Scott Douglas Jacobsen: For instance, if we were to discuss how one defines antisemitism, that remains an open question. How do you define antisemitism? What is antisemitism? In general, it is the hate and prejudice directed against Jews. You have not experienced much of it.
Rick Rosner: Beyond the cliché of a blonde white guy taking all the girls in high school. That anecdote reflects a simplistic view of antisemitism. In reality, the full scope of antisemitism involves many specific and complex elements. Historically, its most aggrandized form was evident in Hitler’s Germany. Under that regime, antisemitism portrayed Jews as responsible for all the world’s ills. They were depicted as evil, greedy, and genetically inferior, yet cunning enough to gain control through financial and social leverage.
In Nazi Germany, this hateful ideology was systematized to support the notion that the ideal blonde Übermensch could only flourish if so-called inferior Jews were eradicated. The propaganda portrayed Jews as rapacious, debased, and polluting the human gene pool. Accusations extended to claims that Jews controlled global finance, commerce, and even the entertainment industry.
This framework was constructed to justify extreme prejudice rather than reflect historical reality. Such reductive stereotypes ignore the rich cultural and intellectual contributions of Jewish communities. Ironically, even within these hateful narratives, contradictions emerge. After all that, one might ask, “Are you going to answer for yourself then?” This rhetorical question challenges the simplistic framing of antisemitism.
After all that, I ask whether one could answer by presenting the actual situation instead of resorting to an antisemitic framing. My comment was intended as a joke on the overuse and misapplication of the term. I questioned if one might contrast the hateful rhetoric with a more nuanced historical reality.
Jacobsen: The issue then becomes how to differentiate between extremist propaganda and genuine cultural analysis. Do these two perspectives overlap in any meaningful way?
Rosner: Historically, Jews have experienced alternating periods of freedom and oppression over thousands of years. They were often forced into ghettos and restricted to only a few occupations. Social pressures combined with an emphasis on studying the Torah and Talmud fostered a tradition of scholarship and professional achievement. As immigrants in countries like the United States and England, Jews forged pathways to success through trade, banking, and other professions.
Their successes sometimes made them targets of stereotypes, including claims of controlling entire industries such as entertainment. Many Jewish entrepreneurs were simply hustlers seeking better opportunities. For example, Jewish immigrants played significant roles in establishing early movie studios—like MGM—on the West Coast. This evolution was not the result of a conspiracy but rather a natural outcome of striving for success in a competitive world.
Photo by Joshua Sukoff on Unsplash
Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, The Humanist, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332-9416), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Free Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
Rick Rosner 
A Guide to understanding how to learn the Talmud employing Inductive and Deductive reasoning
Addressing how the Gemara learns the Mishna. This requires addressing the key issue of logic. The sealed Talmudic texts have a static quality. This fixed static quality plays well into syllogism triangulation deductive reasoning. A sugya of Gemara compares, its seems to me, to a thesis statement format. Each sugya of Gemara has an opening thesis statement, and a closing restatement of that same thesis statement – employing a multiple Case/Din study. These opening and closing comparative Case\Din studies functions, so to speak, as the two legs of a triangle. If a person compares any halachic precedent found in the body of that sugya, this point maps the – so to speak – the hypotenuse line; forming a syllogistic line of reasoning process which seeks to understand how these comparison of precedents Cases teach Talmudic common law. And specifically how the Gemara comments on the language of the Mishna based upon comparative precedents.
Important to stress, Talmudic common law does not compare to reading a novel for pleasure. Torah law – very cranial by nature. The 13 hermeneutical rules of Rabbi Yishmael or the PaRDeS system of textual interpretation the יסוד upon which both the Mishna and Gemara stand upon. The major theme of the Talmud, it continually weighs tohor vs tuma spirits which dominates the opposing Yatzirot within the heart.This defining agenda a subtle kabbalah, concealed from the eyes of foreign “Roman” censors. The texts of both the Yerushalmi and Bavli written under prying watchful and suspicious-hostile eyes. The birth of this common law literature did not happen in a political vacuum nor some fictional virgin-birth process.
The Talmud reflects a highly edited and polished text. To study the Talmud requires developing an awareness of this basic most fundamental fact. The Talmud, the product of Jewish military disasters and defeats, and the hopes to restore national and political independence. The Jewish people face the cold cruel facts of a fast approaching hard cruel g’lut winter of oppression, theft, sexual immodesty, and bribed judges. The Framers of the Talmud therefore sought to establish a model for when the Spring of redemption and political national independence once more shined. A rebuilt Jewish state shall require Sanhedrin courts of common law in order to obey צדק צדק תרדוף, the Torah definition of faith. This concept of faith separates the oath alliance from the dominant empires together with their beliefs in Universal Gods. The revelation of HaShem at Sinai, only Israel witnessed. Hence HaShem – a local tribal God, who continually creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing. Jews have no burning obligation to convert the world to embrace some Universal belief in a Monotheistic God.
Jewish courts, based upon the primary Talmudic Sanhedrin model, do not remotely resemble the vertical Goyim courtrooms where the State bribes the Judges and the Prosecuting Attorneys by paying their public salaries. A lateral Sanhedrin court system would require a comparative model to the public health care insurance which prevails in the Jewish State today, to maintain the Courts. The police, their first Order of Priority: to serve the Federal Sanhedrin Court system, rather than legislative assemblies or Governments; the police essentially enforce the rulings made through the lateral common law judicial judgments.
Torah common law, a judicial legal system, and not a legislative or bureaucratic statute law system of authoritative decrees ruled by concealed cults of personality. Herein what fundamentally distinguishes Jewish common law from all other Goyim legal systems. The Torah courts have a unique function. To establish and maintain the culture and customs which both determine and define bnai brit national cohen identity; to protect against the violation of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein defines the mandate of Federal Sanhedrin lateral common law courtrooms.
The study of each and every new sugya of Gemara therefore requires making a syllogistic Case/Din triangulation/summation that seeks to understand the gist of the sugya contents. This discipline of learning, in-effect seeks to duplicate the scholarship made by the 450 – 600 CE Savoraim Talmudic scholars. The Talmud does not sit like some
“gilded wife” all by herself alone. It has a warp/weft relationship with the T’NaCH, through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning logic format. Where T’NaCH prophetic mussar provides the p’shat of Aggadic and Midrashic stories. The directive of both Aggadah with its Midrash commentary, designed to amplify Aggadic prophetic mussar – common law Case/Din studies – to serve as the יסוד of obeying the ritual halachic observance by way of רמז\סוד inductive reasoning; to birth tohor time oriented halacha spirits straight from the Torah in order to breath life into the “clay” souls of our people – to cause them to breath the spirit of life – based upon the precedent of the creation of Adam.
_________________________________________________In summation________________________
Jewish courts do not exist to enforce imperial ideology, but to protect the oath alliance identity of the bnai brit chosen Cohen people and to enforce the Second Commandment—resisting assimilation and foreign gods. Each act of studying a sugya – not some passive reception but a reenactment of the Savoraim’s legal reasoning. Halachic study, when done correctly, achieves both spiritual tohor middot clarity and political restoration.
______________________________________________________________________________________
גמ’ מדקתני אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן או לאו כיוצא בהן? גבי שבת תנן אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת. אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן. כיוצא בהן לא שנא אב חטאת ולא שנא תולדה חטאת וכו’_________________________________________והשתא דאוקימנא ארגל, שן דלא מכליא קרנא מנלן דומיא דרגל מה רגל לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנא אף שן לא שנא מכליא קרנא ולא שנא לא מכליא קרנא
______________________________________________________________________________
Here we have established two legs of the triangular syllogism logic. Now let’s consider the hypotenuse.
______________________________________________________________________________
ת”ש בכור שורו הדר לו והאי מילף הוא גילוי מילתא בעלמא הוא דנגחה בקרן הוא אלא מהו דתימא כי פליג רחמנא בין תם למועד ה”מ בתלושה אבל במחוברת אימא כולה מועדת היא
_____________________________________________________________________________________
We now have forged a logical syllogism of sorts. Leg A – Where the Torah defines Avot, there are Toldot, and the legal status of Toldot depends on whether they are “כיוצא בהן” — that is, functionally similar.
Leg B – In the case of Regel, liability applies whether the damage completely destroys capital or not. By analogy, Shen is treated the same way, since it shares the essential trait of natural, expected damage.
Leg C – Hypotenuse – You might have thought the category of Keren only applies (i.e., has special status of Tam/Muad distinction) when the horn is detached, since that’s a more “artificial” scenario.
But the verse clarifies (Giluy Milta) that even when attached, the distinction holds — meaning that the essence of the act (unnatural goring) and not the physical condition of the instrument (attached/detached) defines the halakhic category.
The legal category (Av or Toldah) and liability are not defined by physical features (e.g., whether the horn is detached, or whether Shen consumes capital), but by behavioral nature. Therefore, the Torah’s system of Avot and Toldot is structured around the behavioral pattern of the damage, not the instrument or its result.
Hence, Shen, like Regel, is always liable, regardless of whether it consumes capital — and Toldot of Shen are “כיוצא בהן” in legal outcome. The halakhic logic (סברא) that underlies the sugya, but not every stylistic or textual move the Gemara makes on the surface. Bava Kama fundamentally addresses How Torah common law interprets damages קרן, שן, רגל, and what qualifies as Av vs. Toldah. When liability applies, whether a distinction made between the instrument of damage or nature of the act itself (natural vs. unnatural). And whether toldot carry the legal obligations identical to Avot in matters of liability for damages inflicted upon others goods, property or persons.
The categories of damage, defined by the nature of the act and not by its physical instrument such has horned or dehorned. This logic aligns the sugya with the larger conceptual framework of Avot/Toldot. Especially based upon the similar precedent of Shabbat. Where toldot like avot bear full responsibility.
The “giluy milta” piece (from בכור שורו הדר לו) resolves a potential limiting assumption. Clarifying that the liability does not hinge on whether the horn exists in fact or not. Rather this Av liability doesn’t hinge on actual horns but rather on the nature of the damage. This summation of the opening sugya core conceptual structure serves as an essential יסוד overview which permits easier evaluation and interpretation of all later off the dof inductive reasoning precedent texts introduced there after. This opening sugya serves as the basis to learn the entire Talmud through a comprehensive methodology of learning.
Having made a triangulation overview, can now proceed to making inductive reasoning precedent analysis from other Primary Sources.
Compare the language of the Mishnah (and Torah) to a blueprint — specifically, to viewing a building plan from different angles. The “front face” reading is the plain sense or surface-level meaning. But the Gemara employs בנין אב precedents to rotate the viewpoint perspective. Side view, top view, or even cross-sections. These reveal hidden structures, assumptions, or frameworks invisible from the front.
A simple legal hermeneutic. The Mishnah might say something in a straightforward way, but the Gemara often challenges that appearance by reframing the concept, introducing precedents, and asking, “What does this really mean in context?” Learning a p’suk פרט actively entails the discipline of never divorcing this specific פרט from its sugya כלל. Learning a specific in context, defines how the Talmud studies the language of the T’NaCH. This sh’itta of learning day and night different than how the Roman counterfeit gospels divorced T’NaCH p’sukim from their surrounding context. Rabbi Yishmael referred to this discipline as פרט כלל או כלל פרט.
How does the 39 principal wisdom skills of labor, required to build the Mishkan, serve as a precedent or model for how the Gemara learns the four “דיוק”, actually – eight Avot damagers. Consider the language of the precedent Mishna. A fundamental basic which explains why the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh, common law commentaries always open with the Mishna which their halachic posok comments upon! Herein defines their halachic commentaries as common law as contrasted by how the Yad, Tur, & Shulkan Aruch – their alien assimilated statute law divorces Gemara precedents of halacha from interpreting the 70 faces of the Mishna.
When the Rabbeinu Tam jumps off the dof and brings a precedent, his common law learning only read the Gemara viewed from a different perspective learning viewpoint, but failed to do the same by employing this the sugya of Gemara to re-interpret the intent of the language of the Mishna which that “home” Gemara comments upon – based upon the changed perspective of the off-the-dof Gemara precedent. In 1232 a majority of the Baali Tosafot placed the Rambam’s writings into נידוי.
Ten years later the lights of Hanukkah ceased to shine, the Pope and the king of France, Hitler in a different Era, burned 24 cartloads of hand written Talmudic manuscripts in Paris. (The invention of the printing press some two Centuries in the future.) And approximately 70 years thereafter a Royal decree expelled all Jews from France. This destroyed the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of Torah, NaCH, and Talmudic scholarship. The Tzeddukim-like Reshonim scholars who embraced Greek/Roman culture and customs prevailed in the Rambam Civil War.
Whenever the Gemara jumps off the dof and brings an outside source precedent from the 6 Orders of the Mishna etc, this serves as a paradigm for reinterpretation. The opening thesis statement of our sugya of Gemara commentary to the common law Mishna: מדקתני אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן או לאו כיוצא בהן. The key חכמה, it seems to me, the basic הבדלה which separates מלאכה from עבודה. Our Mishna ‘ארבעה אבות נזיקין השור וכו, implies עבודה not מלאכה. What distinguishes and separates the two classes of verbs which share a common simple translation?
The Mishna of Shabbat addresses the issue of transporting goods, probably without an eruv. ‘דתנן: טומנין בשלחין ומטלטלין אותן בגיזי צמר וכו. The Mishnah hides interpretive layers. While the Gemara’s job is to unpack, rotate, and reveal. What looks simple may hide complexity. Law is not flat — it has depth, symbolism, and structure. Reading halakhah requires shifting perspectives — just like interpreting a blueprint. Herein explains why the statute halachic codifications – utterly false and a חילול השם.
Do “toldot” equally apply to עבודה as they do to מלאכה? Herein defines the precedent question which shifts the blueprint perspective from a Front to a Top or Side view! The Gemara refines the meaning of מלאכה by making a reference to Yosef in Egypt. Our Mishna opens with Tam animals or even holes in the ground. Hence the question stands: what separates the one verb from the other verb? Skillfully transporting from domain to domain on shabbat requires skilled מלאכה or unskilled עבודה? If a plate falls from the table on shabbat, permitted to sweep and clean the broken shards of the shattered plate.
When the Gemara “jumps off the daf” and brings a precedent from another Order (Seder), it’s not a tangent — it’s a legal lens shift. Precedents are not used to prove, but to reconstruct the blueprint. They bring out hidden legal categories within familiar language. Halachic codes (Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, etc.) flatten the blueprint. They take one angle — often the front face — and freeze it into a static 2D schematic or camera picture. The B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh respect the motion dynamic — they open each halakhic statement by citing the Mishnah because its language represents the entry point to the Gemara’s architectural analysis. While the Rabbeinu Tam, when he relies on an “off-the-daf” precedent without rotating that sugya back to its Home Mishna, fails to use the precedent architecturally — he forgets to rebuild the Mishnah using the rotated view of the precedent off the dof Primary Source.
Why did Rashi, basically write a Ibn Ezra dictionary as his commentary to the Talmud? Why did Rabbeinu Tam systematically fail to take his משנה תורה “legislative review” made on a sugya of Gemara, to extend this changed perspective chiddush to understand the depth of the language of the Home Mishna? Following the destruction of Herod’s Temple, the Romans kept a sharp critical eye upon the re-established Sanhedrin! So too the church despised the existence of the Talmud-the working model for a restored Sanhedrin court system in a Torah Constitutional Republic. The French common law school of Talmudic scholarship forced later Jewish scholarship to make the most essential דיוק and make a “legislative review” of the language of the Mishnaic Din.
Talmud as multidimensional legal architecture, not static statute. מלאכה skill-forms vs. עבודה-impact-forms/causative force. Do toldot apply equally across both domains? What distinguishes the “work” of Yosef from the “work” of an ox plowing the fields? “ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו” Does Yosef do tohor time oriented commandments which require k’vanna as the definition of his מלאכתו, which defines shabbat observance? Does judicial courtroom justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted too qualify as a tohor time oriented commandment from the Torah itself? The Mishna’s term “Avot Melachot” by rotating through a biblical precedent — not to quote a verse robbed from its contexts, but to shift the interpretive angle.
When the Gemara applies “Av/Toldah” structure from Shabbat here, it’s a precedent transfer — rotating melachah’s taxonomy of structured action into damage law’s taxonomy of structured causation. This בנין אב serves as an inductive interpretive leap. A new angle on the blueprint. This shows how structural metaphors run across Mishnaic Orders — if you rotate the lens. The Gemara’s precedent, not meant to “win an argument over halachic posok”; as the statute law halachic clowns learned — rather it’s meant to reconstruct the Mishnah from a rotated viewpoint.
Halacha within the Talmud, not a simplified collection of rules – organized into codes of religious halachic rules of faith. But rather a blueprinted structure of dynamic precedent based judicial skills required to discern one judicial case from other similar but different judicial cases. This fundamental distinction perhaps defines the tohor middah of רב חסד as מאי נפקא מינא, תמיד מעשה בראשית, אהבה רבה. The static statute law codes pervert the Talmud unto a frozen archaic fossil, known today as “Orthodox Judaism”.
פרק רביעי שבת הלכה ב. דתנן: טומנין בשלחין ומטלטלין אותן בניזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן כיצד עושה נוטל את הכיסוי והן נופלין ראב”ע אומר קופה מטה על צדה ונוטל שמא יטול ואינו יכול להחזיר וחכמים אומרים נוטל ומחזיר גמ’. רבי יודה בן פזי בשם רבי יונתן הדא דמימר בנתונין אצל בעל צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן. רבי יודה ור’ יוחנן הדא דתימר בנתונין באפותיקי. אבל בנתונין אצל בעל הבית לא בדא. רבי ירמיה בשם רב פורשין מחצלת על גבי שייפות של לבינים בשבת. אמר ר”ש ב”ר אני לא שמעתי מאבא. אחותי אמרה לי משמו ביצה שנולדה בי”ט סומכין לה כלי בשביל שלא תתגלגל אבל אין כופין עליה את הכלי.
פרק שביעי שבת הלכה ב: גמ’ אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת מניין לאבות מלאכות מן התורה? ר’ שמואל בר נחמן בשם רבי יונתן כנגד ארבעים חסר אחת מלאכה שכתוב בתורה בעון קומי רב אחא כל הן דכתיב מלאכות שתים. א”ר שיין אשורת עיינה דרבי אחא בכל אורייתא ולא אשכח כתיבדא מילתא בעיא דא מלתא ויבוא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו מנהון. ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי מלאכתו אשר עשה מנהון. תני רבי שמעון בן יוחאי ששת ימים תאכל מצות וביום השביעי עצרת להשם אלהיך לא תעשה מלאכה. הרי זה בא לשלים ארבעים חסר אחת מלאכות
____________________________________________________________
The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 labors less as a list and more as concepts which it tends to unpack midrashically and practically through case law. The Yerushalmi often embeds melachic categories in ongoing halachic debates or narrative expansions. This style is characteristic of the Yerushalmi’s broader legal method — dynamic, situational, and deeply woven into context Yet our Mishna implies eight Avot avodot ((אשורת עיינה דרבי אחא בכל אורייתא ולא אשכח כתיבדא מילתא))
The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 does not treat the 39 melachot as 39 “Avot” in the strict legal sense. Rather, it limits the number of true Avot to just two, and treats the rest as derivatives (תולדות) or extensions.
🔹 Yerushalmi Shabbat 7:2 —
אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת מניין לאבות מלאכות מן התורה?
The Yerushalmi gives several midrashic derivations (e.g., parallels with “מלאכה” in the Mishkan, in Bereshit, in Vayikra), but then Rabbi Acha says:
בעון קומי רב אחא כל הן דכתיב מלאכות שתים.
אמר רבי שיין אשורת עיינה דרבי אחא בכל אורייתא ולא אשכח כתיבדא מילתא.
ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו — מנהון.
ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי מלאכתו אשר עשה — מנהון.
Meaning: only two verses refer to “melachah” in a way that might count as foundational Avot. From these, the Yerushalmi limits the count of true Avot Melachot to two, and treats the rest midrashically or derivatively.
Where the Bavli (Shabbat 49b) treats the 39 Avot as a formal halakhic taxonomy (with toledot extending from them), the Yerushalmi refuses this formal structure:
It questions the textual foundation of “39 Avot Melachot.”
It restricts the number of true ‘Avot’ to 2, via the midrash on “melachto” from Bereshit and Shemot.
It implies the 39 are not equal Avot, but derived, embedded, or inferred from only a few true Torah-level archetypes. This supports:
The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 melachot not as a formal list, but as conceptual categories, rooted in narrative, midrash, and legal inference — not codified taxonomy.
In fact, by limiting the number of true Avot Melachot, the Yerushalmi undermines the static structure of 39 as an equal set. Instead, it views the structure as a dynamic, interpretive field, with a few central roots (avot) and many situational unfoldings (toledot).
This dovetails with Bava Kamma: the “Avot Nezikin” aren’t just categories — they’re root modes of avodah or human agency. Likewise, in the Yerushalmi, only a few actions count as true melachah, and the rest are contextual expressions.
The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 limits the Avot Melachot to two. It does not endorse a rigid 39-fold taxonomy like the Bavli. This reinforces the chiddush: the Yerushalmi treats melachah as a dynamic, narrative-legal concept — not a fixed codebook. It mirrors the chiddush of tam vs mu’ad in Bava Kamma: Avot reflect root intentionality, while Toledot reflect unfolding consequences. In conclusion:
ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו — מנהון.
ויכל אלהים ביום השביעי מלאכתו אשר עשה — מנהון
Meaning: only two verses refer to “melachah” in a way that might count as foundational Avot. From these, the Yerushalmi limits the count of true Avot Melachot to two, and treats the rest midrashically or derivatively. Where the Bavli (Shabbat 49b) treats the 39 Avot as a formal halakhic taxonomy (with toledot extending from them), the Yerushalmi refuses this formal structure. It questions the textual foundation of “39 Avot Melachot.” It restricts the number of true ‘Avot’ to 2, via the midrash on “melachto” from Bereshit and Shemot. It implies the 39 are not equal Avot, but derived, embedded, or inferred from only a few true Torah-level archetypes.
The Yerushalmi tends to treat the 39 melachot not as a formal list, but as conceptual categories, rooted in narrative, midrash, and legal inference — not codified taxonomy. In fact, by limiting the number of true Avot Melachot, the Yerushalmi undermines the static structure of 39 as an equal set. Instead, it views the structure as a dynamic, interpretive field, with a few central roots (avot) and many situational unfoldings (toledot). This dovetails with the reading of Bava Kamma: the “Avot Nezikin” aren’t just categories — they’re root modes of avodah or human agency. Likewise, in the Yerushalmi, only a few actions count as true melachah, and the rest are contextual expressions.
The Yerushalmi in Shabbat 7:2 limits the Avot Melachot to two. It does not endorse a rigid 39-fold taxonomy like the Bavli. The Yerushalmi treats melachah as a dynamic, narrative-legal concept — not a fixed codebook. Tam vs mu’ad in Bava Kamma: Avot reflect root intentionality, while Toledot reflect unfolding consequences.
מדקתני אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן או פירוש כיון דקיי”ל דנזק שלם ממונא הוא וחצי נזק קנסא הוא ומועד שחזיק משלם נזק שלם מן העליה ותם משלם חצי נזק מגופו בעינן למידע הני תולדות דהני אבות אי כיוצא בהן נינהו דכל מועד מינייהו תולדה חצי נזק מגופו או דלמא תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן ואסיקנא דכולהו תולדותיהן כיצא בהן בר מתולדה דרגל ומאי ניהו חצי נזק צרורות דהלכתא גמירי לה דלא משלם אלא חצי נזק ואמי קרו לה תולדות דרגל דמשלם מן העליה ופוטרה ברה”ר ומאי עלייה מעולה שבנכסיו כדתנן הניזקין שמין להן בעדית ובעל חוב בבינונית וכתובת אשה בזיבורית
Now we see from the Rif that he immediately distinguishes the difference between tam from muad damagers. Consequently the opening line of the Mishna too must distinguish between tam and muad damagers. The 4 Avot damagers brought by the Mishna all come in the catagory of tam damagers. The reader of the Mishna required to make the required דיוק logical inference and apply the language for tam damagers equally to 4 Avot types of muad damagers! This crucial דיוק the Reshonim failed to learn. This failure triggered a ירידות הדורות for all downstream later Talmudic scholars – because they too failed to make this critical דיוק of logic.
Shen (eating) and Regel (walking/trampling) — the animal is considered mu’ad from the outset. No such thing as tam eating or tam walking. Because eating and walking are natural behaviors, not aggressive or unusual. So when the animal damages through those means, the Torah automatically classifies it as mu’ad — it’s expected. But goring is not natural behavior. The Torah gives the owner the benefit of the doubt — the animal is considered a tam until it shows repeated aggression. Tzrorot (pebbles kicked by walking) pays half by halacha leMoshe miSinai.
מאי מבעה? רב אמר מבעה זה אדם דכתיב (ישעיהו כא:יד) אם תבעיון בעיו, ושמואל אמר מבעה זה השן מטמרוהי (עובדיה א:ו) איך נחפשו עשו נבעו מצפוניו, מאי משמע, כדמתרגם רב יוסף איכדין איתבליש עשו איתגליין מטמרוהי. תני רבי אושעיה שלשה עשר אבות נזיקין ,שומר חנם והשואל והשוכר נזק וצער וריפוי ושבת ובושת וארבעה דתנן הרי שלשה עשר. תני רבי חייא עשרים וארבעה אתות נזיקין, תשלומי כפל ותשלמי ארבעה וחמשה נגב וגזלן ועדים זוממין והאונס והמפתה והמוציא שם רע והמטמא והמדמע והמנסך והנך שלשה עשר, הרי עשרים וארבעה
We learn from the B’HaG that Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Chiyya expand the list of damage categories from the four in the Mishnah to 13 and 24, respectively.
The Seder night is filled with this same middah shel ribui — the rabbinic instinct to take a core Torah statement and expand its meaning in light of broader oath brit themes. Hence by simply going up-stream we learn an aliya ha’dorot rather than an error that plagues the later generations unto this day!
לא שנא אב חטאת ולא שנא תולדה חטאת לא שנא אב סקילה ולא שנא תולדה סקילה ומאי איכא בין אב לתולדה נפקא מינה דאילו עביד שתי אבות בהדי הדדי אי נמי שתי תולדות בהדי הדי מחייב אכל חדא וחדא ואילו עביד אב ותולדה דידיה לא מחייב אלא חדא ולרבי אליעזר דמחייב אתולדה במקום אב אמאי קרי ליה אב ואמאי קרי לה תולדה הך דהוה במשכן חשיבא קרי ליה אב הך דלא הוי במשכן חשיבא קרי לה תולדה גבי טומאות תנן אבות הטומאות השרץ והשכבת זרע וטמא מת תולדותיהן לאו כיצא בהן דאילו אב מטמא אדם וכלים ואילו תולדות אוכלין
ומשקין מטמא אדם וכלים לא מטמא ……… דתנן: טומנין סשלחין ומטלטלין אותן בגיזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן כיצד הוא עושה נוטל את הכסוי והן נופלות
Shall return to the previous precedent earlier first introduced in the fourth chapter of shabbat. But this time, intend to make a triangulation which connects the opening and closing thesis statement with its hypotenuse third leg. Then shall show how sugya integrity equally applies unto the Yerushalmi. My theory contends that the סבוראים scholars edited both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. Very little scholarship ever made upon the scholarship made by the סבוראים scholars. Most rabbinic authorities limit the influence of this critical time period to editing only the Bavli, based on the fact that they generally qualify as Babylonian scholars.
Just as Bar Kochba failed to unify Judean and Alexandrian Jewish power to fight Rome, the Babylonian scholars (Savoraim/Geonim) later failed to preserve or reintegrate the wisdom and redactional traditions of the Judean Talmud (Yerushalmi)? This conclusion reflects a long arc of Jewish fragmentation — military, political, and intellectual — rooted in regional parochialism and short-sighted leadership. Such a repugnant idea simply causes my soul to retch.
To reduce the rich, living tradition of Eretz Yisrael’s Torah — the Yerushalmi, the Land-based halakhic voice, the embodied oath alliance to do mitzvot לשמה, which forever binds our people as the chosen Cohen people — to a marginal footnote, while canonizing the Bavli as if it stood alone, represents a kind of exile. An exile of method, of memory, and of oath brit vision. It’s not just “a repugnant idea” — it’s a betrayal of the subservient relationship between the Gemara to the Mishna. Yes even my hero, Rabbeinu Tam fell into this cursed way of thinking when he failed to read the language of the Mishna from a different ‘perspective-viewpoint’ like his precedent based off the dof research did with the sugyot of the Gemara. But that this ירידות הדורות equally infected the minds of the Savoraim Era of scholarship – absolutely not. The curse of g’lut had yet to impact our leaders that they had already forgotten the wisdom of doing mitzvot לשמה.
This chiddush strives to forge a powerful ideological and interpretive vision — one that challenges the foundations of how rabbinic history and Talmudic authority have been narrated for over a millennium. The strength of this sh’itta, it expresses its own form of historical revisionism, but restoring the remembered oath brit alliance, originally sworn by the Avot themselves, which creates through Av time oriented commandments the chosen Cohen people in all generations יש מאין. It re-integrates the Mishnah, Bavli, and Yerushalmi as co-dependent axes of one oath-bound system.
An idea that my parents implanted into my brain: “Its easier to be a critic than a play-write”. This learning throws down the gauntlet of revolt against the statute law assimilated Yad, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch which casts the Jewish people off the chosen path of pursuing Av tohor time oriented commandments as the essence of our brit alliance לשמה. Torah holds depth, משנה תורה simply not read comparable to how the Xtians and Muslims read their bible and koran abominations of Av tuma avoda zarah. To reduce Torah to statute desecrates the architecture of brit, betrays the Gemara’s subservience to the Mishnah, and exiles the national soul from its sacred rhythm in time._____________________________________________________________________
הדור יתבי ומקמיבעיא להו הא דתנן אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת כנגד מי? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… לא ………………………………………………….ואתם לא תכניסו מרה”ר לרה”י הם הורידו את הקרשים מעגלה לקרקע ואתם לא תוציאו מרה”י לרה”ר הם הוציאו מעגלה לעגלה ואתם לא תוציאו מרה”י לרה”י מרה”י לרשות היחיד מטי קא עביד אביי ורבא דאמרי תרווייהו ואיתימא רב אדא בר אהבה מרשות היחיד לרה”י דרך רשות הרבים ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. דאמר לעשות צרכיו נכנס או דילמא ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו ממנינא הוא והאי והמלאכה היתה דים הכי קאמר
דשלים ליה עבידתא תיקו
The Mishna of this mesechta shabbat addresses moving moist vegetables, that its permissible to move them with tufts of wool. The Mishnah models a mode of discernment: מנין, כיצד — asking how and why certain acts qualify as melacha versus non-melacha (mere handling, movement, utility, convenience). This distinction is not procedural, but cognitive-intentional, grounded in purpose, skill, and constructive transformation.
So the language of ומנין… כיצד… is not just rhetorical — it is methodological. It marks a halakhic contrast between skilled avodah and unskilled common labor, like sweeping the floor after a shabbos meal. The contrast between mesechta shabbat’s focus upon מלאכה as opposed and contrasted by baba kama’s focus upon עבודה, qualifies as a classic compare and contrast style of the study of literature throughout the Ages as practiced by all cultures and societies which instruct Higher Education to the younger generations.
Using Mishkan transport examples (קרשים, עגלה, רשויות) to reverse-engineer the skill level and intention involved in transferring items — constructive, purposeful, and skilled movement versus passive or utilitarian shlepping.
Tilting a Jar qualifies as an act of עבודה, not a forbidden מלאכה. Such common labor does not compare to the skill required to construct the Mishkan. Yosef, not freed from his prison cell simply because he could sweep the floor as a common slave. Josef kept his master’s accounts and other skilled labor. The sugya reconstructs through its three-legged structure: not just halakhic outcomes, but the architecture of skilled avodah.
The repeated “מנין… כיצד…” language signals an invitation not to memorize rulings, but to penetrate the legal logic beneath the surface: intention, transformation, and Mishkan precedent. ומנין — From where do we know? → This demands source awareness, invoking precedent (מלאכת המשכן) to justify legal structures. כיצד — How is this so? → This demands operational clarity, not in procedural terms but qualitative ones: skill, purpose, transformation.
Thus, even a minor act — like moving moist vegetables with tufts of wool — becomes a site of deep Torah understanding which discerns between like from like. Not every act of moving constitutes melachah. What matters is skilled construction, not mere movement. Sweeping the floor after a Shabbat meal is avodah — common, unskilled maintenance, not the creative labor of Mishkan-building.
The movement of beams (קרשים) from wagon to ground versus from domain to domain shows the role of intentional skill — not just what moves, but how and why. Does Yosef entering to do his melachto count as proof concerning the 39 labors? Is the action constructive and purposeful, or merely routine movement?
The final teiku – conclusive. The style of the difficulty vs response of the Gemara, this models a Torts courts’ Prosecutor vs Defense attorneys. The teiku implies that the precedents brought by the one did not convince the other and visa versa. Therefore the 3rd judge of the court had to make a final ruling. The language teiku means that the precedents brought by the opposing justices of the court – that both sets of precedents which they brought to argue the case both pro and con had equal merit!
Hence the concept of how the Yerushalmi understands the term איסור מלאכה merits deep respect – based upon the teiku as codified within the Bavli. The recurring Mishnah formula “ומנין… כיצד…” should not be read as mere rhetorical flourish. Rather, it functions as a methodological signal, inviting the learner to uncover the legal architecture beneath each halakhic assertion.
ומנין — From where do we know? This demands source consciousness, particularly invoking Mishkan precedent to validate categories of melachah. כיצד — How is this so? This demands not rote procedural description, but qualitative analysis: Is the act constructive? Purposeful? Skilled? The emphasis is on intention and transformation, not mere utility. Thus, even seemingly minor rulings — such as moving moist vegetables with tufts of wool — become points of legal discernment. They are opportunities to distinguish melachah from avodah.
The sugya in Shabbat uses Mishkan transport scenarios to dissect the boundaries of melachah. Moving beams (קרשים) from wagon to ground, or from one domain to another, is not about raw movement. It is about intentionality and skill: is this an act of creative, constructive labor, like that which built the Mishkan?
The question raised in the Gemara about Yosef “entering to do his melachto” adds a narrative precedent. Is Yosef’s labor melachah or avodah? Was his action one of wisdom on par with interpreting dreams or simple slave labor? This biblical echo tests the cognitive weight of melachah.
Teiku = תשבי יתרץ קושיות ובעיות. The logic is not inconclusive; it’s balanced. Each set of precedents — pro and con — carries equal legal and interpretive weight. The disagreement is not over evidence, but over legal interpretation and qualitative frameworks. Statute law rulings as represented in the assimilated codes which defiled Jewry in the Middle Ages cannot resolve a Teiku. Only a court which weights the pro/con precedents itself can definitively rule on the teiku case.
This structural insight carries powerful consequences for how we view the Yerushalmi. If the Bavli’s use of teiku models judicial equilibrium — not indecision — then the Yerushalmi’s approach to איסור מלאכה must be read with equal gravitas. The Yerushalmi’s framing is not “underdeveloped” or “incomplete” — as later scholars (especially post-Geonic) have unfairly claimed. Rather, its halakhic method may differ, but its interpretive weight — especially in distinguishing melachah from avodah — is no less sophisticated.
Treating מנין…כיצד… as a literary-methodological engine. Reading movement scenarios (קרשים, רשויות) not literally, but as tests of skilled intentionality. Interpreting teiku as judicial respect for the need of a third justice hearing the case before the court, and not indecision which must wait for Eliyahu the prophet. The future of Torah learning depends on restoring halakhic unity and method across Bavli and Yerushalmi.
פרק רביעי שבת הלכה ב מתני’ טומנין בשלחין ומטללטין אותן בניזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן כיצד עושה נוטל את הכיסוי ונוטל שמא יטול ואינו יכול להחזיר. וחכמים אורמים נוטל ומחזיר.
Consider the logical syllogism: בניזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן: רבי יודה ור’ יוחנן הדא דתימר בנתונין באפותיקי. אבל בנתונין אצל בעל הבית לא בדא. רבי ירמיה בשם רב פורשין מחצלת על גבי שייפות של לבינים בשבת. אמר ר”ש ב”ר אני לא שמעתי מאבא אחותי אמרה לי משמו ביצה שנולדה בי”ט סומכין לה כלי בשביל שלא תתגלגל אבל אין כופין עליה את הכלי ושמואל אמר כופין עליה כלי ………………………………………………………………………………………. דמר ר’ חנינא עולין היינו עם לרבי לחמת נדר והיה אומר לנו בחרו לכם חלקו אבנים ואתם מורין לטלטלן למחר ……………………………………………………………….. א”ל אם חשבתם עליהן מאתמול מותר לטלטלן א”ל אם חשבתם עליהן מאתמול מותר לטלטלן How does this syllogism clarify מלאכה from עבודה that’s distinctly different from the way that the Bavli learns this same Mishna?
The Yerushalmi’s logical progression in this sugya — centered around גיזי צמר (tufts of wool) and related טומנין scenarios — develops a legal logic that implicitly distinguishes מלאכה from עבודה in a way fundamentally different from the Bavli’s approach.
How does this syllogism clarify מלאכה from עבודה that’s distinctly different from the way that the Bavli learns this same Mishna?
The Yerushalmi’s logical progression in this sugya — centered around גיזי צמר (tufts of wool) and related טומנין scenarios — develops a legal logic that implicitly distinguishes מלאכה from עבודה in a way fundamentally different from the Bavli’s approach.
טומנין בשלחין ומטלטלין אותן בגיזי צמר ואין מטלטלין אותן כיצד עושה נוטל את הכיסוי והן נופלות
You may insulate (food) with moist produce, and you may move it with tufts of wool (gizzei tzemar), but you may not move the wool itself. Yerushalmi: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yochanan qualify this: They say this applies only when the tufts of wool are set aside for commercial storage (נתונין באפותיקי). But if they’re set aside by the homeowner for insulation use, then the prohibition does not apply.
R. Yirmiyah quoting Rav:
פורשין מחצלת על גבי שייפות של לבינים בשבת
→ You may spread a mat over piles of bricks on Shabbat.
This further shows that covering or handling utilitarian items is not necessarily melachah, so long as it’s done without construction intent — that is, unskilled avodah, not constructive melachah. The classic example of setting stones aside to clean oneself after having a bowel movement on shabbat.
Logical Inference: When a material is set aside for non-melachic, household use, then its status does not render its movement a melachah — this is עבודה, not מלאכה. R. Yirmiyah quoting Rav:
פורשין מחצלת על גבי שייפות של לבינים בשבת
→ You may spread a mat over piles of bricks on Shabbat. R. Shimon b. Rabbi (quoting his sister):
ביצה שנולדה ביום טוב סומכין לה כלי… אין כופין עליה
→ You may support it with a vessel, but you may not overturn one over it.
Shmuel disagrees: You may cover it. Again, the argument is about purposeful intent: are you preventing a mess or protecting something of value? Neither is constructive melachah — this is routine maintenance, i.e., avodah.
This further shows that covering or handling utilitarian items is not necessarily melachah, so long as it’s done without construction intent — that is, unskilled avodah, not constructive melachah.
R. Chanina’s story with R. Yehudah HaNasi:
בחרו לכם חלקו אבנים ואתם מורין לטלטלן למחר
→ “Designate your stones today so you can move them tomorrow.”
Punchline: If you think about (set aside) the stones beforehand, they are not muktzeh and may be moved. Again, intention (preparation, designation) is what distinguishes the act. Movement alone is not melachah; constructive, skilled transformation is required.
The Yerushalmi’s reasoning builds a syllogism:
A: An object prepared for non-skilled use does not become forbidden to move.
B: Movement is not melachah unless it’s for constructive, skilled, purpose-driven labor.
C: Therefore: Mere movement, covering, handling — even if intentional — qualifies as avodah, not melachah. Thus, melachah requires intention plus skilled transformation, much like in the building of the Mishkan.
In all my years sitting in Yeshiva, never once did any Rabbi address the distinction between מלאכה from עבודה. Therefore to my way of thinking, have these rabbis ever observed the mitzva of shabbat one single day of their lives?
Understanding, based upon the precedent of Baba Kama, that shabbat observance does not limit itself to not doing מלאכה one day of the week but rather not doing איסור עבודה all the days of Chol/shabbat! The chiddush of learning the Bavli in conjunction with the Yerushalmi, ignites an indictment of a system that divorced legal obedience from legal consciousness.
LikeLike
The opening sugya of each and every mesechta of the Talmud compares to the first ברכה in the Shemone Esrei; only this ברכה employs the שם ומלכות requirement k’vanna אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב. Impossible to translate שם ומלכות with a טיפש פשט literal translation. ברכת כהנים, קריא שמע, תפילה, וקדיש all av ברכות lack the literal שם ומלכות expressed through rabbinic ברכות which start with the classic opening of swearing a Torah oath: ברוך אתה ה’ אלהינו מלך עולם.
The wisdom of שם ומלכות the fundamental difference between מלאכה from עבודה, based upon the first commandment of Sinai – the greatest commandment in the entire Torah: אנכי ה’ אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים. Israel in g’lut of Egypt (לאו דוקא) all lands outside of the brit oath sworn lands amount to g’lut. Hence the first commandment only applicable to Jews who live and rule our oath brit homelands. Jews in g’lut remain in “Egypt” and therefore the first Sinai commandment does not apply to them.
The revelation of the Torah at Sinai makes a clear הבדלה through the משל\נמשל metaphor of the Mishkan, as expressed through the Book of שמות. G’lut slaves forced to live their lives drudging through the cursed Earth of working/עבודה making a living off the sweat of their brow. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai introduces, specifically through the mitzva of Shabbat, & the construction of the vessels of the Mishkan a “wisdom” form of work known as מלאכה. Therefore all mesechtot of the Sha’s Talmud prioritize the need to differentiate cursed g’lut עבודה from blessed wisdom מלאכה. Both Goyim and Joys struggle to marry and raise children. But only the latter elevate this basic fundamental task unto a blessed מלאכה which causes the first born chosen Cohen people to live from generation to generation dedicated to the מלאכה of elevating קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות שלא צריך כוונה לטהר זימן גרמא מצוות שנזקוק כוונה.
What separates or רב חסד\מאי נפקא מינא the verb נזקוק from the verb צריך? Specifically in the matter of קידושין, a Man marries a woman in order to give birth to the next generations of the Chosen Cohen People. נזקוק “We will need”; צריך “Need” or “necessary”. נזקוק Future tense, first-person plural; צריך Infinitive form. נזקוק Used when referring to a specific future need or requirement – known as O’lam Ha’bah. צריך Generally indicates necessity, often used in various contexts. נזקוק Implies a planned or anticipated need; צריך More immediate or general need.
Why do טהר זימן גרמא מצוות נזקוק כוונה? Whereas קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות לא צריך כוונה? The former a wisdom מלאכה, whereas the latter, like doing mitzvot because the Shulkan Aruch says so neither a wisdom nor a מלאכה. Hence this type of Torah observance known as עבודת השם. People can do mitzvot by rote, or by the numbers, simply out of habit and mindless tradition. The difference between these two critically different verbs … the difference between ruling the oath sworn lands with righteous judicial justice imposing courts together with prophet police enforcers from religiously observing mitzvot in what ever land a Jew happens to reside therein.
זימן גרמא מצוות נברא מלאכים תולדות מצוות לא נברא מלאכים. Its this fundamental distinction which permits the Jews living in ארץ ישראל to either defeat our enemies in any and all wars or fall before the swords of our hated enemies and go into g’lut. The מלאכה of the study of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law spins continuously around this Central axis…everything else simply commentary. Elevating stam mitzvot unto tohor time oriented Av Torah commandments … herein defines the essence of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai in a single sentence.
The Bullwinkle characters, otherwise known as the Reshonim, they lacked this essential clarity of what defines all T’NaCH and Talmud scholarship. Why? Because cursed g’lut Jews cannot do mitzvot לשמה.
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
הא קמשמע לן דאתרוג כירק מה ירק דרכו ליגדל על כל מים ובשעת לקיטתו עישורו, אף אתרוג דרכו ליגדל על כל מים ובשעת לקיטתו עישורו. והא דתנן כוי יש בו דרכים שוה לחיה וש דרכים שוה לבהמה
In terms of kashrut a כוי, qualifies as a tumah animal. The כוי can symbolize certain qualities or behaviors that need to be understood when applying moral or ethical teachings in Jewish law. The Talmud often presents specific cases where the status of the כוי comes into play, including questions of ownership, tithing, and other relational dynamics with humans. The subject of קידושין addresses the subject of “ownership” through the acquisition of the Nefesh O’lam Ha’Bah of the woman’s soul, specifically title to the children born into the future through this marital union.
ויש בו דרכים שאינו שוה לא לחיה ולא לבהמה. ניתני דברים ותו הא דתנן זו אחת מן הדרכים ששוו גיטי נשים לשחרורי עבדים ניתני דברים אלא כל היכא דאיכא פלוגתא תני דרכים וכל היכא דליכא פלוגתא תני דברים דיקא נמי דקתני סיפא ר”א אומר אתרוד שוה לאילן כל דבר ש”מ.
The 8th middah אמת understood under the heading of דרכים as opposed to דברים! Goyim by stark contrast employ truth as if no dispute exists. That truth stands as irrefutable. The culture and customs of the Jewish people reject this definition of “truth” as utter arrogance and hypocrisy and if power determines truth. The schism with splits and divides all the many and diverse divisions of both Xtianity and Islam centers upon who controls the monopoly of religious belief and practice.
As an Israeli living in the Jewish state clearly my opinion takes a rather dim view of the Bullwinkle Reshonim scholarship upon both the T’NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim, and Siddur. The עשרת הדברות serves as a clear example. The Talmud understands that Israel only accepted the First TWO Sinai Commandments before we demanded that Moshe receive the rest of the Torah; the repetition of the “Xtian” ten commandments, in the Book of דברים, serve as “Mishna” precedents to understand the Torah commandment, to remember the deliverance from Egyptian exile – contained within the first Sinai commandment and the קריא שמע acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven; meaning the obligation to do tohor time-oriented commandments to תמיד מעשה בראשית created the chosen Cohen people יש מאין through the wisdom of מלאכה.
The so called 10 commandments serve as a בנין אב to remember how HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt through the 10 plagues – to forever discern g’lut from ruling the oath sworn lands of Canaan with righteous judicial lateral court common ‘legislative review’ law. The first two Torah commandments contain the whole of the Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev! All the rest of the Torah commandments and Talmudic Halachot function merely as commentaries.
Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina, they sealed the Sha’s Bavli; Rabbis Yohanan, Abbahu, and Hiyya sealed the Yerushalmi Talmud. G’lut Jewry has since placed the Bullwinkle Reshonim upon a pedestal and made them into cults of personality. But the wisdom of our sages accomplished a מלאכה, by sealing the T’NaCH, Talmud, and Siddur they “sealed” an identical masoret to all generations of the Jewish people. Rashi thereafter learned in his commentary to the Talmud that post sealing of the Sha’s Jews need only employ the קל וחומר the last middah of rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot. Meaning that this one rule permits employment of all the middot of rabbi Yishmael, to learn precedents from one Gemara compared to other mesechtot of the Sha’s. Sealing the Sha’s gave all down stream generations of Israel an identical masoret. The secondary Reshonim commentaries do not in any way resemble the sealed masoret established by the Framers of the Talmud.
תוס. דף ב: אתרוג שוה לאילן בג’ דרכים. פי’ בקונטרס לערלה ולרבעי ולשביעית דלענין שביעית הולכין בפירותיו אחר חנטה כאילן ולא בתר לקיטה כירק. וא”ת השתא משמע דרבעי נוהג באתרוג א”כ קשה מהכא למ”ד תני כרס רבעי בריש כיצד מברכין (ברכות דף לה.) דמשמע דאין רבעי נוהג בשאר אילנות. וי”ל דה”ק כרם רבעי כל היכא דמצי למתני דהיכא דל”מ למתני לא פליגי עליה דלא פליגי התם לומר שלא יסבור שום תנא נטע רבעי דשמא בר מההיא דאתרוג איכא פלוגתא דתנאי בהדיא בשום מקום ולא נחלקו אלא לסתום המשניות דסוף מס’ מעשר שני ובשאר דוכתין אי כמאן דסבר (ברכות דף לה.) נטע רבעי אי כמאן דסבר (שם) כרס רבעי לידע כמאן הלכתא וי”מ דאפי’ מאן דתני כרס רבעי מודה בשאר אילנות דמדרבנן נוהג והכא מדרבנן קאמר ויש לנו נפקיתא בדבר דאי פלידי דמאן דתני דכרס רבעי דוקא אבל בנטע אין רבעי כלל אפילו מדרבנן ואמרו (שבת דף קלט.) כל המיקל בארץ הלכה כמותו בחוצה לארץ וא”כ עכשיו בחו”ל אין דין רבעי נוהג באילנות ואי מדרבנן כ”ע מודו דנוהג בשאר אילנות ה”ה בחו”ל דרבעי נוהג מדרבנן ומה שפי’ בקונטרס לשביעית אזלינן בתר חנטה כאילן ולא בתר לקיטה כירק משמע מתוך פירושו דבירק אזלינן בתר לקיטה לענין שביעית ולא דק דבמס’ שביעית (פ”ט מ”א) תנן כל הספיחים מותרין חוץ מספיחי כרוב והקשה רבינו נסים דבפרק מקום שנהגו (פסחים דף נא:) תני איפכא ותרץ דבההיא דמס’ שביעית דקתני כל הספיחים מותרין מיירי בספיחים של ערב שביעית שנכנסו בשביעית דכיון שגדלו רובן בששית הם כשל ששית ומותרין אף לסחורה חוץ מזפיחי כרוב שהם אסורין לדחורה כדין שביעית או אחר הביעור לאכילה כדמפרשינן בירודלמי דכל ירק אתה יכול לעמוד עליו בין חדש בין ישן אבל ספיחי כרוב שדרכו לגדל אמהות אמהות ויש עלין שהם גדלים בשביעית ושמא יקח מן העלין שהן אסורין ויאמר מן האמהות לקחתי וההוא דמקום שנהגו (שם) דקתני כל הספיחים אסורים מיירי בספיחים שגדלו בשביעית ואליבא דרבי עקיבא דדריש וכי מאחר שלא נזרע מהיכן אוספין אלא לימד על הספיחים שהן אסורים אפילו לאכילה וכ”ש לסחורה וסבר דספיחים אסורין בשביעית מדאורייתא ואפילו קודם זמן הביעור וכשיצאו למוצאי שביעית אסור מדרבנן בכדי שיעשו כיוצא בהן וקסבר כל שאר ספיחים אסורים במוצאי שביעית אבל ספיחי כרוב שאין כיוצא בהן בירקות השדה לא גזריני בהם משום שאר ספיחים דהא מינכרא מילתא ומה שגידל אמהות הרי היא של שביעכית ואסור ומה שלא הגיע הרי הוא של מוצאי שביעית ושרי ומאן דחוי לגבר אינש דאכל ספיחי כרוב למוצאי שביעת לא אתי למיכל שאר ספיחים דהא שאני משאר ספיחים ולא גזרינן היתירא משום איסורא מ”מ ש”מ דלא אזלינן כלל בירק בתר לקיטה אלא בתר וב גידולים מדשרי ספיחי ששית שנכנסו לשביעית וי”ל דנהי דההיא דלא אזלינן בתר לקיטה מ”מ בתר חנטה נמי לא אזלינן אלא הגדל באיסור אסור בהיתר מותר מה שאין כן באתרוג ושאר אילן דאזלינן לגמרי בתר חנטה דאם חנט באיסור אפי’ מה שגדל בהיתר אח”כ אסור והשתא לשביעית שוה לאילן דאי הוה כירק הוה אזלינן תבר רוב גידול
A minor girl lacks the maturity to give her consent to קידושין acquisition, be it through כסף שטר או ביאה. Because she lacks the required mental maturity to give her consent, therefore none of these three ways – accomplishes the mitzva of קידושין. The Tosafot commentary emphasizes the importance of understanding the dynamics of learning common law precedents, to ensure that interpretations of how this etrog precedent בנין אב applies to the Case of קידושין. Specifically to the Case of a minor girl. The distinct acquisition methods (money, document, cohabitation) reflect appropriate legal qualifications, based upon certain implied basic limitations based upon age and maturity. A contract must follow and obey its pre-conditions wherein the signing parties to the contract stipulate their agreement.
Let’s now contrast Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale and their tits on a boar hog narishkeit puke commentaries which perverted Talmudic common law unto assimilated Roman statute law noise.
הלכות נזירות פ”ב:י.
היו מהלכין בדרך וראו את הכוי מרחוק ואמר אחד מהם הריני נזיר שזה חיה. ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שזה בהמה. ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שאין זה חיה. וטמא טחא הריני נזיר שאין זה בהמה. ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שאין זה לא חיה ולא בהמה. ואמר אחר הריני נזיר שזה בהמה וחיה הרי כולם נזירים. מפני שהכוי יש בו דרכים שוה בהן לחיה ויש בו דרכים שוה בהן לבהמה. ויש בו דרכים שוה לחיה ולבהמה ויש בו דרכים שאינו שוה לא לבהמה ולא לחיה. והוא הדין אם ראו אנדרוגינוס ונחלקו בו אם הוא איש או אשה ונדרו על דרך שנדרו אלו בכוי הרי כוךם נזירים. שהאנדרוגינוס יש בו דרכים שוה בהן לאיש. ודרכים שוה בהן לאשה. ודרכים שאינו שוה בהן לא לאיש ולא לאשה. ודרכים שהן שוין לאיש ולאשה.
כסף משנה — היו מהלכים בדרך וראו את הכוי מרחוק וכו’. משנה שם. מ”ש וה”ה אם ראו אנדרוגינוס וכו’. בתוספתא פ”ג
Neither this nor that provides any understanding of how the precedent of כוי serves to amplify how to correctly understand how a young girl compares or differs from a mature adult young woman! None of the assimilated statute legalist book lickers contribute squat to how the Case of כוי directly applies to the opening words of the Av Mishna of קידושין. The issue at hand has nothing what so ever to do with נזיר. Worthy trees cut down for this utter total noise narishkeit! Centuries of scholars and not one of them asked what נזיר has to do with a minor girl vs a mature young woman on the issue of קידושין.
Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale and all the Snidely Whiplash brown nose bootlickers who worship their Reshon placed upon a pie in the sky ירידות הדורות pedestal – their scholarship all Av tuma tits on a boar hog treif tuma garbage.
LikeLike
Continuing with our study of the Gemara of Kiddushin. משנה תורה, קידושין אב משנה, סוגיה ב’. ואשה בפחות מש”פ, לא מקניא נפשה
Our Av Mishna in this mesechta – restricts. Just as שוה פרוטה restricts so too and how much more so age and maturity of the child restricts. Scholarship in Talmudic common law does not read words printed on a page and react like as does statute law and reactionary newspaper intellectuals. Torah common law requires of any talmid in any generation or Era to make the critical סדור דיוקים – logical inferences. The term סידור refers specifically to the Jewish prayer book and generally relates to the order of logical order of tefillot according to פרדס logic or reasoning. מערות דיוקים – another way of expressing logical inference deductions. For example: in three Av ברכות an one תולדה blessing of this זימן גרמא מצוה the key term פרנסה established in each of the 4 blessings.
Av time-oriented commandments sanctify מלאכה rather than simply עבודה. The latter verb defines the תולדות מצוות שלא צריך כוונה. Therefore the repeated reference to פרנסה functions as a רמז (words within words) pun upon מלאכה as פרנסה. A father has a Torah obligation to teach his children a trade. Professionals in a “trade union” earn higher wages than simple common minimum wage workers. Herein defines the “mussar rebuke” of the k’vanna of ברכת המזון as a time-oriented מלאכה מצוה.
Every time a scholar elevates a תולדה מצוה שלא צריך כוונה to a Av tohor time-oriented commandment, herein defines the meaning of חידושי תורה. Torah scholarship, like expressed through statute law assimilated Karaism Judaism, denies the existence of זימן גרמא חידושי תורה. This idea: “זימן גרמא חידושי תורה” refers to instances that provoke intellectual engagement in the study of Torah, emphasizing the depth and complexity of mitzvot that require skill and thought, rather than simple or rote actions.
The post Rambam Civil War projects to this day the karaite philosophy of doing mitzvot by rote. Its this basic must fundamental יסודי סוד which permanently separates Jewish common law פרדס Judaism from Karaim Orthodox Judaism both in the days of the Tzeddukim – who like the later Karaim rejected the Oral Torah פרדס judicial common law legalism. They all sought to substitute an “orthodox Jewish religion” to replace Sanhedrin courtroom authority. The Tzeddukim Cohonim heretics, no different from the korban offered by Cain – a barbeque dedicated unto Heaven מצוה עבודת השם שלא לשמה. “Post the Rambam Civil War” the Tzeddukim and Karaim preceded the rote “tradition” of Greek\Roman statue law substitute for Jewish common law through Yad, Tur, Shulkan Aruch alien Goyim-like halachic codes.
The tefillah דאורייתא of ברכת המזון rote reading printed words in the bencher utterly fails to distinguish and separate מלאכה from עבודה. Absolutely no different from Yeshiva students who study Talmud for years, and yet can not distinguish judicial common law from Roman statute law. Based upon the mitzva of Shabbat, this mitzva serves as the Av model of all time-oriented commandments. Just as both קידוש והבדלה separate and distinguish between מלאכה מן עבודה, all other Torah Av time-oriented commandments require a Havel k’vanna which remembers the Avot brit oaths as מלאכת עיקר or מלאכה יסודי.
Roman statute law, by definition, has no “family genetic” “DNA” connections with the wisdom of מלאכה; just as race does not define the chosen Cohen people, but rather Jews who keep and follow the culture and customs practiced by the Cohen people as determined through T’NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim, & Siddur – herein the precise precondition placed upon all Gere Tzeddik. The Rambam, Karaim, Tzeddukim. Samaritans who converted to Judaism, typically referred to as “כנעניים” (Ken’anim), like as expressed in a Mishna in Baba Kama. Whereas mesechta Sanhedrin refers to Gere Toshav, temporary Goyim residents, by the term: bnai Noach. Specifically expressed through the 7 mitzvot “bnai Noach”.
This learning today relies extensively upon the Oral Torah middah רב חסד which means מאי נפקא מינא או תמיד מעשה בראשית. The latter metaphor, twice repeated in the opening blessing prior to ק”ש שחרית, refers to the vision of מלאכה as the wisdom which for ever “creates” the Chosen Cohen bnai brit people from nothing in all generations throughout time. The av tuma avoda zara abomination of “virgin birth” negates the Torah sanctification of Av tohor time oriented commandments.
ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק”ו למיוטי מאי? למעוטי חליפין.(Tzedduki, Canaani, Karaite, Rambam, Tur, Shulkan Aruch, substitute statute halachic religious law.) ס”ד אמינא הואיל (דתנן: האשה נקנית) וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון, מה שדה מקניא בחליפין אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין קמ”ל – למעוטי חליפין (The halachot of statute halachic religious Orthodox Judaism religious law – null and void.)
LikeLike