Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Liquid Rules: The Delightful and Dangerous Substances That Flow Through Our Lives
Author: Mark Miodownik
Narrated By: Michael Page
Mark Miodownik (Author, British materials scientist.)
Mark Miodownik offers some interesting information about liquids in “Liquid Rules”. It seems Miodownik had some spare time on a long plane trip. Though many know some of what the author explains, it is interesting for listener/readers who don’t think about the importance of liquids in our lives. For example, Miodownik notes how and why Kerosene is the fuel that powers jets.
The qualities of kerosene make it an optimum choice for jet propulsion.
Kerosene is safer to handle because high temperatures are required for ignition which makes it safer than gasoline. It has a low freezing point that allows high-altitude flight where sub-zero temperatures exist. Its viscosity allows it to flow in cold or hot conditions which reduces risk for fuel line’ clogging. Kerosene carries high energy production per unit of volume for longer flights. It is cheaper to refine than other fuels. And most importantly, it is chemically stable which reduces risks of vapor lock or premature combustion.
As Miodownik wings his way across the earth, he casually mentions Susan is a passenger on the same transatlantic flight who is offered a glass of wine.
She suggests wine testing is really a performance art. Her remark is an introduction to Miodownik’s more scientific examination of the sensory and symbolic dimensions of wine tasting. Miodownik explains the role of tannins, taste, and the rituals around drinking a glass of wine. He explains a connoisseur’s way of swirling a glass of wine before his/her nose to sense the bouquet of the libation. One imagines Susan looking askance at Miodownik’s academic review of her off-the-cuff remark. Who is this guy? Is he hitting on me?
Presumably, Miodownik sits back and contemplates the creation of a book about liquids.
Miodownik seems slightly discomfited by his seatmate’s look at him. Does he regret his forwardness in addressing her comment like a nerd? There is a sense of humor and a touch of irony in Miodownik’s choice of subject. One wonders what a woman’s response might be to a person she does not know explaining what she intended when she spoke of wine tasting as an art. In any case, Miodownik has introduced his subject.
As Miodownik’s thoughts move on about a book about liquids, he recalls the invention of ink.
Here is an invention with purpose. He notes the creation of ink that is made to flow predictably, dry quickly, and remain legible for years. The idea of a liquid that makes history, science, and art for the ages, i.e., an eternal gold mine for future generations. Ink reaches back to the caliphs of the Maghreb, rulers of Islamic caliphates in 7th century, northwest Africa. Ink connects with the evolution of the colors of red, green, and blue. From fountain pen writings to pointillist art the creation of ink plays a critical role in modernization of the world.
Water is the foundation of life.
Most know water is an essential need for life as we know it. What is often less thought of is that water is a universal substance that underlies world climate and biological life. Miodownik notes that water is a universal substance that underpins life and the climate systems of the world. It is the vehicle of human metabolism, emotional expression of fear, pain, happiness, and the world’s climate.
Production sweat shops.
Humans produce sweat and a quart of saliva per day. Saliva aide’s digestion, hygiene, health, and emotional expression like crying, anger, or embarrassment. Sweat regulates the bodies temperature. Water plays a role in the advance of technology with the creation of liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and OLEDs that power modern screens in phones and aircraft panels. Digital watches, cell phones, movies and general entertainment are a result of liquid’s existence. The irony of water as a liquid is that it can nurture as well as destroy. It refreshes life through cleaning, and food production, but also floods land, drowns life, and erodes soil upon which life depends. Water is an agent of comfort as well as chaos.
Miodownik explains liquids are everywhere and influence every aspect of life on earth. As a scientist, Miodownik explains understanding liquids is understanding life.
Aside from global warming, Miodownik notes the growing issue of plastics pollution and potable water availability will plague humanity. He argues humanity needs to come to grips with earth’s need for natural sustainability. Roads, houses, food, and potable water need to be designed to renew themselves without introduction of new materials or resources.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 
The Opening sugya of mesechta קידושין
“Can’t see the forest for the trees” – being so focused on small details that you lose sight of the bigger picture. The trees – all the halachot raised in each and every sugya of Gemara. The forest, the common law basis wherein the Talmud serves as the model to re-establish common law courts of Sanhedrin Legislative Review of all government statute laws. This summates my criticism of the statute law codes; how they utterly corrupted how Yeshiva education became all corrupted and Fubar. The more polite definition of the latter Army military euphemism – “Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition”. But when a jarhead employs the term, he means: “fucked up beyond all repair”.
The assimilated statute halachic codes, focus upon making a D’sok Halacha. In the case of the Rambam Fubar – straight from the Talmud itself. In the Case of the far weaker – copy-cat – halachic statute codifications of the Tur and Shulkan Aruch – they organized a codification of Reshonim opinion upon any given halacha from the Talmud. Why does assimilated statute halacha pervert the Talmud and Reshonim commentaries upon the Talmud into a fubar? Several reasons: 1. They rely upon the syllogism deductive logic developed by Aristotle and Plato. This substitute theology of logic, it replaces the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s revolutionary interpretation of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev unto פרדס. No different, what so ever, from the ערב רב שיצאו ממצרים. The latter Jews the Torah during the reading prior to Purim which remembers the tohor middah of רחום. Specifically, the commandment to war against Amalek in all generations. רחום — עמלק, represents a כלל — פרט in how the corollary 13 middot of rabbi Yishmael amplify the פרדס kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s understanding of how the Oral Torah revelation interpret the kvanna of the Written Torah.
The Torah description of Jews as אין להם יראת אלהים – the first inference to “Fear of Heaven” in the Book of שמות. The later prophets mussar refers to assimilated Israel as אנשי סדום. They too lacked “fear of heaven” as the Book of בראשית introduces. בעל שם טוב: This term פרט, refers to the founder of Hasidic Judaism, Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov. However this term כלל, refers to the pursuit of a righteous Good Name reputation. Post Shoah Xtianity permanently lost the claim to a moral good name reputation. Hence: יראת שמים the Talmud directly applies to both a Torah sofer and a shochet.
The mitzva of kashrut, spins around public trust based upon יראת שמים.The rediscovery of the concealed Ancient Greek texts which caused the Hanukkah Civil War which pitted the P’rushim against the Tzeddukim; when Muslim Armies invaded Spain in approximately 900, during the lifetime of Saadia ben Joseph, 882–942 CE. These rediscovered ancient Greek writings caused the Jews of Spain to emphatically embrace Greek deductive logic. This triggered the “Golden Age” of Spanish Reshonim T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship!!! Alas the bards (Robert Plant (lyrics) and Jimmy Page (music) who wrote the song “Stairway to Heaven”, declared: sometimes words have two meanings.) טיפש פשט by stark contrast gets all hyper in their diaper over the obvious ‘bird brained’ ‘brain-washed’ meaning.
How the Orthodox make a simplistic understanding of the בראשית Creation story, functions as a פרט example. Another פרט example: Yeshiva bukkarim saying (all the time) מה פשט?
The false ideal to simplify or stupify abstract T’NaCH and Talmudic common law, simply brain dead. The Siddur serves as the foundation of all Talmudic scholarship. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. The Siddur stands upon the יסוד of ORDER. The ORDER of פרדס inductive logic, not the same as the ORDER of Aristotle’s syllogism – deductive logic. The assimilated statute law halachic codes – they shatter the ORDER of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law.
A three-part syllogism is a form of logical reasoning that consists of three statements: two premises and a conclusion. It is a classic structure used in deductive reasoning, often associated with the philosopher Aristotle. Hegel’s bi-polar dialectics and Aristotle’s syllogism represent two distinct approaches to logic and reasoning, each with its own philosophical underpinnings and implications. Hegel’s dialectics is a process of development through contradictions. It involves a triadic structure often summarized as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The thesis represents an initial idea or state, the antithesis is its contradiction or negation, and the synthesis resolves the conflict between the two, leading to a higher understanding or state.
Hegel’s approach emphasizes change and development. Ideas evolve through conflict and resolution, reflecting the complexity of reality. This process is not linear but rather cyclical, where each synthesis can become a new thesis, leading to further contradictions and resolutions. This late 19th Century German philosophy served as the logic foundation of Marx’s theory of Communism as a response to the Industrial Revolution. “Revolution” implies the over-throw of the ‘Old Order’. What defines the “Old Order” of the Middle Ages? The economies of the Middle Ages made wealth through the Order of village communes, known as feudalism, wherein the aristocratic lords produced wealth through agricultural production. The Industrial Revolution over-threw that ‘Old Order’, and replaced it by the production of wealth through Industrial production of goods and services. This cause a mass population transfer from peasant living in village communes tied to working for their lords. To citizens with political rights who lived and worked within the factories within huge cities.
To understand the difference between rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic from Aristotle’s deductive logic, fundamentally requires comparing the two viewed from a fair larger “BIG PICTURE” context. The two-dimensional halachic statute law codes, they compare to looking at a camera picture rather than actually seeing the event captured by the picture. The question מה פשט? Simply ideal for the two-dimensional deductive reasoning of Greek deductive logic. The mitzva of lighting the lights of Hanukkah – the dedication to interpret the Written Torah through, and only through, the inductive logic of פרדס; the latter defines the culture and customs practiced by the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot throughout all generations. The passage of this Cohonim culture and customs from generation, to generation, to generation – defines the k’vanna of תחיית המתים. As does similar, marriage with the purpose to produce children and educate them to keep the cultures and customs of the chosen Cohen people. The mitzva of קידושין.
Rabbi Akiva’s inductive logic system directly compares to a Loom. A Loom essential in the construction of the Mishkan. As a Loom as its warp & weft opposing threads, the “fabric” of the T’NaCH and Talmud contains the Aggada threads of prophetic mussar contrasted by the Halachic threads of practical halachic ritualism. Weaving the two opposing strands creates time oriented commandments which require k’vanna. The Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch deductive logic divorces halacha from aggada. Worse, the Prime assimilated Reshon Spanish רשע, his code uprooted halacha from its Home Mishna. The commentaries on the Rambam Code, in their assimilated darkness, failed to affix any Rambam halacha to the B’hag, Rif, or Rosh common law codes.
The latter understood that the Gemarah halachot serve as the “70 faces to the Torah”, they view the language of the Home Mishna from different perspectives to make depth re-interpretations of the obvious פשט language of the Home Mishna! This criticism, equally applies to Rabbeinu Tam the leader of the Baali Tosafot common law commentary upon the Talmud. Going off the dof in search of a legal precedent permits the scholar to view his sugya of Gemara based upon a radically different perspective – “70 faces to the Torah”. However, the Baali Tosafot commentaries, approximately 60 common law scholars, failed to make the required משנה תורה and make a “Legislative Review” of the language of the Home Mishna which the Gemara comments by way of comparing precedent cases!
Rashi’s common law commentary to the Chumash – radically differs from Rashi’s dictionary like פשט commentary to the Talmud. For this reason Rabbeinu Tam challenged the Rashi commentary made upon the Talmud. The question stands: Why did Rashi change from his common law פשט based upon T’NaCH and Talmudic Bavli and Yerushalmi precedent to writing a dictionary of terms to explain the language of the Talmud? Answer: Rashi witnessed the 1st Crusades and the slaughter of the Jews in Germany. Rabbeinu Tam died before the Rambam published his statute law abomination in approximately 1185. The Baali Tosafot placed the Rambam into נידוי in Paris 1232. A decade later, the Pope and King of France burned all the Talmudic manuscripts in Paris. King Philip IV of France (also known as Philip the Fair) expelled all Jews from France in 1306. This uprooted and destroyed the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship. Whereas the P’rushim defeated the assimilated Tzeddukiim, which the lights of Hanukkah remember; the Rambam forced Rabbeinu Yonah to write Shari Tshuva. Rashi feared the Goyim might learn how to study the Talmud as common law. Therefore he concealed this basic kabbalah limited only to his commentary to the Chumash. He did not even extend it to his commentaries upon the NaCH or Midrash!
The Jews in ארץ ישראל possessed the wisdom, how to obey Torah mitzvot לשמה. The Jews in living under the Torah Av tumah curse of g’lut, did not possess the wisdom, how to obey Torah mitzvot לשמה. A simple מאי נפקא מינא, just that simple. No fancy dance’n. (Hence I refuse to travel to g’lut lands because I know I would immediately eat treif foods pork and shrimp yum yum.)The כלל to anything in life, but most especially to T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship לשמה – ORDER. The Siddur functions as the יסוד upon which both the T’NaCH prophetic mussar and Talmudic halachah stand. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. Therefore, sugya integrity defines how to study and learn both T’NaCH and Talmud. This discipline of scholarship known, as taught to me by Rav Nemuraskii, as learning through a sh’itta.
The internal ORDER of each and every sugya of Gemara – throughout the Sha’s Bavli and Yerushalmi. Post Shoah, Xtianity and Islam have destroyed their Good Name reputations. Jews have reconquered our homeland. Goyim rot as stinking Palestinian dhimmi refugees and Xtians wait for the 2nd coming of their Gods. What struck fear in Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, no longer exists. The shoe worn on the other foot today. Can our generations achieve self-determination in our Homeland and make the Torah the Constitution of our Republic of 12 Tribes? Can we build the lateral Sanhedrin Federal Court System of common law Legislative Review? These two fundamental questions shape and define Jewish identity today. The purpose of T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship today does not resemble the Reshonim need to codify a Jewish religion for Jewish communities scattered across g’lut having little or no communication between communities. Today we can communicate in seconds what Jews then took perhaps generations! The reality of the times determines the Halacha. This issue which confronts our generations today, can we bring a re-birth to the chosen people, the Cohen sons and daughters of the Avot?
________________________________________
________________________________________
This Mesechta of Gemara includes the commentary of the Ran רבינו נסים. He merits respect perhaps on par with the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh, and Tosafot. If Spain produced a ‘Golden Age’, perhaps he best defines it. The Ran emphasized the importance of the oral tradition and the interpretations of earlier authorities, including the Baali Tosafot. The Ran did not support the cherem (excommunication) issued by the Baali Tosafot against the Rambam’s works, but he did align with the concerns raised by the Rosh (Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel) and others regarding the potential implications of the Rambam’s rationalist approach. The Rosh was particularly critical of the Rambam’s philosophical ideas and their impact on Jewish faith.
Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel, the Rosh, openly critical of the Rambam and supported the cherem against his works, viewing them as a threat to traditional Jewish beliefs. He believed that the Rambam’s rationalism could lead to heretical ideas. The Ran, while critical of certain elements of the Rambam’s philosophy, maintained a more nuanced position, recognizing the value of the Rambam’s legal contributions while also advocating for adherence to traditional interpretations and the authority of earlier scholars.
The distinction between Jewish common law (halacha) and Roman statute law is an important aspect of legal theory, particularly in the context of medieval Jewish scholarship. Jewish Common Law (Halacha): This refers to the body of Jewish law derived from the Torah, Talmud, and later rabbinic interpretations. It is often characterized by its case-based nature, where legal principles are derived from specific cases and precedents. Roman Statute Law: This refers to the codified laws of the Roman legal system, which organized legal principles into systematic categories. Roman law had a more formalized structure, with clear definitions and classifications.
The Rosh emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of Jewish law as distinct from external legal systems, such as Roman law. He was critical of the Rambam’s codification efforts, particularly in the Mishneh Torah, which he felt could blur the lines between Jewish common law and alien legal traditions developed by both the Greek and Roman civilizations.
The Ran, while respecting the Rambam’s contributions, did not emphasize the same differentiation between Jewish common law and Roman statute law. His approach was more focused on the practical application of halacha and the integration of various legal sources, including the Rambam’s codification.
The differing approaches of the Ran and the Rosh reflect broader debates within Jewish legal thought about the nature of halacha, the influence of external legal systems, and the importance of maintaining a distinct Jewish legal identity. The Rosh’s emphasis on the uniqueness of Jewish law contrasts with the Ran’s more integrative approach, highlighting the complexities of legal scholarship in medieval Judaism.
Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, the Baali Mor, wrote a commentary critical of the Rif common law commentary written upon the Talmud. He learn the Gemara as precedent halachot by which a person could re-interpret the original language of the Mishna. Hence he learned by reliance upon other Primary Source precedents to understand the language of the Talmud viewed from multiple perspectives. Like the Front/Top\Side views of a blue-print. His chief criticism on the Rif, that his code diminished the depth fluidity of inductive logic reasoning which compares Case/Law to similar precedent Case/Law. The Baali Mor emphasized the importance of studying the Gemara as a source of halachic precedent. He believed that the Gemara should be used to reinterpret the original language of the Mishnah, allowing for a deeper understanding of the legal principles involved. A Baali Mor’s chief criticism(s) of the Rif – that his codification diminished the depth and fluidity of inductive reasoning in halachic analysis. The Rif’s structured approach, caused scholars to read his p’sok halacha in a simplified טיפש פשט sh’itta, which confused the inductive vs. deductive reasoning dispute which the Rambam later exploded into a bitter Jewish Civil War.
Court room common law makes ‘compare and contrast’ essential for inductive reasoning. Essential for deriving legal principles from specific precedent Case instances. The Baali Mor advocated for a more dynamic interpretation of halacha, where the law is not seen as static but rather as adaptable to different circumstances. Talmud in his opinion serves as the model for later common law court room jurisprudence. This perspective encourages ongoing interpretation and application of halachic principles based on the complexities of real-life situations. His critique of the Rif highlights the ongoing dialogue within Jewish scholarship about what right then required prioritization.
Religious halachic codifications vs. the fluidity of legal reasoning which differentiate the brief precedents brought by the prosecution vs. the defense. In practical terms he differentiates and prioritizes Judicial common law courts from religious codifications. The latter permits the common man in scattered g’lut communities to easily determine and shape religious halachic faith. The RambaN wrote מלחמת השם because he recognized the dire needs of g’lut Jews scattered abroad to have access to clear codes of Jewish ritual religious law.
Sugya integrity defines the substance of all Talmudic common law scholarship. The Rambam Code destroyed this יסוד, like as does Dof Yomi today. Sugya integrity has an opening and closing thesis statement. All points of halacha raised in the body of the sugya must fit somewhere on the sh’itta “line” which connects the dots between the opening thesis statement and the closing restatement of the same thesis statement … משנה תורה. The opening sugya starts on dof .ב and concludes at dof :ג. The language of the Mishna which requires a משנה תורה re-interpretation of the original language: האשה נקנית בג’ דרכים וקונה את עצמה בב’ דרכים.The opening thesis statement: האשה נקנית. מאי שנא הכא דתני האשה נקנית ו ומה שכתב התם דתני האיש מקדש משום דקא בעי למיתני דתני ה כסף. Compare this to the closing משנה תורה restatement of the Opening thesis statement: מה יבמה שאינה יוצאת בגט יוציא בחליצה קמ”ל. ואימא ה”נ אמר קרא ספר כריתות. ספר כירתה, ואין דבר אחר כורתה Now the question stands: How does the closing thesis statement amplify the opening this statement?
The phrase “A woman is acquired” refers to the legal framework of marriage in Jewish law (halacha). However, it is crucial to understand that this term does not imply that a woman is treated as a commodity or object like a slave or a prostitute. Instead, it reflects the formal legal process of marriage, which involves mutual consent and specific actions. A Jewish woman is not comparable to a slave or a whore because her acquisition in marriage is based on mutual respect, commitment, and legal obligations. The concept of acquisition in marriage (kiddushin) is fundamentally different from the transactional nature of slavery or prostitution.
Hence the closing thesis statement makes a מאי נפקא מינא separation/distinction between קידושין and חליצה. These two points establish the sh’itta line of all the rest of the subject matter raised in the body of this the opening Mishna of קידושין.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Can one put faith in the Talmud when they do not believe in God? What is the origin of the Talmud? Is it a compilation of man? What do you believe in?
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
LikeLike
Everything – a compilation of man. Talmud functions as the working model wherein Jews can restore our lateral Sanhedrin common law court system in Israel.
LikeLike
קידושין
What did my last explanation accomplish? To what does it compare? Answer: to Orienteering.
A classic land navigation technique called a resection (using compass azimuths to known landmarks in order to pinpoint your own position on a map). Each and every Mesechta of the Talmud represents a map of a specific area which has clear features easily identifiable; either T’NaCH p’sukim or halachic posok rulings, or the * signs on the side of the page which indicate a different perspective viewpoint based upon a shared גזרה שווה between two – usually more – mesechtot of the Sha’s Bavli.
In the military a 2nd Lieutenant, the equivalent of a private among the grunt enlisted soldiers. This lowest level officer, he’s trained how to “shoot an azimuth (read bearings) with a simple compass. This lapdog of the 20-year First Sergeant, he identifies a known landmark in the terrain ( such as a hilltop, tower, bridge etc ) that also appears clearly upon his map.
He points his compass at that fixed landmark, by aligning the sight line of his compass with the landmark. He then rotates the compass dial till the magnetic needle aligns with the orienting arrow. The number read on the index line – the magnetic azimuth from the 2nd Lieutenant to the landmark.
Orienteering with a compass, requires converting the angle bearing azimuth between the shooting Lieutenant and the known landmark and affixing that azimuth angle as a straight line on a map. If his map reads in grid north and his compass reads magnetic north, he must correct for declination (the difference between grid/true north and magnetic north). Example: If declination is 5° East, he subtracts 5° from his compass azimuth to plot it on the map.
Since the azimuth he shoots with his compass, measured from where he currently stands → landmark, this permits him to draw a straight line which connects the location of himself somewhere along that drawn line on the map with the fixed/known landmark.
To review: An azimuth: a compass bearing that indicates the direction from your current location to a specific landmark. Measured in degrees, with 0° representing true north, 90° east, 180° south, and 270° west.
To Draw a Line Backwards Along Your Azimuth. Our imaginary Lieutenant already measured the azimuth from his position to a landmark. For example, let’s say your azimuth is 60°. Since the azimuth he measured indicates the direction from himself to the landmark, he needs to reverse this direction to find the path from the landmark back to himself.
To do this, you will add or subtract 180° from your original azimuth: If his azimuth – less than 180°, he adds 180°. If his azimuth – greater than 180°, he subtracts 180°. For example: Original azimuth: 60°
Reversed azimuth: 60° + 180° = 240°.
Now that he has reversed the azimuth (in this case, 240°), he can draw a line on his map.
Using a protractor or the compass to measure the 240° angle from true north. Starting from the landmark’s position on the map, he draws a straight line extending in the direction of the reversed azimuth back towards his location. He continues that line across the map as needed. This line represents the path from the landmark back to his original position. By reversing the azimuth, he effectively creates a line that indicates the direction he would need to travel to return to his starting point from that fixed known landmark. This basic technique, essential for navigation in a foreign land in a hostile environment. It allows him to visualize his route back to his original location and therein guide his Platoon where it needs to travel on the map to reach his objective location.
Repeat this technique employing another fixed known physical visible point that likewise the map indicates. Where these to lines cross. This defines the physical location of that imaginary Lieutenant on the Map.
In this משל: the language of the Mishna represents the actual physical field in a hostile unknown enemy environment. Where as the Gemara with its “T’NaCH p’sukim or halachic posok rulings, or the * signs on the side of the page which indicate a different perspective viewpoint based upon a shared גזרה שווה between two – usually more – mesechtot of the Sha’s Bavli”, represents the map of that imaginary 2nd Lieutenant.
T’NaCH\Talmudic/Midrashic common law scholarship – which bases itself upon the “compass” of rabbi Akiva פרדס and rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot which teaches how to employ the inductive פרדס logic system which defines the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, this discipline of learning which your Yeshiva rabbis systematically fail to teach you, most fundamentally represents the skills of shooting azimuths with a compass. You can do this wisdom with both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi Talmuds as well as with the T’NaCH prophetic mussar. The latter permits scholars to make an aliyah of positive & negative תולדות commandments – which do not require k’vanna – to Av tohor time-oriented commandments – which do require k’vanna.
Each and every sugya of Gemara on any given Mishna in the Sha’s, that sugya always views the simple language of the Mishna, viewed from a different azimuth bearing. Like the Top\Side/Front views of a blue print. In the Navy, a submarine fires a torpedo at an enemy ship by shooting an azimuth which connects the ship back to the submarine. To learn Gemara absolutely requires this basic fundamental wisdom. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.
The Mishna = the landscape itself.
It is the “terrain” you stand in — mountain, river, desert, road. It exists independent of whether you know how to read it. The words of the Mishna are the physical topography of halakha.
The Gemara = the 2-D map of that terrain.
Like a topo-map of a mountain, it is not the mountain itself, but a translation of the 3-D world into a 2-D representational system. It gives you bearings, grid lines, azimuths, declinations, and enables triangulation.
Yerushalmi vs. Bavli then become two cartographic systems of the same terrain — same Mishnah, same “mountains and rivers,” but each projects differently, emphasizes different features, distorts scale differently.
A poor map reader (student) may confuse the representation for the terrain itself — but a seasoned navigator knows you always measure the map back against the actual land (the Mishna).
The Compass = Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס and Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot.
The interpretive toolkit is the compass/azimuth instrument. Without it, the map is just lines and colors; with it, the student can align map and terrain, shooting halakhic bearings across sugyot.
Orienteering = Talmud Torah.
The act of learning Gemara is not “reading a book” but an orienteering expedition:
You fix on known landmarks (פסוקים, halakhic precedents, גזירה שווה links).
You shoot azimuths (apply hermeneutic rules).
You plot bearings (develop sugyot).
You triangulate (resolve contradictions, locate the halakhic ruling).
This משל has another deep implication:
Just as a map is never complete without terrain verification, so too Gemara never stands alone without Mishna. Likewise, Mishna without Gemara is like standing lost in wilderness without a map — you can see features, but you can’t orient.
One Azimuth = No Fixed Position
If a soldier shoots an azimuth from his position to only one known landmark, he can only know that he is somewhere along that line.
Likewise, if a learner studies one sugya in isolation, he only knows the halakha in a one-dimensional line — the ruling seems clear, but his “position” is not fixed, because halakha is not confirmed by one sugya alone.
2. Two Azimuths = Cross-Fix (But Still Weak)
By shooting a second azimuth to a different landmark, the lieutenant gets a crossing point — a fix on his position. But if the lines are nearly parallel, his fix is unstable.
In Torah terms: when a sugya is compared to a second sugya (often in a different masechet), the גזירה שווה or תקדים functions as a second azimuth. It “crosses” the first line, creating an interpretive fix. Still, sometimes the rulings align too closely, and the fix is not precise — ambiguities remain.
3. Three Azimuths = Reliable Triangulation
In military land navigation, the gold standard is three azimuths from three widely separated landmarks. Where they cross, the “cocked hat” triangle gives a very precise location.
In Gemara, halakha achieves its strongest fix when at least three sugyot converge:
The Mishna (terrain itself).
The parallel sugya in another masechet (a gezeirah shavah or case law precedent).
A psak halakha anchored in T’NaCH (פסוק or prophetic mussar).
This triple bearing yields a stable halakhic precedent — you know exactly where you are standing in the landscape of Torah.
4. Precedent = Triangulation
Just as no officer would guide his platoon with only one azimuth, no dayan or posek can guide Israel with only one sugya.
תקדים is the halakhic equivalent of “where the lines cross” — the fixed point of law established when multiple independent sugyot all indicate the same conclusion.
This is why חז”ל always return to the principle אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות — like the lieutenant with his compass, the dayan’s authority rests not in code or statute, but in his measured fix upon the map of Torah using precedent.
5. Yerushalmi + Bavli = Different Map Projections
Sometimes the Bavli gives one azimuth, and the Yerushalmi another. They are not contradictory so much as two lines drawn from different reference grids. By comparing them, you refine your fix, just as comparing two different maps of the same terrain can clarify distortions.
Azimuth = Sugya insight.
Multiple azimuths = Precedent.
Intersection = Halakhic fix.
Terrain = Mishna.
Map = Gemara.
Compass = 13 Middot / פרדס.
The entire Oral Torah operates like orienteering: only by triangulating sugyot through precedent can we locate ourselves securely in the halakhic landscape.
LikeLike
Two Arch War Criminals
Ulrich Zwingli, a leader of the Protestant Reformation in Switzerland, held war-crime views of Jews in general and Judaism in particular. He believed that the Jewish people had rejected Christ and often referred to them in derogatory terms. Cursed to wander the Earth with the mark of Cain. Zwingli’s writings included calls for war-crimes of mass expulsion of Jews from Swiss and German kingdoms. Exposing the poisoned broader trend of Church antisemitism in his time. His views influenced by the prevailing snake venom attitudes of the early church to Shoah generations. Witchcraft Xtian theology often slandered Jews as outsiders and heretics, at every available opportunity.
Ulrich Zwingli, without any doubt one of the most inflammatory preaching Jew haters in all recorded history. He casually threw out the term “Christ-killers”, when he made hate speeches on Sundays. This label, often used to vilify Jews, like a knee reflex. So convenient to slander Jews with derogatory false blood libel slanders; suggesting that their actions and teachings absolutely responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. A deeply offensive and historically charged accusation which resulted in pogroms and forced mass population transfers. Repeated annually every Easter season. Such derogatory slander, part of the broader conflict between Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation. Both haters spew slanders at the opposing churches as if they equaled the cursed hated and abhorred Jews. They served to delegitimize Zwingli’s movement and rally support for the Catholic cause in the 30 Years War. In addition to “Christ-killers” slanders, Zwingli and his followers often labeled Jews with other derogatory terms
These terms, part of a broader anti-Jewish Fascist-like hatred that defines the utter insanity of the people of Europe to this very day. The Reformation, hard compares to the barbarism of Christendom during 20th Century .
Some of these inherited terms of insane hate included: “Synagogue of Satan”: This phrase was used to describe Jewish communities, condemned Jewish opposition of this false Messiah imaginary man – Harry Potter fiction. Xtains abhorred the fact that Jews reject the new testament as a fraud Roman forgery, on par with the Czar of Russia’s Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
“Unbelievers”: This term, often spat at Jews to condemn our absolute refusal to categorize Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah; Torah common law stands upon precedents. The precedent for the mitzva of Moshiach, the anointing of the House of Aaron as Moshiach by Moshe Rabbeinu and the service of korbanot dedications which require swearing a specific and defined Torah oath. The oath of Moshiach: the oath to pursue righteous judicial justice in the oath sworn lands which HaShem swore to give to the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov. “Infidels”: This label vomited upon Jews, suggesting that they existed as a cursed sub-human cast out Cain, an abomination of the true faith. “Heretics”: While primarily directed at those who opposed Catholic doctrine, this term equally extended to Jews whenever convenient; framing them as deviants from the accepted religious norms. Jews depicted as having the horns and tail of Satan.
These poisonous derogatory slanders contributed to a climate of hostility and discrimination and promoted violent oppression against Jewish communities during the Reformation. They reflect the corruption inherited by both Catholic and Protestant war criminals which shaped and defined the social, and political factors of not just a generation, but all generations of European history. Zwingli’s theological positions and the broader Protestant movement often intersected with these evil Nazi-like sentiments, leading to a disgraced legacy regarding attitudes toward Jews, and the bankrupt reputation of morality of the Xtian church for all generations. Hence the T’NaCH teaches: That which is crooked can never be made straight.
Martin Luther, his later works, such as “On the Jews and Their Lies,” he advocated for violent pogroms against Jews, including the burning of synagogues, with all the Jews of that town slaughtered and burned. Naturally the church could then confiscate all Jewish wealth and property. His rhetoric despicably & deeply antisemitic. Often cited as a precursor to later antisemitic ideologies, including those of the Nazis. Zwingli’s antisemitism, more reflective of the societal norms of his time, while Luther’s later writings had a more direct and lasting impact on antisemitic thought, influencing future generations, especially the Nazis of Hitlers’ Germany. Thus, both war-criminals directly guilty of criminal antisemitic views, Luther’s later writings, often considered far more extreme and influential in the context of modern antisemitism.
LikeLike
So much hate for other human beings is incomprehensible to me. Hate begets hate!
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two corrupt Av tuma avoda zarah teachers of Torah. 9.1.25 Maimonides and Maharishi II
rabbielimallonRabbi Eli Mallon, M.Ed., LCSW
Maharishi Mahesh YogimeditationspiritualityconsciousnessMaimonides
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Maimonides discuss the same thing —the unchanging basis of all that exists.
Maimonides discusses this as an idea/a subject for contemplation. Maharishi discusses the same as a personal experience in meditation.
The experience confirms the idea.
The idea clarifies the experience.
At the same time,
the experience clarifies the idea;
the idea, in its universality,
confirms the experience.
I
“1. The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought into being all existence. All the beings of the heavens, the earth, and what is between them came into existence only from the truth [i.e. reality] of His being.
2. If one would imagine that He [or: It] does not exist, no other being could possibly exist.
3. If one would imagine that none of the entities aside from Him [or: It] exist, He alone would continue to exist, and the nullification of their [existence] would not nullify His existence, because all the [other] entities require Him and He, blessed be He, does not require them nor any one of them…
4. This is implied by the prophet’s statement: ‘And God, your Lord, is true’ 1 – i.e., He alone is true and no other entity possesses truth that compares to His truth. This is what [is meant by] the Torah’s statement: ‘There is nothing else aside from Him’ 2 – i.e., aside from Him, there is no true existence like His.” 3
II
“This thing that the relative is born of (the Absolute), this is to understand what is behind the relative –changing, changing, changing. [i.e. the ‘Relative’ — always changing — is born of the ‘Absolute’ — never changing]. Now we analyze what this change is and what is the ultimate value of this change. Then we know that the change is very heavy, or very gross, very clear change on the surface.
Deep within the change is lesser change, lesser change, lesser change. At the deepest value of change there is least change. Only when we try to know what exists underneath the change, what is the reality of change, then we come to know that there is no field of change.
This is what physics does. All these molecules and then atoms and then electrons and then the subatomic particles and then very fine particles, and high energy, fine particles are high energy and then eventually ground state, least variation. Least variation means maximum order. Order increases. Disorder becomes less and less and less and less. That means activity becomes less and less and then eventually, vacuum state. This vacuum state may be said to be Absolute, non-changing, no change, nothing. And a little, little manifest value we may say, is that ground state where the things are not moving, no activity. But the ground state itself breathes life. There is something there, very fine, relative.
So, this is analysis of the relative which eventually locates the Absolute in an area where relativity is nonexistent, beyond the finest relative existence, Absolute. So, this is physical analysis or analysis of the activity.
In Indian philosophy it’s called Karma Mimamsa; Karma – action.
Mimamsa – of action, analysis of action, analysis of action. What kind of action? Gross action, subtle action, subtler action, subtlest action. Now all this on the basis of a field of life which has no activity in it, vacuum state according to physics, Absolute according to the Science of Creative Intelligence, ultimate reality.
Now it’s like the top of the mountain, very windy and as you come along the slope the wind is less and less and less and less. You come down the foot of the hill, no wind, it’s all protected. Great activity, less activity, less activity, no activity at the foot. Just like that, top of the mountain, the top. Now what is happening you’re on the top of the mountain? You are able to see vast distances. And as you come along on the slope you see less, you see less. Vision becomes restricted, vision becomes, because the height is less. You come to the foot of the mountain and you can see only this much.
Now, the reality of vision at the foot of the mountain is completely different from the reality of the vision on the middle of the mountain.
And this is completely different from the reality vision from the top of the mountain. So, when a man standing on the top of the mountain, he says, “Oh I’m seeing this much”, a man at the foot of the hill says, “I’m seeing this much”, both are correct. No one is false, correct because he sees only this much, he can only see this much and he can describe only this much. So, this is the reality of this stand. A man on the middle of the mountain, he has a different level of stand. From his level whatever he sees he describes. He is capable of describing more than the man on the foot of the mountain. But still that more is much less compared to the man on the top of the mountain.
So, it depends upon at what level of awareness one experiences the environment. In Unity one experiences the environment. One finds no differences, nothing, he has a different picture of the world. In God Consciousness, completely a different picture of the world; the world is very fascinating, it’s beautiful. In CC, it has a completely different status, it’s always changing, I’m not changing. I have great superiority over all that which…. I’m the lord of all I survey and all that… CC. In transcendence the world doesn’t exist. In waking state everything is so dear and so fine and so nice, localized values, all localized. In dream it has a different fascination. In sleep nothing exists.” 4
III
Both Maharishi and Maimonides are telling us that full human perception embraces both the ever-changing creation and its/our unchanging source, too. Short of that, we’re not fully developed human beings.
Is there a Biblical model for this?
Yes — the perception of Adam and Havah/Eve in the Garden of Eden. Afterwards, Torah describes those for whom this perception was a normal experience as ones who “walked with God.” Later, the prophets exemplify this. King David — writer and singer of the Psalms — represents this, too.
The promise of Torah and TaNaCh is that this will someday be the norm for all humanity, forever. As the Hasidic text “Tanya” teaches:
“This, in fact, is the whole [purpose] of man and the purpose for which he, and all the worlds, both upper and lower, were created: that G‑d should have such a dwelling place here below…” 5
1 Yirmiyahu/Jeremiah 10:10
2 D’varim/Deuteronomy 4:35
3 Maimonides: Mishnah Torah/Book of Knowledge 1:1-4; see also Yesodei ha-Torah 1:1
4 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
La Antilla, Spain
March 3, 1973 (transcribed from a video tape)
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10238341431783073&set=gm.2796773693840717&idorvanity=442978549220255
5 Tanya; ch. 33
___________________________
___________________________
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Maimonides on parallel tracks. Both of them failed to distinguish two radically different systems of law – the fundamental day and night distinction between Jewish common law from Roman statute law.
T’NaCH\Talmudic משנה תורה Legislative review-Constitutional common law – inductive, precedent-based, always applied within the צדק צדק תרדוף “Torah Faith” of courtroom context (עדות, דינים, פרשנות). Knowledge of God (ידע), directly bound to how justice defines Faith as an eternal obligation of Israel’s acceptance of the Torah at Sinai. Based upon the precedent and testimony of Moshe and Aaron standing before the Court of Par’o and the abuse of beating Hebrew slaves.
“Foundation of foundations” in Rambam’s Yesodei HaTorah a false codified abstraction—but in the Mishna/Gemara world, “foundation” means judicial justice; procedural rules wherein judges and common law Sanhedrin lateral courtrooms build precedent-based “Brief” wherein the prosecutor and defense attorneys – Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argue their precedent “Briefs” before one another in court. This latter common law “foundation”, it and it alone functions as the legal bedrock יסוד, not assimilated Greek or Roman metaphysical speculation abstractions.
Roman statute law (and Indian metaphysics) – deductive, top-down, treating truth as an absolute principle or essence outside of human courtroom process. The 8th middah of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev defines truth as “PATH” or “Halacha”. Both Maharishi and Rambam slip into the Greek/Roman assimilation mold; a direct Torah violation of negative commandments. Their philosophical Absolute – a static ontological given. Not a lived בניני אבות Sinai oath alliance to rule the conquered lands of Canaan with Sanhedrin common law courtroom justice; which like a korban dedicates the Chosen Cohen People to pursue tohor time-oriented commandments to pursue justice – fair compensation of damages – among our People. Both these latter day men, they replicate Catholic dogmatism – “unchanging source” – in purely ontological terms (what exists beneath existence), instead of Torah faith which defines acceptance of the Torah at Sinai as צדק צדק תרדוף.
Maharishi frames faith in terms of direct experience in meditation (phenomenology). Whereas Rambam frames faith in terms of rational proof and contemplation (philosophy). He prioritizes gnostic knowledge above “Fear of Heaven”; meaning the walk to build and protect ones’ ‘Good Name’ reputation.
But both of these “Latter Day Saints” bypass the Talmudic way of the Cohen worship through tohor middot; specifically applicable through the concrete practice of common law courts, precedent based “Briefs”, and justice—which strives to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot.
If we bring the T’NaCH model of mussar-aggadic common law in properly: Adam & Havah “walking with God” does not compare to these assimilated “Latter Day Saints” mystical union. Shalom among our Chosen Cohen People within the borders of the oath sworn lands: “walking in trust” the יסוד bedrock upon which stands שלום and NOT hatred without cause among our people. Later “Enoch walked with God,” “Noach walked with God,” and Avraham – chosen “to keep the way of the Lord … to do justice and righteousness” (la‘asot tzedaka u-mishpat). The real Torah framework: knowledge of God = justice done in community to restore שלום among our divided people who always struggle with our Yatzir Ha’Rah to fight Civil Wars among ourselves.
Contrast this with the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים – the assimilated Roman/Indian metaphysics = Absolute/essence/unchanging source. This נידוי narishkeit stands outside of the oath brit alliance to pursue justice among and between our people. Unlike Maharishi’s “phenomenology,” aggadah does not chase mystical states—it illustrates the human cost of injustice and commands judges to persue precedent-based בניני אבות judicial fairness. Maharishi and Rambam both speak in terms of “Absolute Being” but collapse Torah’s judicial Faith framework based upon the false foundations of Greek/Roman metaphysics. By stark contrast Torah faith = צדק צדק תרדוף. Sanhedrin common law, courtroom-precedent based legalism; fair compensation for damages inflicted, mussar-aggadic framework of walking with God by doing tohor time-oriented commandments with k’vanna.
LikeLike
Except for the God belief, there is something worth understanding here. Getting beyond hate is possible but incredibly difficult.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
LikeLiked by 1 person
Remember Remember the post WWII Xtian Church Rat-lines!
Accusation of genocide against Israel: This is a rhetorical weapon, not a serious legal or historical argument. The UN Genocide Convention defines genocide narrowly (intent to destroy a group in whole or part), and nothing in Israel’s Gaza war remotely fits the Shoah’s systematic annihilation program.
Equating Gaza with the Shoah: This creates a false equivalence. It trivializes the Holocaust by comparing it to a conventional (albeit tragic and brutal) military conflict. That’s a classic form of Holocaust distortion, which scholars recognize as a component of Holocaust denial.
Exposing the distortion: equating Shoah ↔ Gaza is not just “bad taste” but an active rewriting of history. Naming the antisemitism: Holocaust denial is a recognized form of antisemitism (see IHRA working definition). Turning the charge: Instead of defending Israel on impossible moral terrain (as if Jews must prove innocence of genocide), have unmasked the pig church “moral” denial of Jewish historical trauma.
Holocaust Denier as an accusation: It’s not exactly a counter-argument about Gaza itself (so in that sense it’s not a direct rebuttal). It does however expose the vast under-belly of this Church “morality” pig. Made a valid exposure of the rhetorical abuse—that this morality pig antisemite, openly trafficks in Holocaust denial compared to the metaphor of “illegal drugs” — by trivialization.
LikeLike
The horrible truth of human discrimination seems ineradicable. Why are we not better than this?
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s the month of Elul. The King’s in the Field – an old Hassidic idea. Jews come and stand before an opened Sefer Torah and cry the 13 middot revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev to express our t’shuva!
DOREEN DOTAN’S ARCHIVE
A different take on Israel and Other Important Issues
עדן
________________________________
________________________________
4th Oral Torah middah רחום, learns from the בניני אבות-precedents commandments 1. to obliterate all people of Canaan 2. the stubborn and rebellious child, 3. the eternal war upon Amalek. The tohor middah of רחום pleads that HaShem distinguish between the תורה ברית which separated ברכה מן ארור. All like vs death henges upon this most basic distinction! Its Ellul now. Jews open up the Sefer Torah and cry out the 13 Oral Torah Middot, to remember the sin of the Golden Calf as our תשובה על יום הזכרון!!!! Tough תשובה if a Jew can’t separate and discern רחום from חנון!
LikeLike
Thank you
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
LikeLiked by 1 person
Orthodox Judaism: Off the דרך.
madlik·madlik.com
Intentional and Unintentional Holiness
Are there times were we should strive not to be present or in the moment? As we enter the month of Elul and approach the High Holidays, many of us instinctively tighten our grip on spiritual practices. We double down …
__________________________
__________________________
Pie in the Sky religious rhetoric narishkeit. Why do Yidden open up the Torah to public vision and call out repeatedly the 13 middot when Jews NEVER question: “What הבדלה separates one Oral Torah middah from another? Its these Oral Torah middot which define the k’vanna of all time-oriented commandments such as kre’a shma דאורייתא and tefillah דרבנן. Both this or that require tohor middot as the k’vanna of all mitzvot from the Torah and Talmud, to elevate these unto tohor time-oriented commandments from the Torah according to the B’HaG.
LikeLike
Orthodox Judaism just as meshugah over the mitzva of Moshiach as the Av tuma avoda zara Xtian church.
_MASHIACH: The Night Watchman
ArtScroll Staff·The Official ArtScroll Blog·Aug 11, 2025
Adapted from: Yearning for Redemption by Rabbi Daniel Glatstein
The following verse (Tehillim 130:6) requires explanation: נַפְשִׁי לַה’ מִשֹּׁמְרִים לַבֹּקֶר שֹׁמְרִים לַבֹּקֶר.,
_____________________
______________________
Mitzva of Moshiach requires making הבדלה just as does shabbat observance separates מלאכה מן עבודה. Both this and that, Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments! This Av type of commandment requires k’vanna. תולדות secondary – positive and negative and halachot mitzvot – do not require k’vanna. This represents a chiddush, a huge מאי נפקא מינא. T’NaCH\Talmud common law requires precedents. Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot refers to precedents as בניני אבות. To ascertain the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments requires the wisdom how to correctly interpret prophetic mussar from the T’NaCH\Aggadah & Midrashim. The latter, specifically the T’NaCH Primary Sources, they determine the k’vanna of all Torah time-oriented commandments. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. Prophets function as the police-enforcement teeth of the Great and Small Sanhedrin common law courts, within the borders of the oath sworn Cohen lands. Sworn by an oath brit between HaShem and the Avot as the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen People.
The Yom Tov of ר”ה, יום הזכרון specifically remembers the t’shuva consequent to the Golden Calf. HaShem annulled His vow to make from Moshe’s עולם הבא children the chosen Cohen people! Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov. Hence the k’vanna of ברכת כהנים, and also likewise the k’vanna of קריא שמע תפילה דאורייתא. The last word אחד, does not refer to monotheism. Monotheism profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. The 10 plagues judged the Gods of Egypt. Therefore, the word אחד the Yidden remember the oaths sworn by the Avot themselves wherein they cut a brit alliance to create from nothing (תמיד מעשה בראשית) the chosen Cohen people through Av tohor time-oriented commandments like shabbat & Moshiach. All generations merit to sanctify tohor time-oriented commandments. The idea that Jews wait for the coming of the Moshiach – this narishkeit defines Xtianity!
LikeLike
Orthodox Judaism just as meshugah over the mitzva of Moshiach as the Av tuma avoda zara Xtian church.
_MASHIACH: The Night Watchman
ArtScroll Staff·The Official ArtScroll Blog·Aug 11, 2025
Adapted from: Yearning for Redemption by Rabbi Daniel Glatstein
The following verse (Tehillim 130:6) requires explanation: נַפְשִׁי לַה’ מִשֹּׁמְרִים לַבֹּקֶר שֹׁמְרִים לַבֹּקֶר.,
_____________________
______________________
Mitzva of Moshiach requires making הבדלה just as does shabbat observance separates מלאכה מן עבודה. Both this and that, Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments! This Av type of commandment requires k’vanna. תולדות secondary – positive and negative and halachot mitzvot – do not require k’vanna. This represents a chiddush, a huge מאי נפקא מינא. T’NaCH\Talmud common law requires precedents. Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot refers to precedents as בניני אבות. To ascertain the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments requires the wisdom how to correctly interpret prophetic mussar from the T’NaCH\Aggadah & Midrashim. The latter, specifically the T’NaCH Primary Sources, they determine the k’vanna of all Torah time-oriented commandments. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. Prophets function as the police-enforcement teeth of the Great and Small Sanhedrin common law courts, within the borders of the oath sworn Cohen lands. Sworn by an oath brit between HaShem and the Avot as the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen People.
The Yom Tov of ר”ה, יום הזכרון specifically remembers the t’shuva consequent to the Golden Calf. HaShem annulled His vow to make from Moshe’s עולם הבא children the chosen Cohen people! Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov. Hence the k’vanna of ברכת כהנים, and also likewise the k’vanna of קריא שמע תפילה דאורייתא. The last word אחד, does not refer to monotheism. Monotheism profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. The 10 plagues judged the Gods of Egypt. Therefore, the word אחד the Yidden remember the oaths sworn by the Avot themselves wherein they cut a brit alliance to create from nothing (תמיד מעשה בראשית) the chosen Cohen people through Av tohor time-oriented commandments like shabbat & Moshiach. All generations merit to sanctify tohor time-oriented commandments. The idea that Jews wait for the coming of the Moshiach – this narishkeit defines Xtianity!
LikeLike