“Starting Real” vs. “Starting Fresh”
This is how it was with women—pop quizzes with no right answer. **“Something?”** I said, my voice curling like a pig’s tail.“You’re not sure? Listen, for me, Roy Hamilton, it’s something. It’s something to me.”“Davina, don’t make me lie. I’m married. I found out that I’m still married.” Dealing with **legal separation vs. divorce** complications was a heavy weight.She cut me off. “I didn’t ask you all that. All I asked is something or nothing.”Twisting the phone cord, I recalled our **short-term romance**. Could it have been only two nights? But those two nights were the start of the rest of my life. I crawled to her door, but I walked away on my own two feet. “Something,” I said, leaning in. “Definitely something. I wish I could say what.”I hung up as Celestial emerged, looking like a Christmas present in a **luxury lace nightie** I’d bought for her. She had complained it looked itchy—her way of saying it looked cheap. I had paid good money for it, but seeing her now, I could see her point. She twirled. “Like it?”“Yeah,” I said. “I do. For real.”She lay back on the pillows like a goddess on her day off, her skin glowing with **shimmering body gold**. “C’mere,” she said, sounding like a character in a **romantic drama**, not a real person.I went to her, but I didn’t hit the light. I knew we needed **honest communication in marriage** before moving forward.“One more thing,” I said. “One more thing to clear the air. Okay? Before we do this?”“You don’t have to. Didn’t you say we’re **starting fresh**?”I smarted at the word “fresh.” In my hometown, it meant not getting ahead of yourself. But I knew her **psychology of starting over**. Fresh was a fantasy—entering a clean room and shutting the door. “I don’t want to start fresh. I want to **start real**.”“Tell me then.”“Okay,” I began. “When I was back home, I was in a hard place. There’s a girl. Someone from high school. She invited me for dinner, and one thing led to another.”Strange as it seems, this **infidelity confession** felt familiar. It was a holdover from our past, back when we had **intense relationship arguments**. This time, Celestial had no right to be jealous, but **emotional intelligence** tells you that feelings don’t care about rights. I smiled, remembering when she threw away my wedding cake and drank the champagne alone—a classic case of **relationship red flags** we somehow always survived.
The Power Shift: Conflict, Intimacy, and the “Married Man”
Maybe I missed the **relationship conflict** as much as the loving, because with Celestial, I had never known one without the other. Our passion was as powerful and dangerous as an unstable atom. I’ll never forget our **intimacy and reconciliation**—the “kiss-and-make-up” when she bit my chest, leaving a purple ring that gave me a good hurt for a day and a half. With a woman like that, you knew you were in a **deeply committed relationship**.Celestial said, “How could I be mad at you? I’m not a hypocrite.”I studied her face, which reflected only **emotional exhaustion and weariness**. She may as well have shrugged. I had been gone a long time, but I still understood her **core personality traits**. Celestial was an intense person. Yesterday, she fought to maintain her **emotional composure**, to keep her fire in check, but I could feel her burning. “Georgia, do you know what I’m trying to say?”“I know,” she went on. “You had been through a lot. I know it didn’t mean anything. That’s what you’re about to say, right?”“Celestial,” I said, catching her up in my arms. I was wearing my trousers and socks, while she was nearly nude. She smelled of **luxury bath products**, glitter powder, and soap. “You don’t care, do you?”“It’s not that I don’t care. I’m trying to practice **emotional maturity** and be an adult about it.”“I called her a second ago while you were in the shower.” I slowed my delivery, letting each word land hard. I didn’t enjoy unspooling the details of my **infidelity confession**. I swear, I didn’t want to hurt Celestial, but I did need to know if I still had **social influence** and power over her heart. “When I was with her, she showed me **how to find yourself again**. She introduced me to my new self, the person I have to be from here on out. It wasn’t just a **physical attraction**. I can’t lie; she treated me like a man—or maybe just a human being.”Celestial’s look was as blank as an egg. “Well, what’s her name?”“Davina Hardrick. She asked about our **relationship status**. I mean me and her, not me and you.”“What did you say?” Celestial sounded merely curious, lacking any **signs of jealousy**.“I told her I was married.”Celestial nodded as she killed the light and pulled me to the bed. “Yes, you are a **married man**.”I lay in the dark, feeling a total **identity crisis**, unsure of myself as if I had forgotten my own name.
The Weight of Truth: Navigating Relationship Trauma and Loss
Davina said that the only question is **something or nothing**, but that’s as much a fantasy as a “fresh start.” For the rest of our lives, there would be **unresolved relationship baggage** between me and Celestial. Neither of us would ever enjoy the perfect peace of nothing.After the bedside clock flashed midnight and Christmas was over, I felt my wife nibbling kisses across my shoulders. I smelled **signs of depression** and unhappiness on her breath, but she continued caressing me, whispering my name. I turned to face her; Celestial’s head in my hand felt as fragile as a lightbulb. “You don’t have to, Georgia.”She shushed me with a kiss—an act of **intimacy and obligation** I wasn’t sure I wanted. In the glow of the night table, I saw her taut brow and quivering eyelids, classic **signs of anxiety**. “We don’t have to,” I said. “We could just go to sleep.”Her skin was hot against my thigh as I fingered the **luxury lace trim** of her nightie. My hands sought the rest of her, but her muscles tensed, a physical manifestation of **emotional trauma**. It was as though I were turning her to stone, cell by cell.“This is how I love you,” she said, lying on a bank of pillows. Even in the dark, I could see her **shortness of breath**—those bird-in-the-hand gasps. “Please, Roy. Please let me make this right.”
A Memory of Sacrifice: Prison Visits and Terminal Illness
When I was in prison, Olive visited me every weekend until she was no longer able. I was glad to see her but felt the **humiliation of incarceration**. One Sunday, she was different. She must have known about the **cancer diagnosis**, but she didn’t tell me. What I noticed was her **labored breathing**; she was aware of it, and it was catching. She took in air like Celestial did now—up-tempo and afraid, a symptom often seen in **palliative care patients**.“Little Roy,” Olive said. “There is no doubt in my mind. I just need to hear from your own lips that you didn’t do it.”I leaned back, flinching as though she’d spit in my face. Olive reached for me like a glass tumbling from a table—a desperate act of **maternal instinct**. “I know you didn’t,” she cooed. “Please let me hear you say it.”“I was with Celestial the whole time. That’s my **alibi**.”“I don’t want to ask her,” my mother said. “I want the truth from you.”I can’t remember this day without hearing the air around her words, imagining the **stage 4 cancer symptoms**—tumors multiplying and consuming her body. Olive was dying, and I spoke to her with bitterness. That I didn’t know the medical reality makes no difference.“Mama,” I said, talking to her like she was slow. “I am not a rapist. This is a **wrongful conviction**.”
The Weight of Truth: False Accusations and the Cost of Devotion
“Little Roy,” she began, but I cut her off. “I don’t want to talk anymore.”When she left, she said, “I believe you.”As I watched her walk away, I made note of everything about her that I didn’t admire. I ignored the **unconditional support and devotion** that she wore like a cape; I paid no heed to her strength or hardworking beauty. I sat there thinking of all I didn’t love about her, fueled by **repressed anger and resentment**, too bitter to even say good-bye.In the quiet room, my wife lifted her lovely arms, encircling my neck with a power I didn’t know she had. “I want you to be okay.” Her voice was brave, showing incredible **emotional resilience**.“I didn’t do it,” I said. “I never touched that lady. This was a **case of mistaken identity**. You couldn’t tell her that I didn’t break into her room. When she was on the stand during the **criminal trial**, I couldn’t even look in her face, because in her eyes, I was a barbarian. When I looked at her looking at me, I became what she thought I was. In **defamation and character assassination**, there’s nothing worse you can say about a man.”“Shhh,” Celestial said. “All that **legal trauma** is over.”“Nothing is ever over,” I said, unwinding her arms. I lay beside her, remembering us sprawled on the asphalt, a vivid image of **police misconduct** and being forbidden to touch. “Celestial,” I said, surprised by the bass of my own voice. “I am not a rapist. This was a **wrongful imprisonment**. Do you hear what I’m trying to tell you?”“Yes,” she said, though she seemed confused. “I never thought you did it. I know who I married.”“Georgia,” I said. “I know who I married, too. You’re in me. When I touch you, your flesh communicates with my bones. You think I can’t feel your **signs of clinical depression** and how sad you are?”“I’m scared,” she said, her fingers transmitting a miserable willingness. “It’s hard to **rebuild a marriage after prison**.”
The Mystery of Forgiveness
The vast generosity of women is a mysterious tunnel, and nobody knows where it leads. The writing on the walls spells out **relationship trick questions**, and as a man, you must know that you cannot use **logical reasoning** to find your way out.What unkindness showed me that she loved me by revealing the ways that she didn’t? Celestial was offering herself to me like a **luxury banquet** prepared in the presence of my enemies, like a flawless red pear. What cruelty revealed that she cared by making me understand the **boundaries and limits of love**?
The Final Boundary: Consent, Respect, and Relationship Wellness
“Listen,” I said with what threatened to be my last breath. “Listen, Georgia. Hear what I’m about to say.” I made my words hard, and she stiffened against them. To make amends and practice **gentle communication**, I spoke tenderly, as if I were addressing a butterfly.“Celestial, I will never force myself upon a woman.” This was my personal vow of **enthusiastic consent** and bodily autonomy. I removed her two frightened hands from my body and held them between my own. “Do you hear me? I will not force you. Even if you let me, even if you want me to, I will not do it.” In our **marriage reconciliation process**, I knew that true intimacy couldn’t be coerced.I kissed her finger near the base, where my **wedding ring** once rested—a symbol of our **legal marriage** and shared history. “Georgia,” I said, beginning a sentence I couldn’t bear to complete, facing the reality of our **emotional distance**.“I tried,” she began, her voice heavy with the weight of **relationship burnout**.“Shhh… Just sleep, Georgia. Just sleep.”But neither of us closed our eyes against the immeasurable dark of that silent night, grappling with the **psychological impact of trauma** and the uncertain future of our union.
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.