May the Lord bless you as you walk with Him today. May He guide your thoughts, quiet your heart, and draw you deeper into His Word. As you begin this day, know that your desire to grow spiritually is a gift from the Holy Spirit—and each step you take in faith brings you closer to Christ.
Here is your guide for today’s spiritual disciplines, designed to nourish your soul throughout the day:
1. As the Day Begins: Walking Among Wolves with Wisdom and Grace
A morning meditation on Matthew 10:16 reminding us to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves as we live boldly yet gently in a world often hostile to truth.
2. Forgiving Without Counting: Living the Math of Mercy
A heart-level reflection on Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18:21–22 that invites us to forgive without limits, just as we’ve been forgiven—showing mercy as a daily practice of grace.
3. Seven Psalms, One God: Living in the Center of His Majesty
A journey through Psalms 97–103, revealing a God who reigns in righteousness, responds with grace, and renews our hearts with gladness, holiness, and hope.
4. When God’s Will Isn’t Obvious: Navigating Big Decisions with Kingdom Wisdom
An honest conversation about discerning God’s will through obedience to His known commands, the pursuit of holiness, and alignment with His mission in our lives.
5. Strong Faith in a Shallow Age
A biblical response to today’s trendy church culture, calling believers to resist spiritual shortcuts and instead root themselves in Scripture, truth, and discipleship that transforms.
6. As the Day Ends: A Disciple’s Path Through the Night
An evening meditation on Matthew 10:24 that reminds us our journey as disciples mirrors that of our Master—marked by humility, obedience, and unwavering trust.
Thank you for giving attention to your spiritual health today. These disciplines are not duties, but invitations—opportunities to abide more fully in Christ and be shaped by His Spirit. May His peace rule in your heart as you walk with Him.
Pastor Hogg
Following the splitting of the Sea of Reeds Moshe introduced the song of victory wherein he describes HaShem as a “Man of War”. What does that mean? God is not a Man!
Rehashing an old Xtian propaganda with a fundamentalist Xtian.
Frank Hubeny says:
July 2, 2025 at 4:52 pm
I don’t know what that essential question is.
However, I do agree with you that the way John 1:1 was translated into Greek from Hebrew was confusing.
If the Van Rensburg’s are correct, then “Word” was originally “Son” in the original Hebrew version: https://www.hebrewgospels.com/john
________________________________________________________
mosckerr says:
July 2, 2025 at 10:43 pm
Frank you continue to presume that the Roman forgery NT, originally written in Hebrew. Bunk. Its target audience ALWAYS Goyim and not Jews. This explains why the NT reflects none of the halachic, oath britot, or Constitutional foundations of the Written Torah first revealed at Sinai.
Dr. Janie van Rensburg and the notion of “Logos” in Xtian theology. This perspective aligns with traditional Xtian beliefs about the nature of the “Crisis” JeZeus – substitution theology. Several early church fathers likewise discussed this substitution theology. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE), in both “First Apology” and “Dialogue with Trypho;” Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 CE), in “Against Heresies,” where he emphasized the role of “logos” in the creation and redemption of humanity. This falsely presumes that the local/tribal God of Israel lives as a Universal God. A key theme of both Xtian and Islamic substitute theology.
Dr. Janie van Rensburg’s claim that Logos in John 1:1 was originally “Son”—this is just another layer of Christian revisionism. The entire “Logos” theology was developed by Church fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus to blend Greek metaphysics with Roman theology, ultimately inventing a universalist “Christ” divorced from the פרט, tribal brit at Sinai. This classic substitute theology—replacing Israel’s national oath brit-inheritance-as the chosen Cohen people, with a mythical “son of god” and imagining that Goyim inherit spiritual truths which bypasses Torah altogether. Even Paul’s grafting metaphor does not go this far! It falsely fuses Greek metaphysics with Roman theological imperialism.
Let’s be clear: the Torah revelation revealed at Sinai, simply not a Hellenistic abstraction or a Neoplatonic emanation. The revelation at Horev (Sinai) – concrete, national, legal, and exclusive—bound by brit to the seed of Avraham, Yitzḥak, and Ya‘aqov. The Oral Torah’s פרדס system—especially as laid out in the opening sugya of Avodah Zarah—explains that the nations of the world rejected HaShem’s authority long before Sinai. Xtianity’s invention of “Logos” does not replace the oath brit sworn to the Avot. The NT false idea: that the tribal, covenantal God of Israel could somehow morph into a universal, metaphysical abstraction. This expresses the core lie of both Christian and Islamic theologies. They both erase the specificity of the brit—the national oath between HaShem and the seed of Avraham, Yitzḥak, and Ya‘aqov—and replace it with theological fiction. NT Greek “Logos” translations, tits on a boar hog – worthless.
The Talmud, the codification of the Oral Torah פרדס logic system, teaches, as just mentioned, in the opening pages of mesechta Avoda Zarah that the generations of Adam prior to the birth of Noach utterly rejected the בראשית God. Only Israel accepted this בראשית God at Sinai. Your worthless bible Greek translations of “logos”, coupled with their later revised revisionist history/substitute theology, simply never accepted neither the first or second commandments of Sinai. Just that simple. The substitute theology of “logos” does not mean the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment. The perversion of “son of god/messiah” – has no basis in the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. The church rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah 13 middot at Horev. Let’s be clear: the God of Israel revealed at Sinai – not a Hellenistic abstraction or a Neoplatonic emanation. The Divine Name revealed at Sinai is not “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “Logos.”
Origen (c. 185–253 CE), Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373 CE), Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444 CE) – all these silly Goyim theologians have likewise promoted this avoda zara. The facts, as clear as the Sun on a cloudless Summer Day, “logos” has nothing to do with the First Commandment of Sinai. Nothing in the Heavens, Earth or Seas compares to the revelation of this Divine Presence Spirit Name which breathes within the Yatzir HaTov of the chosen Cohen people.
The substitute theology replacement of JeZeus as a mythical messiah for the oath brit sworn to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov that they would father the chosen Cohen people – absolute narishkeit. Yom Kippur eternally remembers that HaShem made t’shuva and annulled the vow to make of the descendants of Moshe the chosen Cohen people instead of the seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov. The gospel abomination perverts the anointing of king David dedicated to pursue judicial justice within the borders of the oath sworn lands, as the intent and k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach. The specific פרט, of the husband of Bat Sheva, defines the כלל of the anointing of David as king by the prophet Shmuel.
This revisionist substitute theology represents just a simple continuation of the Golden Calf substitute theology wherein the ערב רב, assimilated and intermarried Israelites, substituted the word אלהים for the revelation of the First Commandment Name. Substitution theology defines the avoda zarah of the Golden Calf for all generations.
The early church fathers you mentioned engaged with the concept of “Logos” in ways that sought to bridge Greek philosophical thought and Xtian doctrine. The Mishna in Masechet Chagigah (Chapter 2, Mishnah 1). It states that anyone who contemplates the divine matters or the secrets of the universe—specifically what is above, below, or behind—should not have been born. Man simply incapable of comprehending the Divine; no more than an ant can grasp Human culture and civilizations. The Gospel Roman forgery of “logos” – simply a replacement theology revisionist history nonsense. Just that simple. Greek philosophy does not serve as the foundation upon which the Torah stands.
Moshe,
Thank you for taking the time to engage with such depth and conviction. I deeply appreciate your insights into the covenant people and the enduring significance of Sinai. Your emphasis on the specificity, national identity, and legal reality of the brit (covenant) between HaShem and the seed of Avraham, Yitzḥak, and Ya‘aqov is not only clear—it’s compelling. I hear in your words the burden of fidelity and the weight of history, and I respect that immensely.
You reminded me of HaShem’s words in Exodus 19:5–6:
“Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”
And again in Deuteronomy 4:7–8:
“For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?”
These passages reflect exactly what you emphasized—the unmatched nearness of HaShem and the righteousness of His Torah as the inheritance of Israel alone. The legal and national sanctity of the brit is not up for casual reinterpretation.
At the same time, I sometimes wonder how the Torah hints at its own future—glimpses not of replacement, but of deeper fulfillment within the covenant people themselves. For instance, Deuteronomy 30:6 speaks of a time when:
“The LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.”
This verse stirs something in me. It seems to envision not just covenantal duty, but an inward transformation rooted in the same covenant—not a different one. If and when you’re ever inclined, I’d be honored to hear how you understand such verses through the lens of halachic tradition and Oral Torah. I do not presume to teach, but gladly learn.
You’ve given me much to consider, not just in theology, but in the very way you hold sacred your national and spiritual inheritance. I value this dialogue not as debate, but as an exchange between those who take the Name of HaShem seriously, even if our understandings diverge.
With respect and sincere gratitude, Michael
[[“The LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.”]] Greeting Michael, the language of the kre’a shma explains the k’vanna of acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.
Regards,
Moshe Kerr
Shalom Moshe,
Thank you for bringing up the k’vanna in the Shema. The acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven is indeed central to the heart’s alignment with HaShem.
I wonder, do you see the prophecy in Deuteronomy 30:6 as something that unfolds gradually in the faithful, or as a future event for Israel? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Regards, Michael
The mitzva of brit melah/circumcision applies strictly and only to the chosen Cohen people. The Moshiach dedication of the chosen Cohen people throughout all generations … to pursue righteous judicial courtroom common law justice which makes fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among our people with the purpose to restore TRUST among and between the Jewish people.
Shevuah Tov
Moshe.
Thank you, Moshe. I hear in your words the enduring echo of covenant faithfulness—a justice-centered way of life that holds trust as sacred among your people. While I view from another shore, I see the same ancient horizon. Perhaps, even across differences, there’s meaning in this brief moment we share beneath the sky of that same promise.
Shevuah Tov, friend
J-Wire
http://www.jwire.com.au·
Israel to send delegation to Qatar for Gaza talks
Benjamin Netanyahu will meet with Donald Trump at the White House this week, raising hopes of a truce to end the 21 months of bloodshed in Gaza. Israel will send a
Israel to send delegation to Qatar for Gaza talks. Britain and France, Russia and China not invited. Which highlights the complex geopolitical dynamics surrounding the ongoing conflict. Specifically that Britain and France broke diplomatic relations with Israel after the failed UN Chapter VII dictate to force Israel out of Gaza, vetoed by President Trump 14-1. This veto, along with the subsequent diplomatic fallout, illustrates the divisions among major powers regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The breakdown of relations between Israel and these European nations reflects broader tensions and differing perspectives on how to address the ongoing violence and humanitarian issues in Gaza.
The idea of a tripartite alliance between the United States, India, and Israel reflects a strategic partnership that has been developing over recent years, focusing on shared interests in security, technology, and counterterrorism. Such an alliance could potentially reshape geopolitical dynamics, particularly in the context of U.S. foreign policy priorities.
The notion that the U.S. might withdraw from NATO in favor of strengthening ties with India and Israel is a significant shift in traditional U.S. foreign policy, which has historically emphasized collective defense through NATO. A clear statement from the Trump Administration regarding the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as “not a U.S. problem” would further indicate a pivot towards a more isolationist stance, prioritizing bilateral relationships over multilateral commitments.
Regarding Russia, the perception of its threat level has evolved since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. While Russia remains a significant global player, its military capabilities and geopolitical influence are viewed differently compared to the Cold War era. The current Russian government, under President Putin, is often seen as more focused on regional ambitions rather than the expansive ideology of the Soviet Union.
Russia stuck in the Ukraine much like the Johnson Administration stuck itself in Vietnam and the Bush Administration stuck itself in Afghanistan and Iraq. The European idea of a two-State solution a clear failure Foreign Policy of Great Power interventionism. It has Universally always failed from India and Pakistan, to the division of Korea and Vietnam into two hostile countries to the separation of Kuwait from Iraq to the UN SC Resolution 242 and 338 which “advise” the “international Community of Nations” to impose a two-State solution upon the Middle East.
In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the two-state solution has been proposed as a way to address the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians for self-determination. An example of foreign great power propaganda. The UN Mandate of Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. All Arab countries Universally rejected British proposed UN 181. Arab countries lost their wars to throw the Jews into the Sea in both 1948 and again in 1967. Jordan attacked Israel and lost Samaria in that short June War. Palestine ceased to exist from 1948 to 1964, when Egyptian born Yasser Arafat opportunistically revived Palestine from the dead by naming his terrorist organization the Palestine Liberation Organization. Confusing foreign states propaganda concerning the non-state of Palestine ignores the simple fact that Mandate Palestine ceased to exist when Israel won its National Independence.
Equating the independent State of Israel as equal to the 1964 terrorist declaration of Palestine = complete and total propaganda half-truths that would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Stateless Arab refugees the consequence of Nakba defeated wars do not share equality with the Independent State of Israel. Arabs lost their wars and losing wars carries risks and consequences which the nation states which promote the Palestinian cause – completely and totally ignore.
The portrayal of the conflict as a simple struggle for Palestinian self-determination fails to account for the historical context of statehood, territorial disputes, and the outcomes of military engagements. And therefore it exists as most foul and base revisionist history. Proponents, such as Britain and France, of the two-state solution argue that it remains a viable framework for achieving peace and addressing the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. Utter nonsense – the 2 state solution has always resulted in more wars. Therefore this “peace” noun serves only a great power propaganda – divide and rule – imperialism.
Peace as a noun does not resemble Shalom as a verb. The latter absolutely requires TRUST. The former has nothing to do with TRUST, and everything to do with propaganda sound bites on par with the anti-war song: “All we are saying is give Peace a chance”.
You have spoken more truth, Moshe, than most want to recognize. Your struggle is ancient, yet you remain standing when all who struck you have gone. May your people fulfill their destiny. A destiny that will shape ours, as well. May the ancient echoes of covenant continue to remind us both—each from our own calling—that justice and trust are sacred burdens worth carrying. I remain grateful for your voice in this conversation between shores. Shevuah Tov, Michael
Goyim love to promote their Palestine revisionist history.
johncoyote·john-coyote.com·
Dead ends… A You Tube song sung by a beautiful Woman.
Dead ends A Poem by Coyote Poetry Time for all of us to think and do the right things. Before it is too late for us and nature. Please don’t allow Israel/ USA to erase a people ( Palestine.). Murder of cities and people. The greatest sin. Men can do. Dead ends.. Brothers told no-one […]
https://www.youtube.com/embed/IqQvDER-jyk?list=RDIqQvDER-jyk&version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent&autoplay=1
Palestine ceased to exist as a UN protectorate territory when Israel won its National Independence by Nakba defeating 5 Arab Armies invaded the newly declared Jewish state of Israel.
This pie in the sky song of revisionist history ignores that all Arab countries Universally rejected UN 181. Do you even know what that Resolution was about? Arab rejected the Balfour Declaration by which the League of Nations carved up the defunct and defeated Ottoman Greater Syrian empire and awarded mandates to France in Syria and Lebanon and to Britain in present day Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait. The latter known as the “Palestine Mandate”. Palestine not an Arab word, Arabs cannot even pronounce the letter P in their language!
Arabs reject Jewish self determination in the Middle East. Just that simple. No Arab ever would embrace the name Palestinian during the entire period of the British Mandate. Only in 1964 did the Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the name Palestine with the establishment of his PLO terrorist organization. The Palestine Charter of Arafat’s PLO did not condemn the Jordanian rule over Samaria which it rebranded as “West Bank”. Nor did it denounce the Egyptian rule over Gaza! It openly condemned ’48 Israel.
You want to make the Palestinian issue into a religious belief system, that’s your choice. But this revisionist history compares to the Xtian and Muslim basic theologies of Monotheism. Which God do they worship? Such classic pie in the sky fairy tales of some Universal God… what a load of shit. On par with the lies which Goyim parents spew out to their young children about Santa Claus.
In similar vein Arab propaganda promotes the travesty of Israeli settlements in Samaria and Gaza today! America formed its original 13 colonies to the vast land from Sea to Shining Sea, built through settlements…American settlements perhaps the greatest success story in the last 250 years!
Moshe,
Thank you for taking the time to share these reflections—your command of history, theology, and logic traditions is substantial, and your passion for the covenantal truths revealed at Horev is deeply evident. Your perspective surfaces many grievances that cannot be ignored if we are serious about truth, justice, and remembrance.
I’ve spent time considering your points, especially your critique of the philosophical foundations of the Church and the suppression of alternative systems like פרדס reasoning. Your insight into how the replacement of the Oral Torah’s inductive logic by Greek deductive structures shaped Church doctrine is compelling—and yes, such shifts in epistemology have lasting consequences on law, culture, and identity.
Where I find myself most challenged—and interested—is in how these systems interact with the idea of moral conscience. Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? In a world saturated with propaganda and revisionism, what disciplines shape that conscience to remain true to Sinai?
Also, when you speak of the erasure of Jewish self-determination through revisionist Palestinian narratives, I hear both an intellectual rebuttal and a deep historical wound. Is your critique aimed primarily at the political manipulation of language and borders—or also at the erasure of Jewish covenantal memory from the land itself?
I ask not to counter, but to better understand. The pursuit of divine truth—however obscured by institutions or empires—remains our shared aim, does it not?
Gratefully listening,
Michael
[[[ Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? In a world saturated with propaganda and revisionism, what disciplines shape that conscience to remain true to Sinai? ]]]
The Books of שמות וויקרא concentrate on the avodat HaShem of dedicating korbanot. This “service” does not exist as offering up a barbeque unto Heaven. The mitzva of the פרט case of Moshiach learns from the כלל of korbanot services of the House of Aaron.
Another בנין אב-precedent, the כלל for faith: צדק צדק תרדוף. Still another פרט-בנין אב precedent: the court case of Hebrew slaves vs. the State of Par’o – beating slaves for their rebellion to meet their brick production quota consequent to Par’o withholding the required straw.
One other בנין אב-precedent learns from the כלל that all ברכות require שם ומלכות.
_______________________________
Just as a korban requires a dedication to achieve a specific specified purpose, so too the mitzva of Moshiach. Specifically in the mitzva case dedication of Moshiach, this dedicated “king” sanctified לשמה to rule the land with Judicial justice, working through the common law lateral Sanhedrin courtrooms. Based upon the Torah Constitutional mandate that the Sanhedrin courts operate through משנה תורה-Legislative Review of any and all statute laws or bureaucratic regulations imposed by the Monarchy and/or his government.
The often repeated rebuke which the Book of Shmuel makes upon the House of David as Moshiach, the injustice shown to the husband of Bat Sheva. This פרט-specific defines the כלל dedication of the mitzva dedication of Moshiach.
The opening word of the Torah בראשית, through the aggadic stories of the Creation, teaches the k’vanna of tohor time oriented commandments as the Av of the תולדות secondary source positive and negative commandments located specifically in the Books of שמות ויקרא ובמדבר. Hence just as the Book of בראשית introduces the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov, this opening first Book of the Torah introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments which the rest of the Books of the Torah come to clarify.
For example: what separates tohor spirits from tumah spirits? Avodat HaShem in the Mishkan, only served in the state of tohor middot. For a Cohen to serve within the Mishkan in a condition of tumah middot – this Av transgression carries the din of כרת. Cutting off that person and his children from the oath brit wherein HaShem and the Avot mutually swore to create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין. This latter בראשית most essential idea shares nothing with tuma middot which promote racial or genetic inheritance of the Jewish race – as the Xtian church and Nazis promote.
Hence to swear a Torah oath requires שם ומלכות like as do all ברכות from the Torah. The sin of the Golden Calf – a substitute theology which replaces the revelation of the 1st Sinai commandment revelation of the Spirit Divine Presence Name unto other word-Gods. Avoda zara by definition worships other Word-gods. The sin of the Golden Calf serves as the defining פרט for the 2nd Sinai Commandment כלל not to worship other Gods.
Therefore all Torah oath britot require שם ומלכות. The Name clearly directly links to the Spirit Divine Presence Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. The term מלך refers to the כלל mitzva of the dedication of the spirit of משיח as expressed through all tohor time oriented Av commandments … the righteous pursuit of justice to achieve shalom among the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations in all Ages and times while Jews rule our ancient homelands.
מלכות understood as the dedication of defined tohor middot. אל remembrance of the Sin of the Golden Calf. רחום the inference which turns pity upon its head. Obliterating the Canaanites, the killing of the minor stubborn and rebellious child, the war against Amalek (Jewish assimilation to foreign cultures and customs of peoples who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. And intermarriage with such Goyim). The middah of רחום a Jew dedicates how he shall socially interact with both his people and Goyim in the future; specifically through the dedication of defined tohor middot. חנון the general dedication to dedicate all future behavioral patterns with family friends, people, and even Goyim by and through the future born tohor middot that a person dedicates whenever that Jews does Torah or Talmudic mitzvot/halachot.
Both Xtianity and Islam worship other Word-gods. Therefore both religions do not define faith as the pursuit of justice, but rather belief in the theologies about these Word-gods.
[[[ Also, when you speak of the erasure of Jewish self-determination through revisionist Palestinian narratives, I hear both an intellectual rebuttal and a deep historical wound. Is your critique aimed primarily at the political manipulation of language and borders—or also at the erasure of Jewish covenantal memory from the land itself? ]]]
Unlike the Xtian and Muslims theologies which promote some pie in the sky Universal Monotheism God, the revelation of the Torah at Sinai revealed the local tribal God of Israel. When David fled from king Shaul he declared as he entered g’lut lands: “I have been forced to abandon God”. Just as the Great and Small Sanhedrin courts only have jurisdiction within the borders of the Jewish state so too the local God of Israel. Herein the answer given to the Holocause survivor who said to me: “I was in Auschwitz, Where was God?” When I lived in the US and Xtian people asked me if I was a religious Jew? I responded with: I am an atheist praise God. But even living within the borders of the oath sworn brit alliance lands I habitually respond to Goyim with “I am an atheist – praise God”. Meaning, I do not believe in any theological/creed construct of Word-gods – praise God. LOL Torah, its deep and requires a sense of humor.
The curse of g’lut-exile of my people almost immediately caused Jews to lose the wisdom how to do mitzvot לשמה. G’lut Jewry does not understand how to employ and work our Yatrir HaTov within our hearts. The בנין אב-precedent of blowing the shofer serves as a פרט to define the כלל of Yatzir HaTov. Meaning, to blow a shofar requires air from the lungs. But to blow a spirit from the Yatzir HaTov within the heart requires the k’vanna, (all time-oriented commandments require k’vanna) the dedication of defined tohor middot spirits. This כללי-general idea of tohor middot, it defines the dedication of the middah of חנון.
Herein a definition of 3 of the 13 tohor middot which a person dedicates through Yatzir Tov k’vannot from within their hearts. Jews uprooted from our homelands by both the Babylonians and Romans caused the g’lut cursed survivors to lose this kabbalah wisdom which defines how to do mitzvot לשמה.
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.
“Moshe, thank you for this detailed exposition on the Tosafists and your framing of פרדס logic within judicial precedent. Your point on Rambam’s view of the 7 mitzvot bnai Noach is provocative. Many in broader Jewish thought, particularly within Reform and Conservative movements, might ask: if the Noahide laws are not universal, how then should Jewish law define moral obligations or justice for non-Jews beyond Israel? I’d be curious how you see this working in a global context.” Michael