March 01, 2025
By, Chase London Ray
Follow on X here:
I think the inability to get DRUNK while following God was the real main (but unconfessed) source of ancient Israel’s main complaint in the Wilderness. We know that suppressed craving burst out at the golden calf orgy which was literally the Egyptian “Festival of DRUNKENNESS.” That festival was adorned with the “Hymn to Hathor– The Golden One.” Part of that hymn says, “The procession is in the place of INEBRIATION.”
DEUT. 29:6
“You have not… DRUNK WINE or STRONG DRINK, that you may know that I am the Lord your God….”
The KJV has a unique textual variant in the verse which warns against “a root bearing bitterness or wormwood” that causes people to fall away from God into damnation (Deut. 29:18). The anatomy of cursed apostasy is dissected in the following verse. The fledging apostate is a person who “when he hears the words of this curse… blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall have peace, even though I follow the dictates of my heart’—” and then comes the special variant of the KJV: “AS THOUGH THE DRUNKARD COULD BE INCLUDED WITH THE SOBER” (v.19).
Pastors are out there preaching to drunkards and other idolatrous addicts in their pews, and the addicts tell themselves they’re fine.
The consequence of not employing church discipline and casting out idolaters is the ruin of the church. The consequence of the ruin of the Church is the ruin of society, barren like a field sown with salt; rather, salt that has lost its essence and is only good for being trampled underfoot.
He that minimizes the atom creates an atomic bomb. Likewise, we are most self-destructive when we minimize our unforsaken OR sins which we only abstain from due to lack of opportunity. Eg, he that prostitutes his daughter risks plunging the whole country into whoredom. By one man’s sin a whole land can be “filled with wickedness” (Lev. 19:29).
Hebrews 12:14
“Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. 15 See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no ‘root of bitterness’ springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; 16 that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal.” 17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.”
Any person who has seen the result of Drunkenness and addiction knows that this one sin is a chain of bondage WITH MANY OTHER LINKS! It leads to other sins, welcomes them, conceives them like a fetus in the womb of a whore, then aborts them in the glowing dawn of returning sobriety and self-reflection.
With addiction, the illuminating inhibitions of self-accusing Conscience are quenched like a torch dipped in vomit, and prohibitions are scoffed at and rebelled against in a rage of self-indulgence. With addiction, one stumbles through and passes out in castles in the sky only to awake in a dungeon under the earth. Excess feeds folly, and folly is a man-eating giant with many children.
Every atheist is a fool —“for the fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’” (Psalm 14:1)— and atheists often scoff at what they claim is the cruelty of the Old Testament God. One of their favorite examples is a passage where God counsels people to kill their rebellious children.
However, one could be tempted to ask, What crime is so bad that a man is sanctioned to kill his own children? Surely, the consequences of such a crime must be atomic! Here is the passage
Deuteronomy 21:
18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them… 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”
What is the crime?
Stubborn rebellion.
How bad could that be since God endured the stubborn rebellion of Israel for 40 years in the wilderness? Couldn’t God just turn the other cheek and forgive 70×7? No. First of all, those notions are commonly misunderstood and misapplied. Secondly, as was said above, Israel did its best to celebrate the Egyptian orgiastic “Festival of Drunkenness,” but only lacked the means. The Levites killed 3000 of the would-be drunken fornicators, and God was proud of them for it.
So, was there anything else to the crime
of the stubborn rebellious son doomed to die?
Was there a contributing factor?
Yes. There was something that evidently contributed to the stubbornly unreproveable rebel.
Take a guess.
In the passage I cited, I didn’t include the contributing factor. Verses 19 and 20, tell us that God instructed “his father and his mother” to “take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a DRUNKARD.’”
If a man becomes a drunk or addict, some of his friends will, and this will spread until the cumulative count of stubborn and rebellious drunks/addicts will equal whole villages, cities, states, countries, and with this sin will come the worst sins of Sodom, their haughty abominations, their “gay pride” (Ezek. 16:50). Then God the Father himself will take that nation out and stone it to death as it were.
Therefore, in God’s name, for His glory and the good of those who are both near far beyond ourselves, let us call to remembrance the warning of God to the fledging apostate who “when he hears the words of this curse… blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall have peace, even though I follow the dictates of my heart’—” and then comes the special variant of the KJV: “AS THOUGH THE DRUNKARD COULD BE INCLUDED WITH THE SOBER” (v.19).
The Siren of God still blares:
Deut. 29:20 “The Lord would not spare him; for then the anger of the Lord and His jealousy would burn against that man, and every curse that is written in this book would settle on him, and the Lord would blot out his name from under heaven. 21 And the Lord would separate him from all the tribes of Israel for adversity, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this Book of the Law, 22 so that the coming generation of your children who rise up after you, and the foreigner who comes from a far land, would say, when they see the plagues of that land and the sicknesses which the Lord has laid on it: 23 ‘The whole land is brimstone, salt, and burning; it is not sown, nor does it bear, nor does any grass grow there, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, which the Lord overthrew in His anger and His wrath.’”
Christ Himself says “God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die’” (Matt. 15:5).
Link to original publication: https://telegra.ph/ADDICTION-The-Idolatrous-Worship-of-Deceiving-Spirits-3-1-25-03-01
NEW PURITAN 
Avoda Zarah does not correctly translate as “idolatry”. The 2nd Sinai commandment understood by the Torah precedents of 1. Do not copy the customs and practices of the Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. 2. Do not intermarry with Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. These two precedents they define the general 2nd Sinai commandment – not to worship other Gods, which the Talmud refers to by the term “avoda zarah”. Since neither Xtianity nor Islam recognizes the first two commandments of Sinai, they by definition worship other Gods. For example: Muslims teach a strict Monotheism. If only one God, then no reason for the Torah to command not to worship other Gods. The theology of monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment.
LikeLike
Elohim (plural) walked with Adam who was one/Echad (compound unity) with Eve.
El Elyon is One/echad (a compound unity).
El Elyon, the God of Abraham, manifested as a man that ate meat and cheese together.
Abraham (the exalted FATHER of goyim, who God deemed righteous for the sake of his belief while he was still an uncircumcised goy),
said he would return with Isaac (the PROMISED SON) after sacrificing him because Abraham believed his son, his beloved son,
would be resurrected by God: indeed, Isaac had to pass through his mother Sarah’s resurrected womb in order to be born in the first place;
but El Elyon stopped Abraham, and said “I will provide Myself a sacrifice” then revealed a ram caught in a crown of thorns.
The God of Noah killed and resurrected Noah, whose ship was like a floating coffin from which humanity was born again.
The God of Moses manifested as an Angel in a bush that was dying yet lived.
Moses was like God to pharaoh while Aaron was like the prophet of Moses.
Moses prophesied that a prophet would come which would be like himself,
and that Prophet was not only like God,
but He was the Angel of the Lord born into the body of a rabbi.
Angels carry messages.
The Logos is the Logic and Word of God, the message of Command that created everything seen and unseen.
The Angel of the Lord was born in the body of Yeshua, a rabbi born in Betlechem, a son of David: the Anointed One.
Yeshua died on the Cross during Passover, like a ram with his head in a crown of thorns.
On the first day following Shabbat after Passover, Yeshua was lifted up by Elohim from death like the firstfruits sheaf offering was lifted up by the hands of a priest: Yeshua was the firstfruits of the Promised later harvest of Resurrection unto Eternal Glory.
The Holy Spirit saved 3,000 souls on the follow Shavuot, whereas on Mt. Sinai, 3,000 were slain.
And this Angel of Yah gave His Israel the evANGEL, His message: His Good News.
A flood of eternal fire is coming which will melt the very elements.
The Good News is that there is an ark of safety.
The door into this ark is the hole in the side of Christ that was open by a Roman spear,
a corridor that leads to the heart of God that is ever broken over human sin.
Wake up sleeper! Rise from the dead! Christ will shine on you!
The Law is holy.
The Law condemns the unholy.
We are unholy when we lust, when we covet.
Due to our sin, our law-breaking, the Law that guides us into abundant life
necessarily condemns us to death.
The Good News is: a negative multiplied by a negative is positive.
The soul that sins shall surely die but Christ never sinned.
So, even though His soul merited eternal life,
He died to kill our moot moot, second death,
so that we might have eternal life.
This is raw mercy, raw grace without any work beside belief,
just like Yah Elohim Himself did the good work of instituting sacrifice
to clothe Adam and Eve with animal skin and thus cover their shame.
Adam and Eve received the covering freely as a gift.
That atoning coat that covered human shame was a prophetic type and shadow of
The Messiah, the Passover Lamb, Yeshua of Betlechem.
Please put on the coat, put on the life jacket!
A FLOOD OF FIRE IS COMING!
LikeLike
Bunk. Killed resurrected what a load of shit. Resurrection of the dead refers to the seed of Avraham that would not go extinct like the seed of Babylon, Assyria, Rome Persia etc. All great and mighty empires that when they collapsed that civilization died. Not so Israel. After 2000+ years in exile Jews reconquered our homeland!!! The church lairs declared for 2000+ years that the Jews where cursed and Hated by God and condemned to walk the earth as wondering stateless refugees who had no country of their own. WRONG. Israel now an independent nation! Xtians now bear the curse of Cain and that mark of exile. You wait for your 2nd coming Dhimmi Xtians who have no country of their own. Europe has totally rejected the bull shit church. No get out of jail free card for the Church post Shoah. Where was JeZeus during the Shoah! Dead.
LikeLike
משנה תורה — קידושין פרק אב משנה
What distinguishes a אב משנה from all other Mishnaot which the Gemara comments upon through bringing similar common law precedents from other Gemarot? The Siddur, specifically the kabbalah behind the Shemone Esrei places a “stamp” of Order upon the Talmud. As the opening blessing of Shemone Esrei contains a blessing of שם ומלכות. The Shemone Esrei, like the קריא שמע וברכת כהנים lacks שם ומלכות. The classic rabbinic blessing with שם ומלכות: ברוך אתה ה’ אלהינו מלך העולם. Av time oriented commandments absolutely unquestionably and definitely require k’vanna. The k’vanna required – the intent to swear a Torah oath brit alliance through swearing a תולדה of an oath. Yom Kippur definitively proves the power of swearing a Torah oath! Even HaShem had to make t’shuva and annul his vow to make of Moshe Rabbeinu’s seed the chosen Cohen people instead of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.
Acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven – תפילה דאורייתא קריא שמע – acceptance within the Yatzir HaTov within the heart to breath life into the soul of the Chosen Cohen People through the sanctification of Av tohor time-oriented commandments which fundamentally require this יסודי כוונה. The Torah, Nach, Holy Writings/T’NaCH, the Talmud & Midrashim, and patently but of course the Siddur – doing any and all time oriented commandment requires the יסודי כוונה of breathing חיים into the soul of the generations of the Chosen Cohen to חיי מדור לדור the oath brit cut at the brit between the pieces which Creates the Chosen Cohen people through the קידושה of Av tohor time oriented commandments. The language תמיד מעשה בראשית twice repeated in the opening “blessing” which surrounds tefillah דאורייתא קריא שמע, this language serves as a פרדס רמז to time oriented Av Torah commandments.
Tefillah דרבנן, the Shemone Esrei lacks שם ומלכות, which the opening first blessing absolutely requires! Hence translating שם ומלכות, misses the point and idea of this סוד Torah concept of swearing an oath brit alliance. Translating שם ומלכות like a screen door on a submarine. Common law does not “learn” through translations but rather only through making פרדס inductive reasoning comparison of similar precedent Cases. The T’NaCH makes its precedent Case comparison through similar sugyot containing a fixed sh’itta of counting the שם השם לשם מידות י”ג revealed to Moshe at Horev on Yom Kippur. The kabbalah of rabbis Akiva’s פרדס, Yishmael 13 rules of logical comparison methodologies which apply directed to the Holy Writings of the NaCH functioning as a Gemara to the, so to speak, Mishna Books of the prophets.
The Talmud directly resembles a loom with its warp/weft opposing threads; Talmud has its aggadah and halacha opposing threads which in scholars in each and every generation determine the Way, Path, Truth that the culture and customs of the Chosen Cohen people walk therein: Walk before Me and be holy. Av tohor time oriented commandments define the Chosen Cohen Walk before HaShem.
Since ק”ש, ברכת כהנים, ותפילה – אין להם שם ומלכות, as clear as the Sun in the heavens on a cloudless Summer day Name and Kingship translations do not amount to squat in defining the כוונה של שם ומלכות. Only Torah בניני אבות-precedents can possibly grasps the intent of the meaning of שם ומלכות. The Torah instructs that the Cohen HaGadol pronounces the שם השם לשמנ on Yom Kippur. Mesechta ר”ה introduces blowing the shofar. Blowing a horn requires air pressure from the lungs. But tefillah a matter of the heart.
Therefore a person when blowing the Shofar on ר”ה must discern the כוונה between blowing air from his lung from blowing the Neshama soul dedicated on ר”ה to remember the Torah rebuke אל, the opening branch Spirit revealed at Horev following the repetition of the שם השם לשמה\שמע. The concept of שם, its not a word translation like as made at the Sin of the Golden Calf by the ערב רב שאין להם יראת אלהים. The word translation of אלהים, JeZeus, or Allah not “ONE” with the Spirit Divine Presence first Sinai commandment revelation – the greatest Torah commandment: תעשה מצוות לשמה.
Hence מלכות similar to מלאך. את הרוחות של י”ג מידות מן התורה – these Divine Spirits, like the שם השם. They breath Creation into other spirits called מלאכים by means of swearing a Torah oath through שם ומלכות. Herein explains the סוד kabbalah of the mitzva of tefillah, as opposing to saying the praises contained in Tehillem. The latter serves as a Gemara which explains the k’vanna of the prophetic mussar expounded by the NaCH prophets.
Reshonim commentaries on the Talmud Midrashim T’NaCH and – but of course – Av Siddur – failed to teach this kabbalah יסודי. Learning Talmud actively entails that the down stream generations make their פרדס דרוש pursuit of בניני אבות precedents expressed through the Holy Writings to the NaCH prophets etc. The 13 rules of rabbi Yishmael best serve the Holy Writings “Gemara” commentary made upon the NaCH Prophets “Mishna”. These diverse texts, on the surface so completely different and unalike — all stand upon the kabbala יסוד של משנה תורה. Talmudic common law not learned by reading Dof Yomi. Nor the Hebrew T’NaCH its mussar even remotely understood by reading the T’NaCH on par with a Harry Potter fiction story of a replacement Messiah for the witching world – for he whose name forbidden to pronounce. As if that name compared to the שם השם לשמה. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
גופא: אי הכי קשו קראי אהדדי, וקשיא נמי מתני’ אהדדי קראי אהדדי. לא קשין. הכא דבתורה קאי, ותורה איקרי לשון נקבה; דכתיב (תהילים יט) תורת ה’ תמימה משיבת נפש; עדות ה’ נאמנה מחכימת פתיה. כתב לה בלשון נקבה. התם דבמלחמה קאי דדרכו של איש לעשות מלחמה, ואין דרכה של אשה לעשות מלחמה כתב לה בלשון זכר.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Kiddushin 2b, כי יקח איש אשה, and the gendered verb “יקח” — “take.” The Gemara explores why Torah uses masculine forms in some contexts and feminine in others. This verse, used as the proof-text that Torah often grammatically feminine, since תורת ה׳ תמימה uses the feminine form. The masculine usage is justified through verses like: דברים כ”ד:ה – כי יקח איש אשה חדשה… לא יצא בצבא ולא יעבור עליו לכל דבר; נקי יהיה לביתו שנה אחת ושמח את אשתו אשר לקח. Another example: דברים כ:א – כי תצא למלחמה על אויביך. Precedents: שמות רבה ל”ג:א, ויקרא רבה ל״ה:א Torah common law employs Midrash as a Reverence Book, as opposed to just another novel.
בדרך אחד יצאו אליך” — masculine. ובשבעה דרכים ינוסו לפניך” — also masculine. But “תורת ה׳ תמימה משיבת נפש” is feminine. When the verse speaks of Torah, “דרך” takes feminine form (“תורה” = נקבה). When it speaks of warfare, “דרך” takes masculine, since “דרכו של איש לעשות מלחמה.
רבנו בחיי בן אשר, the other son of the Rosh. His brother, Rabbi Jacob ben Asher, commonly known as author of the Tur. The Tur, the first to make a colage of Reshonim opinions upon statute law deductive reasoning which attempts to make a shallow reactionary flat reading of halachot which originate from the Talmud, but whose most essential connection to their Mishnaic language, completely and totally ignored by these statute law heretics.
His infamous work on Jewish law, the Arba’ah Turim, dishonored the Rosh, who rejected the Rambam’s statute halachic law perversion. Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel (the Rosh), a prominent harsh critic of the Rambam, known for his works on Jewish common law, opposed the Rambam’s statute law code. Rabbeinu Bachya, the son of the Rosh and brother of Asher, the heretic, supported the Rambam premise that its permitted to distort Talmudic common law unto Roman statute law; just as Aristotle’s deductive syllogism – the Rambam revisionist history – replaced rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning of kabbalah, which defines the k’vanna of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev – with Aristotle’s Tzeddukim supported deductive syllogism. So too and how much more so the false messiah of JeZeus does not replace the Torah obligation upon the Moshiach to rule the land with righteous Judicial justice. Unlike how king David court treated the Baal of Bat Sheva.
The contrast between Talmudic precedent-based reasoning and codificatory statute models influenced by philosophical and bureaucratic systems like those of Rome or Aristotle. The Rosh argued that reducing halakhah to a statute book severs it from Gemara reasoning and precedent. In his introduction to Piskei ha-Rosh, (The Rosh lived during the 14th century in Spain and later in Germany. The work summarizes and clarifies Jewish law (Halakha) based on earlier sources, particularly the Talmud. It serves as a guide for practical law, helping to resolve legal disputes and questions. Piskei ha-Rosh, organized by topics and often mirrors the structure of the Talmud, making it easier for scholars and students to navigate the material.), he writes explicitly that halakhic clarity comes only through reasoning from Talmudic sugya, not through memorizing codified rules…לא מפני שסומך אני על דברי, אלא מפני שראיתי עיקר הדין מן הגמרא. Dof Yomi by stark contrast totally uproots sugya integrity like as did the Rambam’s code uprooted Gemara precedents to understand the k’vanna of their Mishna – viewed from different precedent perspectives, multiple and diverse viewpoints.
The כסף משנה, Karo’s commentary attempted to correct the central flaw in the Rambam perversion of halacha unto assimilated Roman statute law-cult of personality decrees. Yet his כסף משנה failed to link the sources for the Rambam halachot to similar halachot poskined by the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh common law halachic commentaries. The purpose of halachot located within Gemara sugyot – similar Case/Rule precedents which permits down-stream generations to view the language of both the sugya itself and משנה תורה – the language of the Mishna itself viewed from a completely different perspective. Clearly the Rambam failed to grasp that משנה תורה means “Common Law”, ruled through Torah mandated Court-rooms; rather than, as he held, religious ritual observances kept by religious “Orthodox” Jews. Prophets enforced judicial rulings, they served as the policemen of the Sanhedrin Federal Court system.
Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (the Tur), his Arba’ah Turim systematized halacha into egg crate like categories (Orach Chayim, Yoreh De‘ah, Even ha-Ezer, Choshen Mishpat). Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher, his hermeneutic system integrates Rambam’s Ta’amei ha-Mitzvot (reasons for the commandments) rationalism with kabbalistic and midrashic allegory. He frequently uses Aristotelian categories (e.g., form/matter) alongside Zoharic metaphors — bridging rationalist and mystical traditions. But unlike his brother the Tur, his work employs Midrash as a resource of symbolic precedent which aligns more with פרדס-type reasoning than statute law. So while Rabbeinu Bachya absorbed elements of Rambam’s philosophy, his method remains aggadic–hermeneutic, not a legislative distortion. He didn’t codify halakhah; rather, he made his priority placed upon exegetical synthesis.
The shift away from T’NaCH/Talmudic common law unto Aristotelian deduction, which post the Rambam civil war, supplanted the judicial court-room law, replaced with substituted simplified religious ritual observances! The Tur and Rambam codified halakhah into a system resembling Roman statutory jurisprudence. Rabbeinu Bachya, though a spiritual exegete (focused on their spiritual significance and deeper meanings rather than merely their literal or historical context). alas, philosophically he too legitimized this ירידות הדורות shift, by reconciling Torah hermeneutics with Aristotelian logic — thus laying a metaphysical foundation for halacha’s rationalization.
Midrash serves as A) the primary commentary to Talmudic aggada. B) an important tool for resolving language dikduk/grammar and meaning for how the Talmudic aggadic passages interpret NaCH prophetic mussar.
The Midrash Rabbah and its sister collections (Tanchuma, Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifrei) form the foundational commentary corpus for understanding aggadic material in the Bavli and Yerushalmi. R. Sherira Gaon (Iggeret, 10th c., also known as an epistle or letter), describes Midrash as the source pool (me’kor) from which the aggadot of the Talmud drew prophetic T’NaCH mussar interpretations. The academies, he writes, transmitted both halakhah and aggadah, with the latter preserved in Midrashic anthologies.
Rashi and Tosafot frequently cite Midrash Rabbah or Tanchuma to explain difficult aggadot in the Gemara — treating Midrash as its commentarial background. For example: Rashi on 61b בכל לבבך of mesechta ברכות. quotes Devarim Rabbah to clarify aggadic context. The Maharal of Prague explicitly argues that to understand Aggadah of the Talmud, one must read Midrash Rabbah, for the language of Aggadah – symbolic, and “דרש אחד מאיר פני דרש אחר.” Hence Midrash compares to the different layers of a cake by which succeeding generations learn and interpret aggadic prophetic mussar, which defines the k’vanna of halachot throughout the Shas Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi.
The RambaN in his introduction to his commentary on the Chumash states that Midrashic Aggadot are “מאמרי חז״ל הנאמנים” transmitted with the same authority as halakhic traditions, though intended to elucidate revelation and prophecy through metaphor and סוד. Impossible to learn Midrash divorced from פרדס logic. Hence the Rambam wrote no commentary upon Midrash because he abandoned פרדס inductive logic for the simpler syllogism deductive reasoning developed by Plato and Aristotle, which the Tzeddukim supported in the Hanukkah Civil War.
Midrash operates as a linguistic–juridical tool, dissecting the nuances of Hebrew syntax and morphology to extract halakhic or moral implications. This – precisely how derash differs from peshat — דרוש a method of interpretive jurisprudence, not “homily.” (a religious discourse or sermon that provides interpretation and application of scriptural texts, typically delivered during a religious service.) Sifra (Torat Kohanim) and Sifrei built entirely on dikkdukic precision. “ריבה הכתוב” (inclusion/exclusion logic); “יתור לשון” (extra word usage); ההידיע, את, גם, etc. These function as the grammar of revelation — how law and prophecy encoded through linguistic form.
Even the Rambam in his introduction to his commentary on the Mishna acknowledges Midrash’s grammatical function — distinguishing midrash halakhah (based on linguistic structure) from midrash aggadah (based on allegorical language), yet both bound by grammatical fidelity to Scripture. Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher in his introduction to the Chumash commentary explicitly says: “הלשון הקדוש… נדרשת בשבעים פנים, וכל דרש תלוי בדקדוק הלשון.” Midrash is thus the interpretive mechanism through which the prophetic mussar of Tanakh — decoded — a philological discipline, not mere storytelling.
Sherira Gaon, Rashi, Maharal — Midrash serves as the background commentary to Talmudic Aggadah, revealing its conceptual precedent and metaphoric coherence. Sifra, Sifrei, Rambam, Rabbeinu Bachya: Midrash refines language precision — using dikduk and syntax to interpret prophetic mussar and the Talmud’s use of NaCH texts.
עיין שמות רבה כ״ט:ד. משיבת נפש, עדות ה’ נאמנה מחכימת פתי. Learning requires an investment of both time and patience. A central flaw of religious books of Torah halacha, readers of these religious comic books, grow to fervently believe that they understand the depth of halachic intent based upon their reactionary shallow reading of halachic rulings ripped away from their Talmudic contexts which originally employed these halachic precedents as a chief tool to make a משנה תורה re-interpretation of both the language of the sugya of Gemara as well as the language of the Mother Mishna as well. Assimilated Roman statute law halacha directly compares to apple vinegar which lacks the essential “mother”.
Apple vinegar is produced through the fermentation of apple juice. The “mother” is a substance composed of acetic acid bacteria that forms during fermentation, which is often considered vital for quality vinegar. In this metaphor, the “mother” symbolizes the authentic, organic essence or foundational principles that give a legal system its depth, integrity, and longevity. The adoption of ritual halacha without understanding its underlying purpose and connection to a specific Mishna, leads to a dilution\perversion of their original meaning and intent.
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
מדרש רבה יתרו פרשת כט:ד — (תהלים יט) תורת ה’ תמימה משיבת נפש. א”ר לוי וכי לא היה גלוי לפני המקום שאם הוא מראה כבודו לישראל ומשמיען קולו שאינן יכולין לעמוד. אלא צפה הקב”ה שהן עתידין לעשות עבודה זרה שלא יהו אומרין אלו הראנו את כבודו ואת גדלו והשמיענו את קולו לא היינו עושים ע”ז. לכך נאמר שמעה עמי ואדברה
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Rabbi Levi expounds the p’suk תהלים י”ט תורת ה׳ תמימה, his drosh interprets Torah as the restorative path — derekh teshuvah — against the derekh ha-avodah zarah. Does restricting קידושין limited to a קום ועשה מצוה away from a tohor time oriented Av commandment qualify as avoda zarah?
Chazal repeatedly warn that reducing Torah to technical compliance while detaching it from oath brit basis borders on avodah zarah because it divorces the act from the One who commands. Sanhedrin 63b – “כל העושה מצוה שלא לשמה, כאילו עובד עבודת כוכבים.” When a mitzvah is isolated from its covenantal derekh and turned into a detached ritual or statute, the form may remain but the orientation can drift toward derekh avodah zarah. Reducing the covenant of marriage to an act of legal acquisition risks mischaracterizing its derek. If one performs קידושין purely as a formal “transaction” without its covenantal frame—the mutual oath binding within brit Torah—then functionally, yes, it parallels derekh avodah zarah: a ritual form emptied of covenantal consciousness.
Rabbi Levi’s “תורת ה׳ תמימה משיבת נפש” teaches that Torah restores the nefesh precisely because it is whole—תמימה. Fragmenting Torah into isolated קום ועשה acts without the tohor Av-command time-axis destroys that wholeness; what remains Av tumah avoda zarah. A mitzvah detached from its derek Torah orientation, simply not a neutral error—but structurally akin to avodah zarah, because it replaces divine command with human formalism. In Midrash Tanchuma Yitro ח, where the giving of Torah is described as קידושין between God and Israel—thereby showing that true קידושין must mirror תורת ה׳ תמימה rather than a transactional statute?
Midrash Tanchuma, Yitro 8:
בשעה שנתן הקדוש ברוך הוא את התורה לישראל, אמר להם:
הרי אני נותן לכם ספר הקידושין; מכאן והלאה אתם לי ואני לכם.
אמרו כל אשר דבר ה׳ נעשה ונשמע — ככלה המקבלת ספר קידושיה.
ונתן להם תורה — כספר כתובה.
Thus restricting kiddushin to a bare קום ועשה betrays its the oath brit that time oriented commandments create, in the image of HaShem the first born Chosen Cohen people in all times and generations. Midrash Tanchuma shows that kiddushin serves as a reenactment of Sinai; therefore, divorcing קידושין from its tohor Av time-oriented commandments renders the mitzva of קידושין unto but an empty form. In lateral Sanhedrin jurisprudence perverted into ritual religious orthodox observances, an empty void; structurally identical to avodah zarah: worshiping the shell rather than the living brit.
LikeLike