragic death of Quentin Deranque, a 23 year old far-right activist who suffered a suffered a fatal brain injury. In the aftermath, eleven suspects have been detained, with several under investigation for murder. Among those arrested were two parliamentary aides linked to La France Insoumise (LFI), a significant left-wing political party in France. Raphaël Arnault, a party member, faced significant backlash due to his connections to groups blamed for the violence. Despite being forewarned about the protest, local police failed to prevent or even timely respond to this political murder. This failure raises serious concerns about public safety and the police’s ability to manage politically charged situations.
Spain’s political landscape with the US, terminated after Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez refusal to support U.S. military actions in Iran, and denounced U.S. intervention in Venezuela. Spanish officials have voiced their “concerns” about the consequences of Sanchez’s defiance, including possible restrictions on Spanish shipping to the U.S. stemming from the refusal to allow weapon transport for Israel.
Trump’s “America First” policy aligns with Washington’s ideals by advocating for reduced military engagements abroad and questioning the utility of longstanding alliances with European nations, particularly Britain, France and Spain. The Trump Administration during its first term highly critical of NATO countries funding structures, framing NATO allies’ lack of investment as a drain on U.S. resources.
The Gaza Board of Peace excludes England France and the UN and Spain. But includes regional players like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, aiming for a “balanced” approach without traditional Western intermediaries. Trump’s “America First” policy aligns with Washington’s ideals by advocating for reduced military engagements abroad and questioning the utility of longstanding alliances with European nations, particularly Britain, France and Spain. The Trump Administration during its first term highly critical of NATO countries funding structures, framing NATO allies’ lack of investment as a drain on U.S. resources.
President Trump’s foreign policy echoes strategies reminiscent of those instituted by President Dwight D. Eisenhower following the Suez Crisis of 1956. This reflects a significant historical context regarding U.S. relations with European powers and the Middle East. The establishment of NATO in 1949 was a direct outcome of Truman’s support for European nations. No critic of Eisenhower ever once referred to his slap to both London and France as ‘Great Powers’ in Middle East diplomacy commonly referred to as ‘sharing the balance of power’ as US pre WWII Isolationism. Truman’s pivot, prioritized containing communism over long-term decolonization, fostering global disillusionment with U.S. foreign policy.
The original British empire policy coined as “maintaining the balance of power” in a region of interest, emerged as the US rejection of European colonialism and imperialism throughout history. FDR publicly denounced Paris colonialism in Vietnam. Alas Truman rejected this FDR anti-colonial policy and employed US ships to return the French back to Vietnam. That failure of leadership resulted in the Korean and Vietnam wars – a horrible disaster for the American people.
Truman’s abandonment of FDR’s anti-colonial stance exemplifies a critical failure of leadership, where short-term geopolitical interests overshadowed the long-term implications of supporting colonial powers. This pivot fostered continued conflict and disillusionment with U.S. foreign policy. President Trump seeks to make America Great Again, not based upon a Hoover isolation policy but rather a rejection of past Presidential incompetence and betrayal of the American manifest destiny vision first established by the Framers who established the American Republic and not the American Democracy as developed post Civil War. Dismantling the Federal bureaucracies and returning State economic autonomy back to the States as first laid down by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution and Jefferson’s 10 Amendment, will this policy define Trump 2.0?
Will Trump 2.0 restrict all bills presented in either Houses of Congress to maintain the priority status that Congress persons in Washington serve as “ambassadors” of State legislatures. Only State Legislatures can introduces bills to their Congressional representatives sitting in Congress. Outlawing Corporate lobbies which currently dominate the Federal legislative process. Restricting corporate lobbying to the States would greatly enhance the prestige of State legislative governments. Limiting corporate lobbies to the states, acknowledges Washington DC not a separate state within the Union Republic. Openly rejects the false notion that frames Corporations as people. The Bill of Rights extends only to citizens but not business corporations.
As the Trump SC over-ruled Roe vs. Wade so too and how much more so may this Court negate the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) perversion. This Obamo-watch abomination stands upon several Post Civil War judgments which began with the notion that States do not have the Right to secede from the Union, and then elevated the privileges of Robber Baron monopolies. The 2010 Supreme Court ruling equates corporate political spending with free speech. However, based upon the simple principle: Guns do not kill, it takes a person to pull the trigger — business corporate interests do not qualify as people any more than guns kill.
The Xtian ‘Word of God’ has no portion with Sinai
The בראשית Divine Names אל שדי אלהים אל וכו stand apart from the revelation of the שם השם לשמה revealed in the first Sinai commandment. Hence the Avot did not “know HaShem”. The Mishkan פרט teaches a profound משל which requires the generations to make the דיוק נמשל. The kabbalah-שכנה refers to rabbi Yechuda’s Yatzir Ha-Tov in his kre’a shma interpretation לבבך\כם; consistent with the dedication of Horev spirits/middot 13 followed up by Talmud Yerushalmi/Bavli middot 7 Hillel, 10 Akiva, 13 Yishmael affixed to interpreting Gemara common law halachic precedents and HaGallil 32 middot/aggada – to re-interpret (משנה תורה) the language of the Mishna which Gemara common law serves to interpret as a mirror of courtroom witnesses who testify based upon their given “fixed” perspectives. Akin to the front-top-side views of a blue print.
The theological abomination of Monotheism perverts the reality that each nation unique, because each nation worships its own national God. The 30 Year War a strong precedent. A T’NaCH source precedent, the permanent split between the kingdoms of Yechuda and Yisroel serve witness before the אלהים court. First the kingdom of Israel assimilated and embraced alien cultures and customs and abandoned the Oral Torah which serves to define the culture, customs, social practices which define the identity of the chosen Cohen people. Then Yechuda also worshiped other National Gods by embracing foreign cultures customs and forgetting and abandoning the revelation of the god of Sinai. Hanukkah serves witness. The Rambam serves as a prime example of how assimilation and intermarriage define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein explains the failure of Reshonim scholarship to inspire Israel to conquer our homelands, based upon the model of Moshe Rabbeinu.
Mesechta Avoda Zarah specifically instructs that only Israel accepts the Torah. Hence the דיוק – the god of Sinai only a local tribal god. Clearly the god who delivered Israel out of Egypt not confused with the Gods of Egypt. בראשית ברא אלהים introduces Av tohor wisdom commandments taught through the משל of the world created in six days. The נמשל introduces time-oriented Av Torah commandments which require k’vanna & creates the chosen Cohen people in all generations through the sanctification of time-oriented wisdom commandments. Hence Torah commands mussar, the definition of prophetic wisdom. Torah does not teach history. T’NaCH & Talmud, Siddur & Midrashim establish the culture, customs, practices and identities of the chosen Cohen people. Just that simple, no fancy dancing.
The god of Israel judged the Egyptian Gods. The Av tuma witchcraft which declares: as above so below – rejects the Revelation of the Torah first Sinai commandment: השם לא בשמים היא; the god of Israel post Sinai vs. the Gods of Egypt serve as the eternal הבדלה that differentiates the revelation of רוח הקודש מידות which quicken and cause the Yatzir Ha-Tov to live & breath. Herein defines the k’vaana of Oral Torah common law Court-room justice as the substance of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The Goyim world contrast-view reads their Bible or Koran — Egypt’s Gods either false or subordinate inferior Gods, who do not actually exist at all. Hence their Av tuma avoda zara promotes the theology known as Monotheism. Goyim never accepted the Blessing/Curse brit of Sinai. Just as Goyim aliens do not determine the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach so too Goyim theology does not determine the god of Israel.
The curse of g’lut: Jews lose the skill required to do mitzvot לשמה – based upon the first Sinai commandment – Egypt לאו דוקא. The temple of Shlomo – av tuma avoda zara made by a fool. The Book of Kings makes a דיוק satire by referring to Shlomo as the “wisest of all men”. The god of Israel binds only Israel because only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Assimilated Rambam, another ‘latter day’ Mormon-like fool; he embraced the Arab tawhid and ruled that Jews could daven in Arab mosques, and his Guide philosophy based upon Aristotle rather than פרדס logic; that Allah the same god of Sinai – despite the cold hard fact that Goyim, specifically Muhammad, reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Prophets never sent דוקא to Goyim; both Moshe and Yona sent to lands not included in the oath sworn to the Avot as the inheritance of their Cohen seed to cause g’lut Israel to remember the brit and do t’shuva. The Pauline ‘original sin’ replacement theology perverted the introduction of the Torah curse/theme of g’lut\exile and substitutes – the belief system, messiah Jesus God saves from sin.
The Nicene Creed which equates Jesus as God, perhaps the strongest proof; international law a myth of propaganda morality, not a binding authority. Political conflicts throughout history falsely classified by some as a failure of diplomacy. But casting this political rhetoric upon the dust bin of history together with the NT & Koran, political conflicts express a natural clash of sovereign “Gods.” Restated: A nation‑state — a functional “God.” Theological Universal Monotheism\tawhid, often called “international law” by UN member states who oppose Israel, attempt to override national sovereignty through Religio-political rhetoric. But history provokes-proves that nations create their own sacred narratives, “Word of God”. Universal monotheism directly resembles Great Power imperialism. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai establishes faith as judicial Sanhedrin court justice limited to the bnai brit people alone.
Other nations never bound to the 7 mitvot other than Gere Toshav living within the borders of the Cohen brit republic. Why? These mitzvot make a required הבדלה which separates ger toshav from na’creeim. The Talmud always remains within the judicial boundaries which the Written Torah written Constitution determines. Post sealing of the Shas Bavli all opinions made by scholars compare to US Supreme Court rulings which later Courts can overturn.
The Blessing/Curse Torah oath brit faith never presumes any conclusion that g’lut applies to HaShem as its applies to Israel, based upon the contrast between the בראשית Divine Names from the first Sinai Name. Any reading that attempts to teach this metaphor – if taken literally – merely a טיפש פשט. The sophomoric Bible mistranslations and Koran serve as witness. For example: among the Reshonim, only Rambam ruled halacha from aggadic sources. His Universal Monotheistic God permits Jews to daven in av tuma avoda zara Mosques.
That later Goyim, such as Hobbs, Schmitt, or modern nationalism “influenced” by the Torah, (the Founding Fathers of the American Republic serve as witness), does not invert this Torah “Nation-State as Functional God” as post Talmudic; based upon the Torah premise: the chicken created and later laid eggs. Church rejection of the פרדס Oral Torah combined with their Jesus God NT theology – invalidates its literalist reading of the Creation story. Just as Muhammad’s equal redefinition of prophets as persons sent to all nations invalidates the revelation of the Torah first commandment. Allah simply a Golden Calf word substitution.
Rambam’s universalist Noahide framework only a philosophical systematization; it does not appear explicitly in the Talmud or Tanakh as a normative precedent. Hilchot Melachim 8–10, expresses a foreign philosophy — a Greek-influenced natural law perspective. The Talmud does not frame Goyim as bound by any such universal natural law – in a systematic, Greek-like sense. Rambam abstracts from Talmudic rulings unto a universal ethical schema — a philosophical move, that created a new Judaism religion. There is no canonical Talmudic or Tanakh precedent for universalist moral obligations like Rambam “God” imposes through his Roman-like statute law religious codification. Oral Torah logic employed by Sanhedrin justices to interpret law based upon precedents. The lights of the P’rushim hanukkah serve as witness that assimilation to Greek culture and deductive reasoning causes Israel to forget the Torah.
T’NaCH prophetic sources such as found Isaiah 13-14, 40-48 directed toward the failure of Israel to do t’shuva and remember the Sinai oath brit. Never to Goyim – who to this very moment in time do not accept this Sinai oath brit blessing\curse-Life/Death judicial justice-g’lut oppression faith obligation. Yonah sent to Nineveh, serves witness. Repentance made by Goyim shares nothing with the Torah mitzva of t’shuva. Because t’shuva centers upon remembering the oaths sworn by our fore-fathers; repentance refers to regret made over personal sins – based upon the Pauline theology-doctrine: Original Sin. The “repentance” made by the king of Assyria – only an Indian Summer. Goyim not delivered from Egyptian slavery, therefore Goyim incapable of remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot to cut the time-oriented Torah brit which creates the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations.
The בראשית “Creation story” introduces Av time oriented wisdom commandments. בראשית does not introduce something other than the revelation of the Torah at Sinai judicial common law. Based upon the כלל that a opening “Thesis Statement” followed by “particulars which validate” the thesis statement through specific particulars כלל-פרט.
The Bavli aggada -does – mention Noahide categories, but not as a system, any more than the Creation story instructs that the Universe created in some silly טיפש פשט literalist reactionary reading. D’varim defines two types of Goyim in the brit oath-land inheritance of the chosen Cohen people. Mesechta Sanhedrin aggada address ger toshav and mesechta Baba Kama halacha – Nacreeim. Talmud does not ever refer to Goyim in foreign lands as having to obey the 7 mitzvot bnai noach. Why? Because Goyim never accept to this day the revelation of the Torah – inclusive of the Book בראשית.
Mesechta Avoda Zara and Chullin teach that a Hebrew Goy slave – a ger toshav. Another proof: Orpha decided to return to her Moavite family. The דיוק clear, she returned to Moav and abandoned keeping the 7 mitzvot bnai noach. Ruth by contrast, returned to Israel and serves as the model of the mitzva ger tzeddik.
[If] every nation establishes its own god, such as did Casear, and Mao; and HaShem breaths tohor middot – only the Oral Torah god of Israel – when we rule our homeland with righteous judicial common law courtroom justice — [then] What status of divine justice operates outside this Sinai brit? Each people by making their own Gods, as either Heads of State or theological belief systems etc. The Code of Hammurabi – approximately 600 to 800 years older than the commonly accepted date for the Sinai revelation after the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt, serves as witness. History testifies that throughout human history national leaders have assumed the role of God of their people/kingdom. Sinai does not sit atop of any universal pyramid. Rather the revelation of the Torah at Sinai — a different “mountain” entirely.
Dear Martha
I found your posts extremely engaging. This too. I’m sorry I couldn’t respond to your posts earlier for long.
I’m desperately eager to see likes of choosy writers like you.
Thanks you very much for liking my post ‘Coffee’ 🌹
li5pht
Just once I’d like to comment on a good post where Moskerr has not fouled up the thread with the wacko drivel of Talmud scholarship.
It would be better if you comment on my blog, not here. This is a poetry site not suitable.