Mountains vs. Beach

Beach or mountains? Which do you prefer? Why?

By now you know that I am a beach girl. Grew up on the beach. Love to vacation on a beach. Salt air is my bestie. Mountains? Well they’ve played a part in my life but truly not even a supporting role because the highest elevation on this island where I live is sometimes a mound of snow in a parking lot crafted by the snow plows after a six inch snowstorm. 

Teen Kiki would travel to the mountains of Vermont to ski. There won’t be many blogs about those trips. Once I got going I wasn’t a bad skier. I was just terrified of it. Swooshing down a mountain at warp speed was not my thing. I hung up my skis in my 20s and never looked back. 

That was of course until a new type of mountain exposure entered my life. Enter Spartan racing in 2016. When you start training for these races they never really tell you what to expect. They lure you in with the number of miles you’ll run and the amount of obstacles you’ll tackle in said run. What they leave out is the elevation in the mountain race series. Most mountain races are held at ski resorts. Some on the very same slopes I hurled my body down years prior. Now, I was hiking up the mountains and tossing myself over walls and swimming through mud pits. I won’t lie – the races were brutal but extremely gratifying. If you visit Killington Resort in Vermont and look very closely – you will find a piece of my soul carved into the side of the mountain. At mile 6 (out of 16) and starting the biggest climb up (called The Death March), my blood pressure spiked to 200/120. I collapsed. I woke up on an ATV wearing a helmet at base camp while paramedics started an IV on me. Finishing the race that day was not in my cards (I did return three years later to volunteer on course). 

But that day in Killington changed something in me. Not in the big dramatic “and from that moment on I conquered every fear” sort of way. No. More in the “okay, mountains, I see you—and I respect the hell out of you” kind of way. Because mountains have a funny way of humbling you and expanding you at the exact same time. They’ll knock you flat on your back… and somehow still make you proud.

And yet, even after all that, I never converted into a mountain person. I didn’t suddenly start craving crisp alpine air or fleece-lined anything. Deep down, I’m still the girl who knows the exact shade the ocean turns at sunset, who can smell a tide change before she sees it, who feels most like herself when her toes are in warm sand. The beach is where my nervous system goes to exhale. The mountains? They’re where my blood pressure goes to audition for a horror film.

But here’s the thing: both have shaped me. The beach raised me. The mountains reminded me I’m tougher than I think. The beach is comfort. The mountains are challenge. One whispers. The other roars. And somewhere between the saltwater and the summit, I’ve learned that it’s okay to be a person who adores one and merely tolerates the other.

So yes, I’ll always pick a beach chair over a gondola ride. I will always choose sand over snow, flip-flops over trails, and a sunburn over frostbite. But I also carry a tiny sliver of Killington with me—the steep climb that nearly broke me and somehow built me all at once.

Mountains may never be my love story. But they are part of my plotline. And for that, I nod to them from sea level… preferably with a salty breeze in my hair and the waves reminding me I’m exactly where I belong.

Unknown's avatar

Author: KikiFikar

Kiki Fikar is a native New Yorker who is passionate about taking the day to day life we all experience and sharing it in her tales from Suburbia. She will often be found at the gym, writing snippets each day for future story lines, listening to her two children create their lives, and building the perfect beachfront home and writing retreat in her mind.

36 thoughts on “Mountains vs. Beach”

  4. I can totally relate to skiing! However, you still have me beat. You were at least good at skiing. Me… well, while everyone else used the tow rope to gracefully glide up the hill, it was dragging me! 🤦😂 Sounds like we both prefer extra margarita mix. Lol!

    Liked by 3 people

  7. This was such a captivating read—your words carried me from the salty breeze of the beach to the brutal climbs of Killington.
    I love how you wove comfort and challenge together, showing how both the ocean and the mountains shaped you in different ways.
    Superb writing, my friend—honest, humorous, and deeply inspiring.

    I’d be honored if you could also visit my blog sometime and share your thoughts there—your perspective would mean so much to me.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. The complexity of comparative thought forced me to re-write and edit my previous set of learning on mesechta קידושין.

    משנה תורה – קידושין סוגיה א

    To date we have weighed how the precedents of the maturity of the etrog, coupled with the dispute which differentiates the time that the fruit sprouts vs the time of the fruit harvested as precedents, to understand why its forbidden for a man to force a child who lacks the mental maturity to understand how the sex act accomplishes the Torah mitzva of קידושין. In point of fact this abstract idea even accomplished and famous rabbis lack clarity over what actually a man acquires through the mitzva of קידושין. Never met a single student in Yeshiva, when asked this basic question – that answered: קידושין acquires Title to the Nefesh O’lam Ha’Bah souls born into the future of this marital relationship. Our focus has centered upon perhaps the two most famous rabbinic buffoons Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale.

    Gemara Halacha does not stand upon its own two legs as the statute halachic codifications infamously proclaim while preaching from their pedestals. Halacha ripped from the context of its Gemara sugiya directly compares to the פשט Chumash commentaries written by some of the most famous Reshonim, starting with Rashi’s commentary read in the manner, (according to the Chabad Moshiach Rebbe’s Rashi commentary), by a 5 year old child. Rashi p’shat does not stand divorced from its Primary Source precedents and how much more so from the Chumash to which it comments upon. This כלל applies to all Reshonim commentaries made upon the Chumash, the Talmud, and the Midrashim. My first year studying in a Yeshiva in Israel, it shocked me that my rabbinic instructors did not have the least bit of a clue how the Siddur serves as the model for the organization of the Sha’s Talmud!

    The Yerushalmi, which I started to learn within my first month in Yeshiva, teaches that over 247 prophets – occupied in writing the Shemone Esrei. How many words does the 18 blessings of the Yerushalmi Shemone Esrei contain? The Shemone Esrei stands as the quintessential model wherein the Framers and editors of the Sha’s Talmud(s) edited and organized those most essential common law texts. Sha’s Sugiyot directly compare to the ברכות contained within the Shemone Esrei.

    The Magen Avraham (מגן אברהם) opening blessing, directly aligns with the closing “Sim Shalom” closing blessing. This latter blessing, part of the Jewish liturgy which focuses tefillah, ie an oath created Angel – for peace, goodness, and blessings. The sugyot of the Talmud opens and closes with a “thesis statement” and a restated משנה תורה thesis statement. Likewise all points and issues raised in the body of each and every sugiya of Gemara falls within the sh’itta/line of the opening & closing thesis statement expressed in each and every sugiya of Gemara texts.

    Siddur contains the שרש, meaning its a verb rather than a noun, like מלאכה – a verb rather than a noun, or like shalom כנגד peace a verb rather than a noun. This word מלאכה compares to – run or walk – verbs which describe actions. In like manner מלאכה describes the actions of skilled labor. Thus making it a verb and not a noun. It represents a different unique verb that does not communicate a specific clear action. Run & Walk as Olympic sports has an entirely different meaning than Run & Walk in normal usage.

    Skilled labor or the need for trust for shalom to exist, separates the foundation of verbs from nouns. By focusing on actions, such as the action required to learn an off the dof precedent from a different mesechta of the Sha’s Bavli, this action rather than a passive noun of reading Reshonim commentary secondary sources, embodies dynamic relationships rather than merely conveying static Tur repeated Reshonim opinions. Its this unique quality which separates פרדס inductive reasoning from syllogism deductive reasoning. The one a dynamic logic format whereas the other a static logic format.

    Learning an off the dof sugya of Gemara requires weaving that sugya perspective back to re-interpret both the language of that off the dof Mishna, as well as viewing the current studied sugya of Gemara viewed from a different perspective, and also making a משנה תורה re-interpretation of the language of the Home Mishna. By contrast reading a secondary source commentary focuses only upon the specific language contained within the sugya of the Home Gemara. Even the Baali Tosafot did not employ their off the dof precedents to re-interpret the original language of their Home Mishna!

    The sin of the Golden Calf clearly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that words have their limitations. Word translations of Divine Names or middot not equal nor the same as the Spirits which breath life within Divine Names and tohor middot. The latter revelation of the 13 middot introduced the tohor Spirits which define the Oral Torah at Horev! A Venn diagram might best describe how verbs, nouns, words & Spirits overlap and interweave with one another. This subtle distinction the Creed based belief system theologies do not grasp. John 1:1 – In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Perhaps this one gospel verse best encapsulates the exact nature of Av tuma avoda zarah – expressed through the NT and the Koran creed belief system theologies which creates Gods from nothing.

    Boris’s Arabic translation of Moreh Nevukim – Greek philosophy interpretation of Torah, baptized as Greek philosophy compares to the Hebrew T’NaCH translated unto the Xtian Old Testament bible perversions! Boris translated middot spirits as “physical attributes” – simply false, and totally wrong. The latter gross mistranslation of middot as physical attributes, implies that these spirits exist as physical qualities when in point of fact they do not. Middot serve as the basic elements which produce prophetic mussar, something like as do atoms in forming elements and molecules, proteins and fats as expressed through biology.

    Concepts get lost through translations. An undergraduate scholar gets by with reading translated texts – as an introduction to the subject. A PhD scholar studies texts in their original languages. Because the NT, originally written in Greek, Xtian “scholars” (what a joke) they confuse Primary Sources with secondary translation, the priority of learning Hebrew and Aramaic of secondary importance to learning Greek & Latin. All Xtian translations of their bible abominations of av tuma avoda zarah stink with the foul smell of death corruption – like unto decaying bodies in Nazi mass graves of murdered Jews within the Death Camps. By their fruits you shall know them.

    Modern 20th Century attempts to translate the Talmud, almost as corrupt as Xtian bible translations or the Muslim Koran throughout the Ages. Time-oriented tohor commandments create מלאכים יש מאין. Yet the Angel Gavriel dictated the Koran to Muhammad when that illiterate never learned the T’NaCH time-oriented wisdom. Who refers repeatedly about himself as “the prophet”. כלל: A person who testifies about himself – never believed. Why? Because he’s touching the matter, he has an ax to grind.

    Boris’s Arabic Moreh Nevukim directly resembles Arabic writing styles, post publication of the Koran. He too writes extensively concerning prophets. Yet both Boris and Muhammad fail to grasp that T’NaCH prophets, like Sanhedrin courts, their jurisdiction limited strictly and only within the borders of the brit lands. Hence some mockers within the 10 Tribal kingdom of Israel would deride prophets, telling them to go back to the kingdom of Yechuda! The false prophets exposed within the Books of the NaCH, compare to both Boris and Muhammad. No Sanhedrin courts of common law No prophets – just that simple.

    Prophets serve as police enforcers of Sanhedrin Judicial rulings. The prophet Yonah compares to the precedent set by Moshe Rabbeinu who established 3 Cities of Refuge with their small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Courtrooms on the other side of the Jordan river. The Tannaim within the pages of the Jerushalmi Talmud debated whether king David established a small Sanhedrin court in the city of Damascus. A small Sanhedrin court in newly conquered land means that the government has nationalized this land as part of the borders of Israel.

    Profound deep ideas compare to the layers of an onion. Peeling an onion often entails shedding of tears. Impossible to read a translation and understand complex abstract ideas. Any more that mobs of screaming assimilated Jews in New York holding up placards: “Not in Our Name”, who base their emotional assimilated mob mentality upon little more than Newspaper copy or pictures and gossip! The political assassination of Charlie Kirk testifies that mob emotional over reactions can no more bear rational thought than can diseased European minds can heal their brain cancer of antisemitism.
    _______________________________________
    _______________________________________
    _______________________________________
    הלוקח לולב מחבירו בשביעית נותן לו אתרוג במתנה לפי שאין רשאי ללוקחו בשביעית. גמ. לא רצה ליתן לו במתנה. מהו? אמר רב הונא, מבליע ליה דמי אתרוג בלולב וליתיב ליה בהדיא לפי שאין מוסרין דמי פירות שביעית לעם הארץ

    Profaning shabbat in a public manner qualifies as a חילל השם, the same equally applies to profaning shemitah etrog/4 species in public. Selling or giving shemitah fruits to someone untrustworthy Heter Mechira modern orthodox who publicly display a lack of reverence for holy produce, resulting in חילול השם – showing public contempt for Torah obedience. Allowing and paying workers to work on Shabbat could result in חילול השם, as it not only violates Shabbat laws but also potentially influences public perception of Torah honor and obedience.

    Torah in this sense compares to honoring ones’ father and mother. In both cases, the essence of חילול השם centers on public behavior that disrespects sacred traditions. Whether through giving shemitah produce to the untrustworthy Heter Mechira modern orthodox or allowing work on Shabbat while providing compensation, both situations risk undermining the sanctity of our common law judicial system as its respect applies in a communal context. Members of Israeli society bear full responsibility for upholding the values and integrity of the Torah as the Constitution of our Republic. The idea of חילול השם ברבים equally applies to קידושין witnessed by at least two kosher shabbat observant witnesses and a minyan of Israel. Forced child marriage likewise qualifies as a public חילול השם. That our “friend” Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale validate קטנה ביאה קידושין would seem to qualify as לפי שאין מוסרין דמי פירות שביעית לעם הארץ.

    אמר רב מחלוקת בפרי ראשון אבל בפרי [מעשר] שני דברי הכל בין דרך מקח בין דרך חילול והא דקתני לקח לקח איידי דתנא רישא לקח תנא נמי סיפא לקח איתיביה רבינא לרב אשי מי שיש לו סלע של שביעית וביקש ליקח בו חלוק כיצד יעשה ילך אצל חנווני הרגיל אצלו ואומר לו תן לי בסלע פירות ונותן לו וחוזר ואומר לו הרי פירות הללו נתונים לך במתנה והוא אומר לו הא לך סלע זו במתנה והלה לוקח בהן מה שירצה והא הכא דפרי שני הוא וקתני דרך מקח אין דרך חילול לא אלא א”ר אשי מחלוקת בפרי שני אבל בפרי ראשון ד”ה דרך מקח אין דרך חילול לא והא דקתני אחד שביעית ואחד מעשר שני מאי שביעית דמי שביעית דאי לא תימא הכי מעשר מעשר ממש והא כתיב (דברים יד) וצרת הכסף בידך אלא דמי מעשר הכא נמי דמי שביעת “דרך מקח”

    (Derech mekkach) means (purchase), while “דרך חילול” refers to the concept of redemption or sanctifying items. Rav Ashi clarifies that the handling of מעשר שני fruits (which are viewed with less sanctity) has different rules compared to שביעית fruits. He emphasizes that while it’s permitted to purchase second fruits, it’s not permitted to engage in an act of redemption for them. The concept of how shemitah and מעשר שני respected, significantly impacts interactions among communal economic and agricultural practices, ensuring respect for Constitutional “rights” even in financial matters.

    Rav Ashi does indicate that different rules for managing מעשר שני compared to שביעית. Specifically, he clarifies that while one may engage in transactions involving second tithe fruits, it’s not permissible to perform an act of redemption on them. Does this precedent imply that a father can sell his בת קטנה שאין לה דעת [in] קידושין על ידי ביאה? Based upon the Torah which evaluates the worth of young and old, based upon their different ages.

    A bat ketana, a girl between the ages of 3 to 6 years, her father has the authority to make certain decisions on her behalf. The father can arrange a marriage for his bat ketana. He can sell her as a servant, on condition of קידושין at an age where she has דעת. Such a conditional קידושין must adhere to halachic principles, emphasizing the welfare and dignity of the child remain protected and respected.

    Jewish law requires consent and respect for the individual’s autonomy, even if a father can Constitutionally sell off his בת קטנה as a maid servant. While a father has Constitutional rights regarding his bat ketana, these rights, definitely limited and restricted. Not absolute, and must be exercised in a manner that respects the child’s dignity and well-being. רבקה שאלה אם היא מסכימה ללכת עם אליעזר. Using bi’ah to effectuate kiddushin for a bat ketana, even one between the ages of 3 and 6, definitely problematic, both halachically and ethically. Thus, while the father has rights to make decisions on behalf of his daughter, the implications of those decisions must align with Jewish values and laws aimed at protecting the dignity of all individuals, most especially minors.

    Having presented the first two legs of the syllogism now turn to the conclusion reached that follows our Gemara’s shared “sh’itta” line of reasoning.

    אי הכי אתרוג נמי בת ששית הכנסת לשביעית היא, אתרוג בתר לקיטה אזלינן. והא בין ר”ג ובין ר’ אליעזר לענין שביעית אתרוג בתר חנטה אזלינן דתנן אתרוג שוה לאילן בג’ דרכים לערלה ולרבעי ולשביעית ולירק בדרך אחד שבשעת לקיטתו עישורו דברי רבן גמליאל. ר’ אליעזר אומר אתרוג שוה לאילן לכל דבר הוא

    According to Rabbi Gamliel, while the etrog may be treated like a tree for most laws, it follows the rules of vegetables at the time of harvesting. This implies that the classification might depend on when it is picked rather than when it first sprouted. Rabbi Eliezer argues that the etrog, treated like a tree in every respect, suggesting that its status remains constant and influenced more by when it first buds (hantah) rather than when it is harvested. Boris indeed rules that the halacha follows the opinion of Rabbi Gamliel, indicating that the status of the etrog is determined at the time of harvesting (lekita) rather than when it first sprouts. This aligns with Rabbi Gamliel’s view that the etrog functions like a vegetable in this regard.

    חדושי הרשב”א השלם. אתרוג שוה לאילן בג’ דרכים: אבל בתוס’ הקשו ליתני לכלאים. דירק בכרם אסור ואילן שרי. וליתני ארבעה כאילן ומשום הכי פירשו דהכא דין חנטה ולקיטה קתני. כלומר לערלה ולרבעי ולשביעית בתר חנטה כאילן. ולמעשר בתר לקיטה כירק. וכן פרש”י בעצמו במס’ ר”ה יד:ב.

    According to the Rashba and as aligns with Rabbi Gamliel’s earlier position, the etrog – treated as a tree regarding certain mitzvot (like orlah and shemitah) and akin to a vegetables regarding ma’aser. The classification depends on two criteria: hantah (budding) for determining its status as a tree for certain laws and lekita (harvesting) for determining its status for others. For the purposes of shemitah, Rabbi Gamliel treats the etrog like a tree regarding issues like orlah and fruits of the shemitah year (as discussed, treated according to hantah). Understood in the contexts of קידושין, as the maturity of a young girl as the determinant for the mitzva of קידושין.

    However, for ma’aser, he positions it as being determined at harvesting (lekita), indicating that the status of the etrog as a mitzvah based on its maturity at the time of picking impacts its halachic standing. The mitzva of קידושין does not recognize ma’aser as a valid precedent for קידושין. Rabban Gamliel does treat the etrog regarding shemitah in terms of when it has spouted, using that hantah for its classification. This means that its maturity and the time of picking (lekita) play roles in establishing its halachic status as a mitzvah for the four species on Sukkot. The laws governing קידושין operate under distinct principles and cannot simply rely on agricultural analogy.

    The concept of using the etrog’s classifications (particularly regarding hantah and lekita) primarily applies in agricultural contexts and may not directly translate into personal status cases or marriage contracts. Hantah applies specifically to agricultural laws (like shemitah and orlah) and relates to factors affecting status at sprouting rather than directly influencing legal determinations regarding personal relationships.

    Addressing the subject of קידושין, the maturity of a קטנה absolutely essential. Halachically, a קטנה can enter into a marriage contract, but her legal status regarding consent and obligation differs from more mature individuals. Both Torah & Halacha recognizes maturity through biological and social frameworks, focusing more on age and maturity, rather than agricultural analogies. Whatever the age of Rivka, she possessed the maturity to actively offers to draw water for both the servant and his camels, displaying generosity and initiative. Rivka exhibits kindness, industriousness, and a sense of responsibility. She acts decisively and goes beyond what is requested of her.

    While the etrog serves as a useful metaphor under specific contexts, it doesn’t conclusively establish precedents for understanding ביאה with regard to a קטנה. The legal discussions surrounding קידושין involve different principles, such as consent, maturity, and the ability to fulfill the obligations of marriage—factors not inherently comparable to the agricultural considerations surrounding the etrog. The precedent of the etrog, while informative in its own right concerning agricultural laws, does not equate or qualify as a valid halachic source for learning about ביאה and קידושין as applicable to a קטנה. The laws governing these matters, distinctly nuanced and require principles rooted in personal status, consent, and maturity rather than agricultural classifications.

    Boris divorced his statute law halachic code unto shoe-box legal classifications. As such he failed to weigh the halachic value measured as a precedent by which to interpret the k’vanna of the Home Mishna. This failure condemns his Yad/Tur\Aruch sh’itta of learning as false and wrong. Simply because his halachic codes fails to understand the Talmud in the context of the Talmud’s own usage of halachic precedents. This gross fundamental flaw, this flagrant error perverts his halachic opinions and makes them נידוי in comparison to the halachic common law code of the B’HaG, Rif, and Rosh.

    Hantah relates to the classification of agricultural products and the conditions under which they grow. It’s primarily concerned with agricultural laws, especially regarding the timing of certain commandments like shemitah and orlah. This concept focuses on the biological aspects of plant growth and does not lend itself well to personal or legal status issues such as marriage.

    The maturity of a קטנה (minor girl) is crucial in the context of kiddushin. While a קטנה can technically enter into a marriage contract, her legal status regarding consent, obligations, and responsibilities is different from that of more mature individuals. Halachic discourse emphasizes biological and social maturity as essential criteria for entering into kiddushin. The focus remains on the individual’s capacity to understand and fulfill marital obligations.

    While the etrog serves as a metaphorical example in some contexts, it lacks direct applicability to personal status cases, particularly regarding bi’ah and kiddushin. Legal discussions about marriage require principles rooted in individual consent, maturity, and the responsibilities that come with marital commitments, simply not inherently connected to agricultural classifications.

    By divorcing statute law from common law precedents together with the nuanced halachic historical and cultural contexts, Boris misinterpreting the Talmud’s own legal framework and principles. Common law makes a פרדס depth analysis by means of making comparative precedents. But the style of the Sha’s Talmud of ‘Difficulty and Answer’ – requires that down stream generations challenge the validity and strength of precedents which the Gemara introduces. Its this essence which makes Talmud in point of fact to actually mean “study”.

    A scholar must train his mind to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of precedents introduced. In a Court of Law; the Defense and Prosecuting Attorney absolutely must weigh the precedents raised by their opposing Justice. And compare a precedent introduced in the opposing Justice brief weighed against the merits of his own counter precedents.

    The purpose of lateral Sanhedrin courtrooms, they pit an equal number of judges against an equal number of opposing justices. This Court hears a Case by pitting the two opposing sets of precedential briefs head to head one against the other. Court justices have the training and obligation to weigh the merits & demerits of a precedent weighed against different counter precedents.

    A Sanhedrin Court does not “race” to determine religious ritual practices! This error the Reshonim commentaries expressly transgressed. The Talmud serves to introduce precedents in a Court Case, and not a religious debate of how to keep ritual halacha according to some specified authority figure – as it halacha depends upon some cult of personality. G’lut Jewry during the Dark and Middle Ages of absolute church tyranny, this harsh reality twisted rabbinic Judaism into establishing fixed religious practices and prioritizes rabbinic opinions over other equally valid rabbinic opinions. Dispersed Jewish g’lut communities with little or no inter-state communications required a simplified standardization of halacha.

    These cruel harsh realities of g’lut forced leaders like the B’HaG, Rif, Baali Tosafot, and Rosh to concede to the public need to organize ritual religious halacha into some simplified codes of halachic law; the Smag – a Baali Tosafot pro Rambam halachic codifier. The racist violence G’lut Jewry had to endure meant that the common man did not have the means to study Talmudic common law; the chief justification for Boris’s over-simplified Yad. Only the cream of the crop merited to study in Yeshivot.

    Boris’s Sefer HaMitzvot, another over-simplified static codification of Torah commandments which divorced Talmudic Oral Torah halacha, like his code likewise divorced his halachic organization from their Home Mishnaot and halacha from aggadic sources. His sefer Ha’Mitzvot perverted Torah commandments, reduced to positive and negative commandments restricted only to the language of the Written Torah. This utter bone headed mistake makes his Sefer Ha’Mitzvot on par with his Yad travesty of justice. Acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven entails the k’vanna of the chosen Cohen people; the unification of Written Torah and Oral Torah as ONE set of time-oriented Torah commandments. The perversion of ONE interpreted as justification for belief in Monotheism – an utter Torah abomination.

    As the statute halachic codes perverted Talmudic common law unto Roman statute law; the same exact thumb up the ass error made with the Written Torah vs the Oral Torah justification of exactly why the church condemned the Talmud as having no part with the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. The Sefer בראשית introduces Av mitzvot time-oriented commandments – inclusive of the halachot within the Sha’s whose k’vanna determined by the Aggadic and Midrashic drosh made upon prophetic mussar from the T’NaCH.

    This crucial component of the Sha’s Bavli all the halachic codes totally ignored. Jews simply stopped or forgot that the framers of Midrash wrote those texts to serve as a commentary to the Aggada of the Talmud. The Aggada makes a פרדס דרוש\פשט directly to the T’NaCH Primary Sources. Prophetic mussar planted as seeds within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within our heart blooms into unique understandings. These understandings become the פשט meaning of Aggadic stories original intent. The next three Books of the Written Constitution of the Republic of Israel introduces קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה תולדות בניני אבות מצוות שלא צריך כוונה. The last Book of the Written Constitution of the Republic of Israel introduces משנה תורה-Common law courts. Common law stands upon the יסוד של בניני אבות precedents, based upon Sefer דברים. Herein defines the Order of the Sha’s Bavli and Yerushalmi.

    Talmudic scholarship, according to the k’vanna of its Framers, seeks that down stream generations weave Aggadic prophetic mussar p’shat as the heart dedication of keeping halachic mitzvot whose aliya unto tohor time-oriented commandments which require k’vanna raises these rabbinic ritual observances unto mitzvot דאורייתא through פרדס רמז\סוד logic. Boris abandoned and caused Israel to forget the Oral Torah; he blew out the Hanukkah lights.

    Zionism, which means Jewish self determination in the Middle East, denounces g’lut Jewry. It empathizes with their cruel plight Goyim barbarians forced them to endure. But it denounces as a war crime the Roman obliteration of Judean Judicial Constitutional common law courts perverted over the Centuries unto ritual religious observances.

    Post the ’48 and ’67 two Wars of National Independence, can our people find it within their hearts to pursue the Zionist dream and achieve self-determination which restores the Written Torah as the Constitution of our Republic of 12 Tribes and the Sanhedrin common law courtroom Federal system of common law enforced by means of Prophetic police. Emphasis upon “common law”, because Boris and his Snidely Whiplash boot licking cronies have perverted T’NaCH\Talmudic common law unto Greek/Roman egg-crate statute law. Can our people achieve self-determination and achieve Legislative Review as a Torah mandate for the Great Sanhedrin Court to regulate, in the manner that a bureaucracy has overview upon Industry, all statute laws passed by our Knesset Parliament?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Beautiful reflection. I love the waves and warm ocean breeze, but I also like the quiet and peace that the snow brings, though definitely not in any mountain. I’ll take the coastal plains in Puerto Rico anytime.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Dear Kiki
    Thanks a lot for liking my post ‘Winkless’. Readers like you are the oxygen of petty writer like me. : Veerites (Prof Dr Raj or just Raj) 🥰❤️🥰❤️🌺🌷

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Dear Fikir
    If that beach in photo is from near you first thing invite me & give me work at your home as your writing assistant … pleaaaaasssee take me there. ❤️❤️❤️
    Thank you very much for liking my post ‘Now’. ❤️🌷❤️🌷

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Hey!!!
    I really loved the idea that both the whispering beach and the roaring mountains are essential parts of your plotline. The way you described that day, collapsing and waking up in an ATV, was powerful.
    Thank you for sharing such a personal and well-written journey!(picture is definitely inviting)
    Warmly
    Aparna❤️

    Liked by 2 people

  29. Thank you so very much! Both are a part of my life. I’ve never written a fictional piece (well one that I’ve shared) so anything that appears here has actually happened and created these experiences. That day on the mountain led to having a cardiac loop monitor being placed in my chest to track my cardiac incidents. Thankfully the mountain helped to regulate my heart!

    Liked by 2 people

  31. What a great story I love it, I’m the very opposite, although I love both I am a pure and deep mountain girl to the core, lake and rivers shaped me and mountains grew me. Oceans I love but they have tried to eat me, tangle me, toss me, torture me and somehow carry me through the terror to triumph all at once. I resonate with your story on the flip side forsure, they definitely both have a part of me and although I also live on an island on the Puget sound and the ocean surrounds me I stay mostly inland on our lake with the trees and forest surrounding me and reminding me of my mountain love and when I hit the ferry line there it’s is Mt Rainier at its finest always basking in the skies beauty with the Puget sound kissing its feet and showing me , they exist together and play together, so I can too just at different distances 😂.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Eisengesis vs. Exegesis

    Exegesis, a disciplined approach focused on extracting meaning from a text through careful analysis through Oral Torah פרדס inductive reasoning. Eisengesis, on the other hand, replaces the kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic, as taught by rabbis Akiva, Yishmael, and Yosse HaGal with Plato\Aristotle 3-part syllogism deductive logic. Exegesis scholarship includes looking at cultural, historical, and linguistic contexts to uncover what the author intended to convey. Meaning, learning the T’NaCH texts viewed from the perspectives of Jewish culture, customs, and accepted practices – called minhagim. Exegesis schlarship simply crucial in Torah Constitutional studies. It promotes deeper, more accurate understandings of exactly how the Jewish people understand and interpret sacred texts.

    Examples of Eisengesis: The Nicene Council which introduced with the power of established church dogma the creed of Trinity belief as “the mystery of Monotheism”, Illustrates the process of interpreting a text, specifically how the New Testament interprets the Hebrew T’NaCH, based on the interpreter’s own biases and preconceptions. Perspective: Subjective; the writings of Paul his subjective beliefs and clear ideologies. A sample of Paul’s skewed eisengesis, his declaration that circumcision ceased being a mitzva from the Torah. His declaration of JeZeus as the son of God; his substitute theology which prioritized “original sin of Adam” and replaced the Universal theme of the Torah of blessing/curse – life/death = g’lut\exile. Paul’s eisengesis requires the resurrection of JeZeus to atone for Adam’s original sin.

    Approach: Reads into the text and imposes meanings that may not be supported by the text itself. Torah a Case/Law common law system. Paul’s unilateral declaration that “Goyim are not under the Law”. Paul’s unilateral declaration that “Goyim are not under the Law”; an absurd declaration because Goyim universally rejected the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore of course ‘Goyim not under the Law’? So why make this obvious declaration when Goyim never accepted Torah common law. Answer: Paul substituted the dominant Roman statute law for Jewish common law. Goyim only knew Statute law. Therefore they simply and falsely assumed that “not under the law” referred to the statute law with which they were intimately familiar.

    This distinction highlights how cultural and legal backgrounds shape understanding of T’NaCH Constitutional texts understood as biblical religious texts. The conversion from Jewish common law to Roman statute law reflects the complexities in early Christian thought regarding “the Law”; it implies that belief in JeZeus grafted them into the Chosen Cohen People. An utterly false idea. Paul rejected keeping the commandments; circumcision, kashrut, tohor & tuma etc. These key central concepts of T’NaCH Constitutional common law became totally alien to Xtian beliefs and their Av tuma avoda zarah religion.

    In particular, the propaganda of Paul completely subsumed and ignored the key Torah theme that HaShem brought Israel out of Egyptian slavery to bring them in to conquer the lands of Canaan as sworn unto the Avot as the eternal Cohen people inheritance lands. This substitute theology post the JeZeus false messiah theology impacted Goyim to prioritize being saved by the blood of the lamb rather than conquer and rule the oath sworn lands with righteous judicial common law justice which dedicates to make fair restitution of damages. The First commandment of Sinai the New Testament totally negates. Goyim by definition live in lands outside of Israel. Whereas Moshe brought Israel out of Egypt to rule Canaan.

    Outcome. The introduction of the “New Testament” imposed an immediate void upon the Hebrew T’NaCH, now labeled as “Old Testament”. That Xtian religion share more in common with Muslim strict Monotheism than the T’NaCH local God linked directly to the oath sworn lands; the God of the chosen Cohen People. The NT totally obliviates the concept of the chosen Cohen People, replaced by believers in JeZeus being saved from burning for eternity in Hell. The T’NaCH concept of “the devil” metaphor (משל\נמשל) inference דיוק logic of reading T’NaCH texts refers to the Yatzir Ha’Raw within the heart. Not to some imaginary king of Demons who got expelled from Heaven following a failed rebellion against God.

    Applications: Blood libels, ghetto gulag imprisonment for 3 Centuries duration till the French revolutionaries & Napoleon expelled the Catholic church from its co-rulership of the French monarchy; the American revolution separated Church from State. Church dogmatism declared Jews as cursed and the spawn of the devil; condemned to walk the face of the earth as despised refugees. This theological narishkeit culminated in the Shoah where Nietzsche declared prior to WWII that God was dead.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. סוף סוגיה א קידושין: משנה תורה
    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.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Understanding how Chag Hanukkah a mitzva דאורייתא. Shabbat a זימן גרמא מצוה.

    All time-oriented commandments require making a fundamental הבדלה which separates Av time-oriented commandments which require כוונה from toldot קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות שלא צריך כוונה.

    Am a yid attempting t’shuva after coming to Israel in 1991. Rejected the Rambam’s Sefer Ha’Mitzvot in favor of the B’HaG vision of Torah commandments. For a time-oriented commandment example: tefillah; Rambam’s introduction rejects the B’HaG’s order of mitzvot. Let’s focus upon his 5th positive commandment – tefillah. The B’HaG learns the opening Mishna of ברכות – that קריא שמע תפילה דאורייתא. The Rambam, based upon the criticism made by the RambaN, ruled that tefillah Shemone Esrei דאורייתא.

    A fundamental error on par with his error concerning forced קידושין על ידי ביאה with a young minor child who lacks the mental maturity to understand the “k’vanna” of the time oriented mitzva of קידושין. This fundamental flaw in the Sefer Ha’Mitzvot which divides the תרי”ג מצוות into positive & negative commandments and ignores Av tohor time-oriented commandments an error that makes his scholarship totally treif. On par with his perversion of 4 part inductive logic פרדס – the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva, Yishmael, and Yossi Yossi Galili. Assimilated Rambam relied upon the 3 part deductive syllogism logic of Plato and Aristotle; Rambam blew out the lights of Hanukkah and caused the Jewish people a tragic ירידות הדורות, Israel forgot the Oral Torah as the Hanukkah blessing in the bencher testifies.

    His statute law code utterly worthless when learning the Gemara. The example of the opening sugya of קידושין brings the common law precedents of etrog and כוי. To understand the limitations of the 3 ways a baal acquires a woman as a wife which do not apply to a young girl due to her lack of maturity – similar to etrog. Rambam’s statute law (assimilated to Roman statute law which organized law into categories), none of the super commentaries starting with the כסף משנה/Karo caught his fundamental error.

    Talmudic common law (court-room judicial law) brings precedents (בניני אבות) which re-interpret (משנה תורה-common law) the intent of the language of the Mishna based upon a completely different perspective. Like the Front/Top\Side views of a blue-print permits the קבלן to construct a 3 dimensional building from a 2 dimensional blue-print. The Rambam erred when he ruled that ביאה achieves קידושין even in a young child who lacks the mental maturity to understand how a man who rapes her acquires her as his wife.

    In short the halachic rulings made by this assimilated Jew utterly treif. In 1232 the Rabbis of Paris/Baali Tosafot agreed with the court of Rabbeinu Yonah in Spain and placed the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam. 10 years later the king of France together with the Pope decreed the burning of the Talmud in France. Rabbeinu Yona duplicated the error wherein the two warring brothers, Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, invited Roman general Pompey into the walls of Jerusalem to resolve their dynastic dispute. The Hasmonean kingdom fell without even a whimper. What a disgrace.

    Unlike the Tzeddukim who lost the Hannukah Civil War, Karaite Rambam won the identical Civil War wherein Jews forgot the Oral Torah פרדס logic system; the Talmud compares to the warp\weft of a loom – halacha/aggada. דרוש ופשט affixed to the Aggada which makes a drosh onto T’NaCH prophetic mussar (T’NaCH like the Talmud a common law legalism); רמז וסוד weave prophetic mussar “p’shat” determining the k’vanna of halachic mitzvot. The B’HaG rules that raising mitzvot to Av tohor time-oriented commandments makes these rabbinic mitzvot into דאורייתא commandments.

    This sh’itta of learning “acquired” from Rav Aaron Nemuraskii a talmid of rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv. Rabbi Nemuraskii did not teach this sh’itta of learning to his sons because he feared they would suffer isolation and disgrace. Rabbi Elyashiv did not teach this sh’itta to his sons Moshe and Binyamin, both of whom danced at my wedding, I suspect for the same exact reason. As a person attempting to remember the ways of my forefathers ie t’shuva, the risk of isolation and disgrace much more far removed.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Understanding how Chag Hanukkah a mitzva דאורייתא. Shabbat a זימן גרמא מצוה.

    All time-oriented commandments require making a fundamental הבדלה which separates Av time-oriented commandments which require כוונה from toldot קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה מצוות שלא צריך כוונה.

    Am a yid attempting t’shuva after coming to Israel in 1991. Rejected the Rambam’s Sefer Ha’Mitzvot in favor of the B’HaG vision of Torah commandments. For a time-oriented commandment example: tefillah; Rambam’s introduction rejects the B’HaG’s order of mitzvot. Let’s focus upon his 5th positive commandment – tefillah. The B’HaG learns the opening Mishna of ברכות – that קריא שמע תפילה דאורייתא. The Rambam, based upon the criticism made by the RambaN, ruled that tefillah Shemone Esrei דאורייתא.

    A fundamental error on par with his error concerning forced קידושין על ידי ביאה with a young minor child who lacks the mental maturity to understand the “k’vanna” of the time oriented mitzva of קידושין. This fundamental flaw in the Sefer Ha’Mitzvot which divides the תרי”ג מצוות into positive & negative commandments and ignores Av tohor time-oriented commandments an error that makes his scholarship totally treif. On par with his perversion of 4 part inductive logic פרדס – the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva, Yishmael, and Yossi Yossi Galili. Assimilated Rambam relied upon the 3 part deductive syllogism logic of Plato and Aristotle; Rambam blew out the lights of Hanukkah and caused the Jewish people a tragic ירידות הדורות, Israel forgot the Oral Torah as the Hanukkah blessing in the bencher testifies.

    His statute law code utterly worthless when learning the Gemara. The example of the opening sugya of קידושין brings the common law precedents of etrog and כוי. To understand the limitations of the 3 ways a baal acquires a woman as a wife which do not apply to a young girl due to her lack of maturity – similar to etrog. Rambam’s statute law (assimilated to Roman statute law which organized law into categories), none of the super commentaries starting with the כסף משנה/Karo caught his fundamental error.

    Talmudic common law (court-room judicial law) brings precedents (בניני אבות) which re-interpret (משנה תורה-common law) the intent of the language of the Mishna based upon a completely different perspective. Like the Front/Top\Side views of a blue-print permits the קבלן to construct a 3 dimensional building from a 2 dimensional blue-print. The Rambam erred when he ruled that ביאה achieves קידושין even in a young child who lacks the mental maturity to understand how a man who rapes her acquires her as his wife.

    In short the halachic rulings made by this assimilated Jew utterly treif. In 1232 the Rabbis of Paris/Baali Tosafot agreed with the court of Rabbeinu Yonah in Spain and placed the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam. 10 years later the king of France together with the Pope decreed the burning of the Talmud in France. Rabbeinu Yona duplicated the error wherein the two warring brothers, Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, invited Roman general Pompey into the walls of Jerusalem to resolve their dynastic dispute. The Hasmonean kingdom fell without even a whimper. What a disgrace.

    Unlike the Tzeddukim who lost the Hannukah Civil War, Karaite Rambam won the identical Civil War wherein Jews forgot the Oral Torah פרדס logic system; the Talmud compares to the warp\weft of a loom – halacha/aggada. דרוש ופשט affixed to the Aggada which makes a drosh onto T’NaCH prophetic mussar (T’NaCH like the Talmud a common law legalism); רמז וסוד weave prophetic mussar “p’shat” determining the k’vanna of halachic mitzvot. The B’HaG rules that raising mitzvot to Av tohor time-oriented commandments makes these rabbinic mitzvot into דאורייתא commandments.

    This sh’itta of learning “acquired” from Rav Aaron Nemuraskii a talmid of rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv. Rabbi Nemuraskii did not teach this sh’itta of learning to his sons because he feared they would suffer isolation and disgrace. Rabbi Elyashiv did not teach this sh’itta to his sons Moshe and Binyamin, both of whom danced at my wedding, I suspect for the same exact reason. As a person attempting to remember the ways of my forefathers ie t’shuva, the risk of isolation and disgrace much more far removed.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment