Six Sentence Story: Who Are YOU, Really?

While Adam ate his burger and fries, John, a graduate student at the University of Noital, sat across from him eating a double portion of Apple Poof Delight.

John said, You know, Adam, I identify as a woman.

Adam had been at Noital long enough not to peg his fellow students (nor his professors) with a level of intelligence greater than they were willing to display. Before lifting another spoonful of poof to his mouth, John pursued the topic he initiated by asking, So, Adam, who are YOU, really?

Adam knew he ought to come out of the closet and tell John the truth about who he really was, but he wondered if now was the right time. Then concluding that now was as good a time as any, Adam said – just after that last puddle of poof reached John’s stomach and just before John vanished – I identify as a son of God.

______

Denise offers the prompt word “peg” to be used in this week’s Six Sentence Stories.

Unknown's avatar

Author: Frank Hubeny

I enjoy walking, poetry and short prose as well as taking pictures with my phone.

48 thoughts on “Six Sentence Story: Who Are YOU, Really?”

  5. 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.

    Like

    Reply

      2. 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.

        1. 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.
        2. 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.

        Like

        Reply

          2. 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.

            Like

            Reply

              1. Cannot sing a song about the 7th Oral Torah middah of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev when you do not know what separates the 7th Oral Torah middah from the 6th or 8th middot!

                Like

                Reply

                1. Before I offer another song, what separates the 7th Oral Torah middah from the 6th or 8th middot?

                  Just in case you are unaware, I don’t know what a “middah” is let alone what the 7th one might be.

                  Like

                  Reply

                  1. 6th Oral Torah attribute, patience-understanding-insight which discerns between the Spirit breathed by the Yatzir Ha’Tov vs the Spirit breathed by the Yatzir Ha’Rah within the hearts of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaakov.
                    8th Oral Torah attribute, well known and walked upon path. The Talmud repeatedly refers to this 8th Oral Torah attribute by the term “Halacha”. The 6th attribute – the k’vanna of mitzvot within the heart. The 8th attribute addresses the externalization of Torah common law judicial rulings.

                    The 6th attribute: This attribute is crucial for spiritual growth, as it encourages individuals to cultivate patience and insight, allowing them to make conscious choices that align with their higher selves and divine will. It fosters a deeper connection to the mitzvot by focusing on the intention behind actions.

                    The 8th attribute: The 8th attribute serves as a practical guide for daily living, ensuring that the teachings of the Torah are applied in a structured and communal manner. It emphasizes the importance of following established legal frameworks to maintain order and righteousness within the community.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    Reply

Leave a comment