Ten Certainties of the Christian Faith

Impossible to honor the oath brit which creates the chosen Cohen people יש מאין without remembering the exact Case/Rule oaths they swore to HaShem wherein they cut this brit alliance to forever create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין.
___________________________________________

The Official ArtScroll Blog

ArtScroll Staff·blog.artscroll.com·10h ago

EMUNAH: Perhaps Even Double

Adapted from: Living Emunah 8 by Rabbi David Ashear R’ Aharon Margalit was invited to speak in a shul on the topic of kibbud av va’eim. Part of his talk was about children judging their parents favorably. After the speech, an older couple was waiting to speak to him. The husband, who introduced himself as […]
_________________________________________

צדק צדק תרדוף …The repetition of צדק denotes not moral abstraction but procedural justice—pursuit of justice through due process, i.e., courtroom deliberation rooted in precedent and interpretation. The verb “תרדוף” implies active legal pursuit: the work of judges chasing interpretive coherence through live cases.

The Oral Torah codification of the Sha’s Mishna functions as the key blueprint for judicial lateral common law courtrooms. No common ground exists with assimilated codes of religious ritual laws. Mishnayot rely upon the בניין אב and other 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael as tools to derive legal architecture from precedent, not Greek & Roman statute legislation. The Middle Ages perversion of the Talmud to a statutory halacha handbook which defines the religion of Orthodox Judaism – simply completely off the דרך.

The 13 Middot of rabbi Yishmael serve as interpretive tools. In essence the grammar of Jewish common law—tools to derive new rulings from precedent; not tools of exegetical cleverness or mysticism. Rashi as a linguistic exegete, building clarity through p’shat and influenced by the Aruch. His genius – semantic precision, but that does not satisfy the courtroom’s need for structural legal comparison. Rabbeinu Tam, representing the Tosafist shift, sees this as an error: Talmudic discourse isn’t a glossary—it’s a judicial method. Tosafot insist on sugya-correlation and cross-case inference, a reassertion of precedent-based interpretation.

פרדס – not mysticism, but a layered interpretive logic of comparison, each level designed to extract new meaning through structural parallels, not imposed deductive frameworks. Greek logic deduces from axioms; פרדס derives from existing rulings. This is why sod is not mystical secret but the “deep structure” of legal alignment.

The Tosafist project—especially Rabbeinu Tam’s critique of Rashi—as a demand to treat the Talmud as an evolving common law tradition, not merely an educational text. Rabbeinu Tam did not merely seek clarity—he sought legal structure. The Tosafists’ hallmark is cross-sugya precedent tracing, reviving the vitality of case-based halacha.

Rashi as leaning toward lexical accessibility (influenced by the Aruch) explains why Rabbeinu Tam considered his approach incomplete for courtroom jurisprudence. Rashi’s clarity is p’shat; Tosafot demanded case linkage and dialectical rigor.

Ibn Ezra’s rationalist method, shaped by Greek syllogistic logic, with the inductive פרדס logic of Rabbi Akiva. Your framing of Ibn Ezra as an “assimilated Hellenist” follows Hazal’s critique of Tzeddukim: intellectuals who replaced oral-interpretive dynamism with foreign models of fixed logic and systematic theology.

The Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, perverted – due to his gross tuma assimilation – the open-ended legalism of the Talmud into a rigid ritualistic code, disconnected from live courtroom precedent. The Rambam’s embrace of universalist monotheism, influenced by Islamic rationalism and Neoplatonic abstraction, led his to construct his 13 rules of faith rather than צדק צדק תרדוף.

The פרדס methodology (P’shat, Remez, Drash, Sod) not as a mystical toolset, but as a four-level interpretive model grounded in judicial logic—each level refining the ruling through comparison and precedent. This contrasts Greek logic which draws conclusions from abstract universals. This epistemic divergence has civilizational consequences. פרדס preserves legal humility and interpretive pluralism. Syllogism leads to dogmatism, codification, and political repression—traits seen both in Christian canon law and Islamic fiqh.

Logically, Zionism opposed by Orthodox Judaism, leads toward a national restoration of Talmudic law as constitutional brit, rather than exile-style halachic pietism. This model restores Sanhedrin-style justice, rooted in precedent based lateral common law court system of justice. Justice, understood as the obligation placed squarely upon the shoulders of these Sanhedrin courts to seek fair compensation of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews.

These three words located in the Book of D’varim define Judicial common law court room justice. משנה תורה, the other Name for the Book of D’varim serves as the foundation for rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s Mishna. What does this Hebrew verb refer to? Answer Judicial common law courts! Hence the Gemara commentary to the Mishna learns by means of precedents. What term did the Sages of the Mishna refer to “precedents”? Answer: בניני אבות, like as found in the 13 middot of rabbi Yishmael. T’NaCH instructs prophetic mussar “common law(משנה תורה)”. Whereas the Talmud instructs ritual halacha “common law(משנה תורה)”.

The Baali Tosafot commentary to the Talmud, specifically Rabeinu Tam, דוקא goes off the dof in search of precedents. Why? The chief criticism made against the Rashi commentary on the Talmud, The “Aruch” by Rabbi Nathan ben Yehiel of Rome did influence Rashi’s Talmudic commentary, as Rashi often drew upon earlier sources, including lexicons and dictionaries, to clarify terms and concepts in the Talmud. Rashi’s methodology involved providing clear explanations and definitions of words, which aligns with the approach taken in the “Aruch.” Rashi aimed to make the Talmud accessible to his readers, and the insights from the “Aruch” would have contributed to this goal. Rashi frequently referenced earlier works, including the “Aruch,” to explain Talmudic terms and phrases. This helped him provide a more comprehensive understanding of the text. The “Aruch” provided a foundation for this clarity by offering definitions and explanations of terms.

Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on the Chumash employed a different but somewhat parallel methodology. Ibn Ezra placed a strong emphasis on the linguistic aspects of the text, analyzing Hebrew words and their roots. He often provided etymological insights similar to those found in the “Aruch.” Ibn Ezra’s commentary also included philosophical and scientific perspectives, reflecting his broader intellectual interests. He sought to connect the biblical text with contemporary knowledge and thought.

The 10th-century Islamic discovery and translation of ancient Greek texts, particularly those related to philosophy and logic, indeed had a significant impact on Jewish thinkers of the medieval period, including Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra. However, the influence of these texts on Rashi’s commentary was less pronounced. Ibn Ezra was deeply influenced by the works of Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle and the Neoplatonists. He integrated their ideas into his commentaries, reflecting a broader intellectual engagement with philosophy and science. His approach often emphasized rationalism and logic, which he applied to biblical interpretation. He sought to reconcile Jewish thought with philosophical concepts, making his work more expansive and reflective of contemporary intellectual currents.

Ibn Ezra’s focus on language and etymology was also informed by the logical structures found in Greek philosophy, allowing him to analyze biblical texts with a critical and systematic approach. By contrast Rashi’s Chumash commentary shaped by Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system. The kabbalah of Rashi’s wisdom presented the public face of p’shat scholarship. But the study of p’shat compares to a man who stands upon his two legs. The other leg of Rashi’s p’shat Chumash commentary “drosh”. This paired “other” of Rashi p’shat makes a common law precedent search which utterly dominates and defines Rashi’s Chumash “p’shat”.

Rashi relied heavily on earlier rabbinic sources and Talmudic discussions, emphasizing the importance of tradition and communal understanding over Ibn Ezra’s assimilation to ancient Greek culture and customs whore-house tumah sh’itta of avoda zarah scholarship.

The Baali Tosafot, specifically the grand-son of Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam’s main criticism against the Rashi commentary to the Talmud, that Rashi most significantly failed to study the Talmud as a common law legal system. In 1232 the rabbis of Paris imposed a נידוי ban upon the Rambam’s halachic code and Guide to the Perplexed – due to Rambam’s assimilation on par with Ibn Ezra – whose son converted to Islam.

Ibn Ezra and the Rambam directly compare to the Tzeddukim who instigated the Chanukkah Civil War wherein they along with the Syrian Greeks attempted to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah logic format as explained through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic sh’itta which explains the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. This logic format, a four-part inductive reasoning which compares Judicial Case/Ruling opinions with other similar Case/Rule judicial rulings. Herein defines how Talmudic common law understands the language of rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi’s Mishna.

The Ba’alei Tosafot, including Rabbeinu Tam, critiqued Rashi for not fully engaging with the Talmud as a common law legal system. This critique highlights a tension between Rashi’s focus on clarity and the more complex legal analyses that later scholars sought to develop. The emphasis on common law and legal precedent became a hallmark of Tosafist scholarship.

This מאי נפקא מינא distinction between פרדס inductive logic vs. foreign Greek syllogism deductive logic, while the latter compares to the satisfaction of a hog eating slop from a trough; the former contrasts Jewish judicial common law from Greek and Roman statute law legalism. Assimilated Jews “converted” the Talmud into codes of religious law divorced from Courtroom judicial rulings. The Rambam called Talmudic common law as too difficult for the Jewish common man to understand. His code perverted judicial law into religious belief system ritualism. Assimilated Rambam openly embraced the Universal God Monotheism theologies promoted by both “daughter religions” which negated that only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai. The “daughter religions” openly repudiated the revelation of a tribal local God at Sinai.

A sharp example of the perversity of the Rambam embracement of Monotheism and a Universal God, his absurd ruling that the 7 mitzvot bnai Noach applies to all Goyim across the world. Mesechta Sanhedrin introduces the aggadah of the 7 mitzvot bnai Noach as a reference to the distinction gere toshav have over mesechta Baba Kama’s “Nacree” Goy. The latter had no legal rights to sue an Israel for damages. Whereas the ger toshav enjoyed the legal right to sue an Israel for damages. The Rambam halachic perversion of the 7 mitzvot bnai Noach failed to grasp the legal distinction which the Torah itself makes between the gere toshav and the nacree/Canaani in the matter of giving treif flesh to the ger toshav or selling the treif flesh to the nacree/Canaani.

LikeLike

1 Comment

mosckerr says:

July 15, 2025 at 2:15 am

Impossible to honor the oath brit which creates the chosen Cohen people יש מאין without remembering the exact Case/Rule oaths they swore to HaShem wherein they cut this brit alliance to forever create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין.
___________________________________________

The Official ArtScroll Blog

ArtScroll Staff·blog.artscroll.com·10h ago

EMUNAH: Perhaps Even Double

Adapted from: Living Emunah 8 by Rabbi David Ashear R’ Aharon Margalit was invited to speak in a shul on the topic of kibbud av va’eim. Part of his talk was about children judging their parents favorably. After the speech, an older couple was waiting to speak to him. The husband, who introduced himself as […]
_________________________________________

צדק צדק תרדוף …The repetition of צדק denotes not moral abstraction but procedural justice—pursuit of justice through due process, i.e., courtroom deliberation rooted in precedent and interpretation. The verb “תרדוף” implies active legal pursuit: the work of judges chasing interpretive coherence through live cases.

The Oral Torah codification of the Sha’s Mishna functions as the key blueprint for judicial lateral common law courtrooms. No common ground exists with assimilated codes of religious ritual laws. Mishnayot rely upon the בניין אב and other 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael as tools to derive legal architecture from precedent, not Greek & Roman statute legislation. The Middle Ages perversion of the Talmud to a statutory halacha handbook which defines the religion of Orthodox Judaism – simply completely off the דרך.

The 13 Middot of rabbi Yishmael serve as interpretive tools. In essence the grammar of Jewish common law—tools to derive new rulings from precedent; not tools of exegetical cleverness or mysticism. Rashi as a linguistic exegete, building clarity through p’shat and influenced by the Aruch. His genius – semantic precision, but that does not satisfy the courtroom’s need for structural legal comparison. Rabbeinu Tam, representing the Tosafist shift, sees this as an error: Talmudic discourse isn’t a glossary—it’s a judicial method. Tosafot insist on sugya-correlation and cross-case inference, a reassertion of precedent-based interpretation.

פרדס – not mysticism, but a layered interpretive logic of comparison, each level designed to extract new meaning through structural parallels, not imposed deductive frameworks. Greek logic deduces from axioms; פרדס derives from existing rulings. This is why sod is not mystical secret but the “deep structure” of legal alignment.

The Tosafist project—especially Rabbeinu Tam’s critique of Rashi—as a demand to treat the Talmud as an evolving common law tradition, not merely an educational text. Rabbeinu Tam did not merely seek clarity—he sought legal structure. The Tosafists’ hallmark is cross-sugya precedent tracing, reviving the vitality of case-based halacha.

Rashi as leaning toward lexical accessibility (influenced by the Aruch) explains why Rabbeinu Tam considered his approach incomplete for courtroom jurisprudence. Rashi’s clarity is p’shat; Tosafot demanded case linkage and dialectical rigor.

Ibn Ezra’s rationalist method, shaped by Greek syllogistic logic, with the inductive פרדס logic of Rabbi Akiva. Your framing of Ibn Ezra as an “assimilated Hellenist” follows Hazal’s critique of Tzeddukim: intellectuals who replaced oral-interpretive dynamism with foreign models of fixed logic and systematic theology.

The Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, perverted – due to his gross tuma assimilation – the open-ended legalism of the Talmud into a rigid ritualistic code, disconnected from live courtroom precedent. The Rambam’s embrace of universalist monotheism, influenced by Islamic rationalism and Neoplatonic abstraction, led his to construct his 13 rules of faith rather than צדק צדק תרדוף.

The פרדס methodology (P’shat, Remez, Drash, Sod) not as a mystical toolset, but as a four-level interpretive model grounded in judicial logic—each level refining the ruling through comparison and precedent. This contrasts Greek logic which draws conclusions from abstract universals. This epistemic divergence has civilizational consequences. פרדס preserves legal humility and interpretive pluralism. Syllogism leads to dogmatism, codification, and political repression—traits seen both in Christian canon law and Islamic fiqh.

Logically, Zionism opposed by Orthodox Judaism, leads toward a national restoration of Talmudic law as constitutional brit, rather than exile-style halachic pietism. This model restores Sanhedrin-style justice, rooted in precedent based lateral common law court system of justice. Justice, understood as the obligation placed squarely upon the shoulders of these Sanhedrin courts to seek fair compensation of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews.

These three words located in the Book of D’varim define Judicial common law court room justice. משנה תורה, the other Name for the Book of D’varim serves as the foundation for rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s Mishna. What does this Hebrew verb refer to? Answer Judicial common law courts! Hence the Gemara commentary to the Mishna learns by means of precedents. What term did the Sages of the Mishna refer to “precedents”? Answer: בניני אבות, like as found in the 13 middot of rabbi Yishmael. T’NaCH instructs prophetic mussar “common law(משנה תורה)”. Whereas the Talmud instructs ritual halacha “common law(משנה תורה)”.

The Baali Tosafot commentary to the Talmud, specifically Rabeinu Tam, דוקא goes off the dof in search of precedents. Why? The chief criticism made against the Rashi commentary on the Talmud, The “Aruch” by Rabbi Nathan ben Yehiel of Rome did influence Rashi’s Talmudic commentary, as Rashi often drew upon earlier sources, including lexicons and dictionaries, to clarify terms and concepts in the Talmud. Rashi’s methodology involved providing clear explanations and definitions of words, which aligns with the approach taken in the “Aruch.” Rashi aimed to make the Talmud accessible to his readers, and the insights from the “Aruch” would have contributed to this goal. Rashi frequently referenced earlier works, including the “Aruch,” to explain Talmudic terms and phrases. This helped him provide a more comprehensive understanding of the text. The “Aruch” provided a foundation for this clarity by offering definitions and explanations of terms.

Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on the Chumash employed a different but somewhat parallel methodology. Ibn Ezra placed a strong emphasis on the linguistic aspects of the text, analyzing Hebrew words and their roots. He often provided etymological insights similar to those found in the “Aruch.” Ibn Ezra’s commentary also included philosophical and scientific perspectives, reflecting his broader intellectual interests. He sought to connect the biblical text with contemporary knowledge and thought.

The 10th-century Islamic discovery and translation of ancient Greek texts, particularly those related to philosophy and logic, indeed had a significant impact on Jewish thinkers of the medieval period, including Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra. However, the influence of these texts on Rashi’s commentary was less pronounced. Ibn Ezra was deeply influenced by the works of Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle and the Neoplatonists. He integrated their ideas into his commentaries, reflecting a broader intellectual engagement with philosophy and science. His approach often emphasized rationalism and logic, which he applied to biblical interpretation. He sought to reconcile Jewish thought with philosophical concepts, making his work more expansive and reflective of contemporary intellectual currents.

Ibn Ezra’s focus on language and etymology was also informed by the logical structures found in Greek philosophy, allowing him to analyze biblical texts with a critical and systematic approach. By contrast Rashi’s Chumash commentary shaped by Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system. The kabbalah of Rashi’s wisdom presented the public face of p’shat scholarship. But the study of p’shat compares to a man who stands upon his two legs. The other leg of Rashi’s p’shat Chumash commentary “drosh”. This paired “other” of Rashi p’shat makes a common law precedent search which utterly dominates and defines Rashi’s Chumash “p’shat”.

Rashi relied heavily on earlier rabbinic sources and Talmudic discussions, emphasizing the importance of tradition and communal understanding over Ibn Ezra’s assimilation to ancient Greek culture and customs whore-house tumah sh’itta of avoda zarah scholarship.

The Baali Tosafot, specifically the grand-son of Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam’s main criticism against the Rashi commentary to the Talmud, that Rashi most significantly failed to study the Talmud as a common law legal system. In 1232 the rabbis of Paris imposed a נידוי ban upon the Rambam’s halachic code and Guide to the Perplexed – due to Rambam’s assimilation on par with Ibn Ezra – whose son converted to Islam.

Ibn Ezra and the Rambam directly compare to the Tzeddukim who instigated the Chanukkah Civil War wherein they along with the Syrian Greeks attempted to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah logic format as explained through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic sh’itta which explains the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. This logic format, a four-part inductive reasoning which compares Judicial Case/Ruling opinions with other similar Case/Rule judicial rulings. Herein defines how Talmudic common law understands the language of rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi’s Mishna.

The Ba’alei Tosafot, including Rabbeinu Tam, critiqued Rashi for not fully engaging with the Talmud as a common law legal system. This critique highlights a tension between Rashi’s focus on clarity and the more complex legal analyses that later scholars sought to develop. The emphasis on common law and legal precedent became a hallmark of Tosafist scholarship.

This מאי נפקא מינא distinction between פרדס inductive logic vs. foreign Greek syllogism deductive logic, while the latter compares to the satisfaction of a hog eating slop from a trough; the former contrasts Jewish judicial common law from Greek and Roman statute law legalism. Assimilated Jews “converted” the Talmud into codes of religious law divorced from Courtroom judicial rulings. The Rambam called Talmudic common law as too difficult for the Jewish common man to understand. His code perverted judicial law into religious belief system ritualism. Assimilated Rambam openly embraced the Universal God Monotheism theologies promoted by both “daughter religions” which negated that only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai. The “daughter religions” openly repudiated the revelation of a tribal local God at Sinai.

A sharp example of the perversity of the Rambam embracement of Monotheism and a Universal God, his absurd ruling that the 7 mitzvot bnai Noach applies to all Goyim across the world. Mesechta Sanhedrin introduces the aggadah of the 7 mitzvot bnai Noach as a reference to the distinction gere toshav have over mesechta Baba Kama’s “Nacree” Goy. The latter had no legal rights to sue an Israel for damages. Whereas the ger toshav enjoyed the legal right to sue an Israel for damages. The Rambam halachic perversion of the 7 mitzvot bnai Noach failed to grasp the legal distinction which the Torah itself makes between the gere toshav and the nacree/Canaani in the matter of giving treif flesh to the ger toshav or selling the treif flesh to the nacree/Canaani.

LikeLike

Share the truth:

Related

1 Comment

Leave a comment Cancel reply