Thousands of Pro-palestine Protesters to Urge Andy Burnham to Act on Israel

1 टिप्पणियाँ

1. 

   moshe kerr जुलाई 20, 2026

   G’lut defines the Torah curse: לא לשמה

   The 7th sugya of our Gemara which opens and closes on dof :ה implies that the mitzva of קידושין דאורייתא?  The Gemara does not definitely insist a דאורייתא mitzva, but rather treats the woman’s status as safek and applies a rabbinic stringency גט לחומרא, even though the “kiddushin” underlying that stringency isn’t fully established as Torah-certain. Essentially a gezarah-shavah conceptual linkage.   If גט דאורייתא then קידושין גם כן דאורייתא; based upon the brit cut between the pieces where childless Avram cut a brit for his עולם הבא future born Cohen people to permanently inherit the lands of Canaan.  Just as Avram childless so to the Man prior to קידושין childless.  (בראשית opens with married couples and their תולדות children.)  Hence just as Avram cut a brit upon his future born children so too the mitzva דאורייתא of קידושין.

   The גט דאורייתא, why does the Torah demand? What does קידושין actually acquire? Answer: Title to the future born seed תולדות of this union. A civil divorce does not address the issue of what קידושין actually acquires? Our Gemara compares acquisition of slaves; the Torah directly addresses the union of Yechuda and Tamar when she deceived him and assumed the role of a prostitute. The brit cut between the pieces required clarification because perhaps that brit inclusive of Yishmael?! Just as Sarah determines the “Jewishness” of the child – according to Ezra, the baal determines the Yichus/Tribal status of the child; for example: the Cohen Yichus – determined by the father and not the mother.

   Furthermore, the mitzva of קידושין does not apply to Goyim, simply because Goyim excluded from the chosen Cohen people who accepted the Tribal God who sanctified the av commandment of Yovel in conquered Canaan – through the liberation בנין אב freedom from Egyptian slavery. What separates קידושין דאורייתא from קידושין דרבנן? The bi-polar first two Sinai commandments blessing/life\לשמה vs. curse/death\לא לשמה. Just as Sanhedrin courts – cities of refuge dependent upon the Yovel requirement for all 12 Tribes who accepted the Sh’Cem blessing/curse (Rabbeinu Tam order of tefillen) from g’lut Jewish refugees scattered as Cain-like dhimmi or Christ killers or modern day blood libel genocide of Palestinian people etc; g’lut Jewry do mitzvot under the Torah curse לא לשמה.

   Zionism: defined as Jewish self-determination within the borders of Canaan, therefore emphatically inclusive of the Torah command to conquer the land from the Arab and Muslims and establish the Yichus tribal status of the 12 Tribes. For example: post the Oct 7th 2023 Abomination War – to expel the Gazans and establish the Yichus of Reuven in Gaza and the Yichus of Menashe in the Golan. This would fundamentally require a functional Sanhedrin common law court system through establishment of the 6 cities of refuge inclusive of their Small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes courtrooms.  

   This distinction  קידושין דאורייתא vs קידושין דרבנן – the difference between Av wisdom commandments which require k’vanna vs. תולדות בניני אבות מצוות which in and of themselves qualify as קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה commandments which due not require Torah מלאכה wisdom which sanctifies מלכות – Oral Torah middot, defined through prophetic mussar לשמה.  This latter blessing Av commandment applies only to within the lands of conquered Canaan, based upon the 1st Sinai commandment where Egypt לאו דוקא.  

   Another fundamental distinction only in conquered Canaan can the vision of Zionism achieve self-determination and make the Written Torah the Constitution of the 12 Tribes of the Republic.  Cursed g’lut Jewry לא לשמה in g’lut condemned to ברכות which instructs doing mitzvot לא לשמה to later do mitzvot לשמה.  This Gemara stands upon the Sinai contrast between the 1st and 2nd Sinai commandments.  Avoda zara a Torah curse which results in g’lut; like Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge cast out of the garden.

   Rabbinic g’lut Judaism developed the coping mechanism which copied Greek and Roman statute law to organize halacha into religious codes which totally ignores the crucial issue established by the Book of בראשית which first introduces wisdom commandments through the Aggadic mussar of the מעשה בראשית. The הבדלה, לא תעשה מלאכה בשבת differentiates time oriented commandments from toldot commandments which do not require k’vanna by teaching that shabbat inclusive of the entire week! By not doing wisdom מלאכה on the day of Shabbat a Jew dedicates to do מלאכות throughout the 6 days of shabbat!

   Hence the Creation story does not tell the history of the creation of the Universe but rather introduces Av wisdom commandments which require k’vanna and the primary torah legal vision on par with the Avot as the primary permanent fathers of the chosen Cohen nation. The next Books of the Torah שמות ויקרא ובמדבר introduces תולדות קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה commandments. The Book of דברים introduces Av משנה תורה Torah mandated Sanhedrin courtroom common law-legislative review of the Tribes and Central government.

   All the 3 major בראשית commandments – time-oriented commandments; fruitful and multiple, removing the nerve, brit-melah – all three time-oriented Av commandments!  The latter proven by the prophet Yehoshua who sanctified brit melah before initiating the wars which obliterated the 33 kings of Canaan.  T’shuva understood as “remember”.  The mitzva of brit melah remembers the brit oath sworn to Avraham to inherit for all generations of his chosen Cohen seed the land of Canaan.  This inheritance excluded both Yishmael and Esav.

   Rome based their legal codes based upon the dictates of Caesar and the Roman Senate ie Statute Law.  Just as the vertical British Star Courts justified impressment of American sailors seized from American ships on the High Seas by establishing the lateral jury system Torah common law משנה תורה mandates Sanhedrin legislative review of Tribal and Central Government statute laws during the times when the 12 Tribes rule through Yovel דאורייתא freedom through legislative review.

   Time-oriented commandments directly linked to Torah wisdom ie prophetic mussar as k’vaana. T’shuva learns from the “time” when Moshe cause HaShem to make t’shuva by remembering the oaths sworn to the Avot that they and they alone would father the chosen Cohen people/nation.

   In the sugya of Kidushin 5b learns from a logical inference/דיוק from inference/דיוק. A bipolar contradiction between he gave and he said vs. he gave and she said … compared to she gave she said compared to he gave and she said – מקודשת. Compare this to במסכת ראש השנה (ד. – ז.): Why did the Tanna omit the category of “months” from the Av Mishnah, despite its appearance in the Baraita? The resolution emphasizes a categorical distinction: That Mishnah deals with a defined topic (Years), so the parallel תולדות case (Months) – intentionally omitted. Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Yossi HaGelili: middah #18: “A thing stated regarding one subject but not fitting for it, but fitting for another” … Understanding the text by defining its specific subject and context. There the Avi Mishna addresses “Years” not months; the Baraita emphasized Nisan as the first month, and hence intentionally omitted.

   The logic of this Middah in Aggadah dictates that sometimes a specific detail, written or omitted in one portion not because it is untrue, but because it is not the main subject being dealt with at that moment, and its true place is in another context. This בנין אב “inference from inference attempts to interpret the Gemara language: “If he gave and she said”, and concludes ספק קידושין; Reisha deals with his giving, Siyfa with her giving: the intermediate case falls outside the clear framework. Since we cannot determine the “subject” of the intermediate case from the words alone, it remains a doubt.

   The Middah of Rabbi Yossi HaGelili that illuminates both sugyot, their methodological understanding, (whether Scripture, Mishnah, or Baraita), understood first and foremost according to the definition of its subject. Both קידושין ור”ה the attempt to infer what the האשה נקנית did not say explicitly, creates a logical contradiction – doubt; so too the omission of months which the Baraita emphasizes in mesechta Rosh HaShanna.

   General כלל: Forbidden to interpret silence without first clarifying the boundaries of the Mishna and Gemara focus. Comparing קידושין with ר”ה both sugyot warn the reader that an inference drawn without regard to the text’s core subject matter will inevitably collapse into contradiction or doubt.  Our 7th sugya  deliberately begins with the Torah framework and ends with a rabbinic safeguard. That framing emphasizes the relationship between דאורייתא and מדרבנן: where the Torah status qualifies as indeterminate, the Rabbis preserve the possible Torah bond by requiring a גט לחומרא in all cases of לא לשמה g’lut Jewry.

   Loading...

   ↩ जवाब दें