Sodom, Promise to Abraham, Ishmael, Hagar, Isaac, Akeida…Gaza
Genesis 18-22, covers a lot of ground. There is probably enough material for a book on any of the topics recorded in these four chapters.
Angels’ Visit to Abraham:
In Genesis 18, YHVH appears to Abraham, and he sees three figures pass by the tent while he is sitting in the entrance in the “heat of the day”. Genesis 17 tells of Abraham circumcising himself, Ishmael and all the males of his household. Chapter 18 follows with Abraham sitting at the door of his tent. Many commentaries say that Abraham was still in the pain of the circumcision when the visitors came to him. This is not clear from the plain reading of the text.
In chapter 17:26 we read: “Thus Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised on that very day;” From the context it seems that Abraham circumcised both himself and Ishmael on the very day that he received the command to do so. The rest of the servants and staff of his household are mentioned afterwards and thus may have been circumcised a little later. It is not clear that they were all circumcised on the same day, nor is it clear that Abraham was sitting in the “heat” (“heat” according to rabbinic commentaries meaning maximum pain) on the 3rd day when the Heavenly visitors came. There is no mention of the 3rd day here.
“Babylonian Talmud (Bava Metzia 86b), interprets “in the heat of the day” as a reference to the third day after Abraham was circumcised at the age of 99.”
What is a possible understanding of a text is not necessarily fact, as we often see when reading biblical texts and their commentaries. If we stay true to Biblical text, there will be unanswered questions which must be explored or accepted as unanswered. What would be the motive for saying that YHVH visited Abraham on the 3rd day when he was in extreme pain?
The text shows Abraham running to meet the three visitors. How could he do this in the pain after circumcision?
“And Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.” My Lord,” said Abraham, “if I have found favor in your sight, please do not pass your servant by. Let a little water be brought, that you may wash your feet and rest yourselves under the tree. And I will bring a bit of bread so that you may refresh yourselves. This is why you have passed your servant’s way. After that, you may continue on your way.”
Why does Abraham address the three men as “my Lord” in the singular (Master–Adonai in Hebrew)? The first verse of chapter 18 says:
“Then YHVH appeared to Abraham by the Oaksa of Mamre in the heat of the day, while he was sitting at the entrance of his tent.” 18:1
Does Abraham address YHVH or the three men since it is written in the singular? Does he recognize one of them as YHVH and the other two as angels?
Later, after two of the men leave, YHVH stays with Abraham to bargain for the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. It would appear that Abraham knows whom he must speak to.
We see Abraham with typical Middle Eastern hospitality, send his servant to prepare a calf and his wife to make three portions of flour into bread to set before his guests. What was set before the guests in this meal?
Milk and Meat:
“Then Abraham brought curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and he set them before the men and stood by them under the tree as they ate.” 18:8
Why does Abraham serve milk, curds and a calf at the same meal? It is clear that the meat was prepared separately from the milk, (it was not boiled in the milk). But in Modern Judaism, dishes made with milk are never allowed at a meal where meat is consumed. How has this bottom line rule of Modern Judaism evolved from a clearly written passage that apparently Abraham understood? (By the way the law was written three times in the Torah so we wouldn’t get it wrong. (Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, Deuteronomy 14:21).
Is it possible that the law about boiling a kid in its mother’s milk was not known by Abraham? It is pretty clear that he did not boil anything, so when Genesis 26 says that Abraham knew the laws of the Torah, it must mean he had a better idea of what it meant than what is known as Torah today. So how did this law evolve to what it is today?
Did Abraham keep the Torah?
26:5 עֵקֶב אֲשֶׁר־שָׁמַע אַבְרָהָם בְּקֹלִי וַיִּשְׁמֹר מִשְׁמַרְתִּי מִצְוֺתַי חֻקּוֹתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי׃
Gen 26: “5 because that Abraham hearkened to my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (The Hebrew for ” law” is Torah).
After the meal the two men with YHVH got up to journey to Sodom and YHVH stayed to speak more with Abraham about His plans to destroy the wicked city. Abraham bargains for the salvation of the city from 50 innocent, down to 10, that the judge of the earth be merciful–not slaying the righteous with the wicked (verse 23). And then YHVH left.
Ten Men
From this passage which shows ten people as being the limit to God’s mercy, we have the declaration that an Orthodox minyan requires 10 men to intercede with the Eternal on important matters such as reciting the Mourner’s Kaddish or Yahrzeit or Wedding blessings. If we look at the passage in Genesis, the 10 referred to righteous persons not necessarily, men. And another question arises, is it always necessary to have 10 persons pray to YHVH on important matters? Certainly, from the standpoint of numbers the more righteous people pray the more they will be heard. But what about when Elijah called down fire from heaven? He was a lone voice. Are there other times when God answers prayers without a minyan?
Isaac
In chapter 21 the promise to Sarah is fulfilled. She gives birth to Isaac. His name means laughter. Isn’t it interesting that both Abraham and Sarah laughed when the promise was first given to them? Isaac’s name was given by YHVH in advance of his birth. When Abraham laughed (Chapter 17:17), he asked how it might be that a man at 100 and Sarah at 90 could have a son? In chapter 18 when the three Strangers visited Abraham, it was Sarah’s turn to laugh (Chapter 18:12) but she was afraid and lied that she had not laughed. She asked how she having passed her child bearing age and her husband so old, should finally find enjoyment.
Angels visit Lot
In chapter 19, the two angel messengers arrive at Sodom and are urged to stay with Lot. In the evening, the town’s people want to defile them, and Lot offers to surrender his two virgin daughters for the town to do as they wished. The angels then saved Lot from this harrowing encounter with the townsfolk by striking blindness upon those gathered outside.
Why would this be right for a father to say if he stands as the protector of the family? Later, Lot did not seek husbands for his daughters, and they chose the path of incest with their father to be able to produce offspring. Some say they were so isolated that they didn’t ever encounter men available to marry. Maybe they were afraid to marry any of the inhabitants of the land.
Looking back at the escape from Sodom: when in the morning Lot, his wife and daughters were hurried out of the city, they were warned to hurry and not look back. Lot’s wife turned to a pillar of salt when she disobeyed. What does this mean? Was it a literal pillar, or was it a lesson in not having bitterness about leaving the past behind? Was she unwilling to leave and got caught by the fire that was falling? Did she lag behind when the rest of them were hurrying to safety? Why did she look back?
Casting out Ishmael
In chapter 21, when Isaac is born and is circumcised, we see Sarah asking to have Ishmael cast out with his mother, so that he would not inherit anything that belonged rightfully to Isaac. But if we remember, it was at Sarah’s insistence that Hagar be taken to produce a son for Abraham. Now that she has a child of her own, she turns on Hagar who is extradited at God’s command and sent to wander with her son in the desert. The boy was more than 13, given the timeline of what had happened previously. Abraham and Ishmael are circumcised when Ishmael is 13, then the next year Sarah gives birth to Isaac, Ishmael is playing, perhaps mocking Isaac and Sarah tells Abraham to send them away. Ishmael, strangely is shown to be a child in the verses that follow. His mother lays him down under a bush to die. How is this possible, if he is a strapping lad of 14 or more? Was he in grief so overbearing that he wanted to die and thus lay down himself? When the angel found Hagar, he said that God had heard Ishmael’s prayer (21:17). He also gave her the promise that Ishmael would be blessed and grow to a great nation.
Not many years hence it was the Ishmaelites that bought Joseph when his brothers decided to sell him. Only 2 generations had passed, and there was already animosity enough to sell their kinsman as a slave.
Why the test of Akeida
We see Abraham making an alliance with Abimelech which later seems to have brought about the test of all time, the call for the Akeida on Mt. Moriah. God tested Abraham with an almost unimaginable test after making a covenant with a foreign power. The land was not to be bartered off. The land was given to Abraham, so why did he make a covenant with Abimelech? Looking back on this with knowledge of Israel’s struggles with alliances seems to reveal a that God was showing Abraham that if he gave the land away, he might as well not have descendants, and we see that happening all around us today. Curiously Abimelech returned to the land of the Philistines which was Gaza.
“And Abraham resided in the land of the Philistines a long time.” (21:34)
Why are we still having trouble with Gaza? Was all this started with a wrongful covenant that Abraham made with Abimelech?
Shabbat Shalom!
Ariella
Discover more from Take Hold the Tzitzit
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As you rightly say, enough material here to write several essays and at least one book.
As always great reading.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Ben Golani for reading and commenting!
LikeLike
You present a lot of data here, and ask a lot of questions. Not many answers, though. Here is one:
https://sl.bing.net/dlfF2J8jeu
It was literal pillars. It’s a thing. Heat and wind cause the sea to form salt structures. Like Stalagmites. The fire from the city created a lot of heat that caused a salt formation explosion.
https://sl.bing.net/cURq9o6lM0i
They happen to this day.
https://sl.bing.net/ipmaEwM20xU
You live in Israel. Maybe take a day trip to the dead sea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Jonathan for sharing this information. My intention is to draw people into conversation or provide questions for discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand. And different posts have different approaches. Sometimes we declare our wisdom, sometimes we try to incite others to find theirs. This time you invited me to provide some links.
LikeLike
Thanks again Jonathan Bailey for commenting. Sometimes I want to encourage participation. I have read a lot of comments in other sites that may or may not be winners but at least this encourages participation!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excelente publicación, es una realidad que cuando la historia no se repasa nuevamente cada año tiende a olvidarse, la persona no puede dejar repasar cada año estas historias, Bendiciones Shalom
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gracias hermano Aaron por su excelente comentario.
LikeLike
A complete and total refutation of the corrupt United Nations and Arab “Palestinian people” rhetoric propaganda lies. Arabs learn to lie straight from their mothers’ tits.
Jewish civilization in Judea is structured by precedent-based covenantal law (Mishnah, Gemara, Midrash), whereas the Arab–Islamic civilization that rose centuries later developed a legislative-imperial legal order grounded in revelatory decree rather than common-law inductive precedent.
Let me lay out the contrast in a clean, scholarly way: Chronology: Jewish Legal Structures Long Precede the fictional revelation of the Koran.
Mishnah — codified 210 CE. Nearly four centuries before Muhammad’s birth (circa 570 CE). It represents the crystallization of a precedent-based courtroom common law tradition, rooted in the Hanukkah P’rushim, the courts of the Zugot and Tannaim.
Gemara — major redaction 450–500 CE (Bavli); 350–400 CE (Yerushalmi) Still two centuries before Islam and before any Caliphate. It represents the full flowering of T’NaCH common law, where sugyot rotate perspectives on a Mishna the way a court rotates angles or different witness perspectives of the same case heard before a Sanhedrin common law courtroom.
Midrash Rabbah — mostly 5th–7th century Final redactions contemporary with or slightly after the first Islamic century. But its roots, methods, and content—Tannaitic and Amoraic—long predating the Koran and the Abbasid empire. Therefore: the entire rabbinic legal system, fully developed in Judea before the Quran existed; and centuries before Iraq became the seat of the Abbasid Caliphate. No propaganda rhetoric polemic—this historical fact of published historical sequencing easily refutes historical revisionism promoted by the British French UN Resolution 242 Revisionist History slander and most foul lie. Russia and Poland occupy to this day the captured lands of Prussia conquered through War. Israel not a UN Protectorate territory; neither it nor any Security Council country determines the borders and Capital City of the Jewish Republic.
Nature of the Two Civilizational Legal Systems. Jewish Civilization in Judea a Brit-Based Common Law sh’itta methodology. Mishnah serves as the Sanhedrin constitutional blueprint mandate which establishes both Sanhedrin ‘Legislative Review’ lateral common law Federal courts and also Prophet police enforcers of Sanhedrin Court judicial rulings.
Terms of the national oath (brit), not statutory law. Based on: precedents, judicial פרדס reasoning which culminated in Sanhedrin Court rulings, inductive derashah, the 13 middot, Av vs. toldah structures, sugyot “rotating” the Mishnaic blueprint. It is a pre-legislative, pre-codified common-law legal system.
Gemara = common law NOT statute law; court argumentation NOT government legislative decrees. כלל: Aramaic appears where the sugya moves from av-level categories to derivative toldot mitzvot, like as in the specific case of חופה as taught in the 2nd sugya of the Av Mishna of קידושין.
Midrash Rabbah = narrative constitutional interpretation of Aggadic portions of the Talmud. Not legislation. Not revelation of new law; and definitely Not the 7 mitzvot Bnai Noach as codified by the Rambam statute halachic code. This Aggadic source from mesechta Sanhedrin refers strictly and only to gere toshav temporary Goyim living within the borders of Judea. The ethical-legal drosh of prophetic mussar which the Torah revelation of Sinai and Horev commands the chosen Cohen civilization to root itself in this Torah oath brit common law, never expressed through Aggadic sources within the Sha’s Talmud. Chag Hanukkah directly opposes, and contrasted by Greek\Roman statute law like as expressed through the assimilated Rambam’s Yad statute halachic codification. The lights of Chanukkah – the dedication to only interpret the Written Torah through the revelation of פרדס inductive sh’itta logic. In short: Jewish law, the manifestation of the Sinai oath brit, precedent-driven, interpretive, judicial common law. Just that simple. No fancy Dance’n.
Arab Civilization Under Islam: Imperial Legislative Model: The Quran (7th century): Not a product of legal precedent or judicial debate. But rather a statutory revelation—a legislative text. The Caliphate (661–1258): Governed through – centralized rule, top-down decrees, juristic schools (madhahib) deriving law from Koran dictates; this alien system has absolutely no concept of precedent based and binding common law, no sugyanic rotation akin to the Bavli & Yerushalmi, no inductive logic\פרדס common-law systematic reasoning Oral Torah.
Abbasid Iraq (750–1258): Influence overwhelmingly by Persian and Greek statute law—The Abbasids adopted various aspects of Persian bureaucracy, culture, and administrative practices, along with elements from Greek philosophy and science. This period displaced Arab Meccan–Medinan tribal structures with: Hellenistic logic, centralized bureaucracy, canon-law style jurisprudence, philosophical reinterpretation of revelation, codified shari‘a. Thus: Islamic law – legislative-revelatory, not Judicial precedent-based courtroom rulings of law. It cannot be confused anymore than can Catholic dogmatism with Jewish “common law” in any T’NaCH or Talmudic sense. Muhammad did not understand that Torah prophets – dependent upon Sanhedrin courts of common law. No Sanhedrin court of common law existed in the days of Muhammad. Nor did this foreign totally alien “wet-back” Goy understand that T’NaCH מלאכים/Angels created through the k’vanna of time-oriented Av tohor Torah commandments, based upon the entire Book of בראשית. The development of the Koran fraud occurred centuries AFTER Jewish law had already matured and developed through T’NaCH Siddur, Mishna, Gemara & Aggadah/Midrash.
Applying This to Kiddushin: The Sugya as Civilizational Evidence. This sugya of the Gemara of קידושין represents a complex, multi-tiered legal analysis. Mishnah (210 CE) sets structural categories. Gemara (pre-Islam) dissects exclusions and-or inclusions. (According to the sh’itta of rabbi Akiva’s Amendments of rabbinnic logical middot, this idea comes under the heading of רבוי מיעט). Aramaic appears only as a רמז of kabbalah derivative reasoning which includes: Av/toldah distinctions, in this specific Gemara of קידושין: Daʿat-based maturity requirements, Mishkan-based metaphors, Common-law inferences (דיוקים), בנין אב from multiple domains (מקדש → אוהל → חופה). All of this predates Islam.
A level of judicial sophistication absent from early Islamic jurisprudence. Early Islam knows:Command, prohibition, prophetic decrees Sunna, (which refers the traditional practices, teachings, and examples set by the Prophet Muhammad in Islam.), and analogy (qiyās). But not: sugyot, shakhla-vetarya, dialectical reversals, בנין אב, derashot, hermeneutic middot, multiple rotating interpretive vantage points, or common-law precedent formations found across the Talmud.
Midrash Rabbah’s chuppah metaphor—even if redacted during or after early Islam—rests entirely on pre-Islamic rabbinic traditions. Thus even the later Midrash stands on foundations far older than Islam. Chuppah as the “first house” (מדרש רבה) demonstrates a continuity of Jewish interpretive civilization rooted in the Mishkan.
This exposes a continuity that Islam never possessed in its own legal evolution. Before the Koran existed, the Jews had already built a fully functional common-law civilization in Judea — Mishnah, Gemara, hermeneutic middot, and the interpretive sovereignty that defines the Oral Torah. By contrast, the Arab-Islamic legal civilization arose centuries later, in a different land, with a different epistemology, and with no access to the Judean precedent-based oath-brit chosen Cohen people legal traditions. Therefore Muhammad lied when he declared that his revelation of the Koran – an extension of the T’NaCH prophets revelation based upon the Torah at Sinai.
LikeLike
Continuing our study of the Gemara of Kiddushin. משנה תורה אב משנה, סוגיה ב’ — מניינא דף ג
Understanding the basics of Oral Torah a fundamentally required absolute. Wrote of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט compared to rabbi Yishmael’s כלל – פרט, פרט – כלל middot by which both men interpreted through different sh’ittot the kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic reasoning. Clearly neither Boris Badenov, nor his boot licking sidekick Natasha Fatale (Rambam & Yosef Karo) understood the distinctions which separate Torah common law from Roman statute law.
ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק”ו. למעוטי מאי? למעוטי חליפין. ס”ד אמינא הואיל וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון, מה שדה מקניא בחליפין, אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין. קמ”ל. This “משל” term “קמ”ל”, what defines its נמשל interpretation? The Gemara asks: למעוטי מאי? Hence, our Gemara contrasts rabbi Yishmael’s midda of ק”ו against rabbi Akiva’s midda of רבוי מיעט. When ever encountering a קמ”ל, this משל teaches the נמשל of either a רבוי מיעט. A fundamental chiddush, how to correctly read the Talmud with an understanding discerning eye – comparable to the tongue of a wine bibber. The Talmud defines understanding as: discernment like from like.
The פרט of בראשית כד:ב requires research. Let’s open by making a מדרש רבה analysis. Midrash functions as a reference resource for Talmudic study. The flat assimilated Yeshiva education system totally ignores learning Talmud together with Midrash, a clumsy yet cunning schemer basic Snidely Whiplash error. Which utterly backfires in a pathetic shallow addiction to the Rambam error of literal word translation Orthodox Judaism religious stupidity.
בראשית רבה נט:ח – Midrash Rabbah connects this verse through the midda of גזירה שוה to כי יקח איש אשה. Avraham & servant Eliezer cut an oath alliance Torah common law legal precedent prototype. The hand-under-thigh Torah language refers to an oath sworn obligation through which the גזירה שוה equally applies to the קידושין oath brit obligation which obligates a Man to give a get to his ex-wife if he divorces her. What does the mitzva of קידושין acquire? The Nefesh O’lam Ha’Ba of the woman’s soul! Specifically learned from the Torah precedent בכל נפשך repeated twice in the opening first two paragraphs of the ק”ש. Bereishit Rabbah learns this critical גזרה שוה, as a critical proto–common law precedent; a foundational legal principles or decisions that define the development of Oral Torah common law as we know it today.
The רבוי מיעט – The acquired “wife” does not lose her independent da’at. Kiddushin-betrothal does not confer ownership over the woman, her various aspect: such as her body, labor or personhood. She exits marital status through get, not resale. Never does she qualify as ממון: money, valuable possessions, and property. Herein interprets the k’vanna of the language of our Av Mishna, which does not say: האשה נקנית לאיש, but האשה נקנית בשלש דרכים — the mitzva of קידושין separates this woman from all other women. Herein understand how the gospel Av tuma avoda zara touching the vile story of virgin birth follows Greek mythology of Hercules rather than Oral Torah common law.
The precedent of Avraham and his servant sworn oath, this Torah brit alliance obligates. Hence this Torah precedent critical in understanding the mitzva of קידושין as an oath alliance brit obligation which obligates both Man and Woman equally. קידושין acquires exclusive – מיעט – over the woman’s nefesh-standing vis-à-vis other men. Herein explains why adultery qualifies as a Capital Crime case which only a Sanhedrin court can adjudicate. Hence no Goyim court qualifies as having authority to issue a divorce. This fundamental recognition that only Torah courts shall determine “the Jewish Problem”, as expressed through the post Shoah oath: NEVER AGAIN.
Oral Torah does not function as a תולדות commentary on the Written Torah —Oral Torah common law derived from precedent תולדות positive and negative Torah commandments. קידושין acquires a brit-level oath obligation as a Av Torah time-oriented commandment. This oath alliance obligation establishes enforceable duties such as כתובה, גט, & fidelity. This mitzva does not treat the acquisition of a wife comparable to how a man acquires ownership of a עבד כנעני; the concept of “soul” understood as title acquired to all future born children fathered consequent to this קידושין. This Torah mitzva serves to amplify the k’vanna of swearing an oath alliance לשמה – the first Sinai commandment; the greatest commandment in the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק״ו
למעוטי מאי
למעוטי חליפין
This question cannot be asked within Rabbi Yishmael’s כלל–פרט system alone, because: A pure ק״ו would expand; a pure גזירה שוה from שדה עפרון would import all kinyanim. Hence the danger: ס״ד אמינא:
הואיל וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון
מה שדה מקניא בחליפין
אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין
This while logically correct under Rabbi Yishmael’s sh’itta. But rabbi Akiva’s קמ״ל = רבוי מיעט, not כלל–פרט. So קמ״ל here teaches the negative boundary of the רבוי, just as it likewise understands the relationship between Shabbat to Chol! A very important precedent since the mitzva of shabbat critically defines: HOLY; just as korbanot dedications define the kingship mitzva of Moshiach. Moshe anointed the House of Aaron to dedicate the nation to pursue righteous judicial justice. The prophet Natan cursed the House of David with eternal Civil War after he failed to rule with justice in the matter of the baal of Bat Sheva. Just as Aaron did not offer up barbeques to Heaven through korbanot, so to the Moshiach does not rule as king if he fails to establish righteous common law Federal Sanhedrin courts!
Acquisition to the “title” Nefesh O’lam Ha’ba of the woman’s soul does not compare to buying or selling chattel. Reading the Talmud as if it compares to the novel of a Harry Potter NT false messiah – Protocols of the Elders of Zion fraud-literalism, destroys and uproots precedent-based Oral Torah common law/משנה תורה. Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic, ancient Greek syllogism deductive logic simply does not work any more than does the Yad, Tur, or Shulkan Aruch assists students to correctly understand how to study and learn the Talmud. Hence the sages codified in the Talmud referred to as “Oral Torah”, whereas the Rambam Yad in no way, shape, manner, or form qualifies as Oral Torah. The two systems compare to the Planets of Mars and Venus.
The קמ”ל always signals רבוי–מיעט. In this particular case: it excludes chalipin, despite the valid ק״ו logic. Because the acquired object – a brit obligation over the “nefesh” soul. Which likewise the Oral Torah differs from the Yad, Tur, Shulkan Aruch counterfeits, the acquisition of “nefesh” simply not ממון, but rather the future born children – the definition of the first Torah commandment: be fruitful and multiply. The רבוי מיעט of the קידושין acquisition of “soul”, separates Goyim from the chosen מיעט Cohen people created through the Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandment of קידושין. Which aligns perfectly with Bereishit Rabbah’s oath-alliance precedent.
The concluding statement of מדרש רבה נט:ח — א”ר יצחק חטיא דקרתך זונין זרע מנהון. Rabbi Yitzhak stated: ‘The wrongdoing of your actions prevents their sustenance from coming;’ restated: “produces continuity only when obligation is preserved.” This closing statement of Midrash Rabbah נט:ח functions as a juridical boundary marker – informing how legal drosh “borders”; the Tosafists reasoning perhaps qualifies it as הלכה למעשה. My sh’itta of inductive reasoning argues the comparison between the case of our Gemara — to the case introduced by Midrash Rabba (the definition of inductive vs deductive reasoning) – do not interpret the קידושין oath brit alliance as the acquisition of an object but rather as the very definition of creating the chosen cohen people through tohor time-oriented commandments.
Torah common law draws category boundaries, such as Sanhedrin courts only have legal jurisdiction within the borders of Judea. Or prophets serve as the police enforcers of judicial common law legal rulings; if no Sanhedrin courts then likewise no prophets. Despite the koran narishkeit which declares that prophets sent to all peoples across the Planet and the Arabs the last people on Earth to receive their “chosen” prophet; hence their absurd declaration that Muhammad was the last of the prophets!
חליפין has the legal meaning which presumes חפץ – a thing. ‘Fungible goods items’ qualify as horse-trading, interchangeable goods. Fungibility facilitates easy transactions and exchanges. Representative by contrast refers to something or someone who stands in for or symbolizes someone or something else. Like Representatives voted into the Federal Congress, they serve as proxies for the voting electorate within any given US State. In basic horse-trading, money functions as a representative of legal trade instead of barter. A common custom practiced by Goyim societies: wife swapping.
Torah law never universalizes categories without jurisdiction. This fundamental מאי נפקא מינא – רב חסד middah forever separates Torah common law from Islamic (and Christian) universal-prophetic claims, which erase jurisdictional boundaries entirely.
Kiddushin cannot tolerate representation … wife swapping. A nefesh cannot be substituted; brit cannot be “grafted” to Goyim who do not and never have accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Fidelity cannot be symbolically reassigned; the Torah oath brit which creates the chosen Cohen people defined to Talmudic established culture and customs, personal, exclusive, & non-fungible. The Torah phrase “והיו לבשר אחד” — not metaphysics — rather anti-fungibility common law. Therefore חליפין utterly treif in the matter of קידושין because it baptizes brit into a substitute theology exchange which replaces the pursuit of justice as faith for belief in some theologically created new God as faith.
The mitzva of קידושין rejects the Goyim custom which perceives marital bonds as transferable; persons as interchangeable units; relationships as revocable exchanges which defines the legal concept of fungibility in human marital relations. Therefore our Gemara blocks that endpoint at the root by excluding חליפין. Herein our Gemara separate kiddushin from market place logic of acquisition of goods and property.
Therefore, קמ״ל in Kiddushin functions as a רבוי–מיעט marker: it affirms that Kiddushin functions as a true kinyan, while excluding any kinyan whose logic presumes fungible object-ownership; therefore חליפין – excluded because brit over nefesh cannot be represented, substituted, or exchanged.
LikeLike