Tefillah does NOT translate to prayer. Tefillah requires שם ומלכות, prayer – as found in saying Tehillem – does not fundamentally require שם ומלכות. What does this mean? מאי נפקא מינא in Aramaic Talmud. Answer: שם ומלכות meaning the dedication of a tohor middah revealed to Moshe at Horev לשמה by means of swearing a Torah oath through which the Avot cut a brit which continually creates from nothing the Chosen Cohen people children of the Avot. Hence: tefillah, as a tohor time-oriented commandment calls upon the God of the Avot in the first blessing. Its interesting the Order of the 13 middot to Moshe at Horev. The Torah does a פרט\כלל – רחום וחנון whereas the later NaCH prophets often order the middot by means of a כלל/פרט – חנון ורחום. Herein explains the order of rabbi Yishmael’s middot.

Praying Tehillem by stark contrast expressed as a positive commandment which does not require k’vanna. Only tohor time-oriented commandments which dedicate specified tohor middot through swearing a Torah oath, (Tefillah called Amidah b/c a person ideally stands before a Sefer Torah in the beit knesset.), qualify as comparable to the oaths wherein the Avot swore the brit oath by means of a dedicated korban, which continually creates from nothing the chosen Cohen people. Hence the first blessing of the קריא שמע שחרית twice states תמיד מעשה בראשית.

Because the Book of בראשית introduces the Av mitzva of tohor time-oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as its k’vanna. Prophetic mussar defines specified tohor middot first revealed to Moshe as the revelation of the Oral Torah at Sinai. Hence when the portion of Israel did their service in the Beit HaMikdash within the Beit Knesset they read the Creation story of the opening Book of בראשית which introduces the Av Torah commandments of tohor time-oriented commandments.

Consequently if a bnai brit does even minor Torah commandments such as shooing the mother bird off her brood of eggs or even rabbinic commandments like Shemone Esrei or lighting the Hanukkah lights or reading the Book of M’gillat Esther, the B’HaG introduced the chiddush that elevating mitzvot to Av tohor time-oriented commandments raises these rabbinic mitzvot to mitzvot from the Torah!

The distinction between Tefillah and the tachanun prayer

the Open Siddur Project ✍ פְּרוֺיֶקְט הַסִּדּוּר הַפָּתוּחַ

Aharon N. Varady (transcription)·opensiddur.org·

Concluding Prayer for Hallel in the Home Service for the Festival of Passover, by Rabbi J. Leonard Levy (1896)
This is a concluding prayer in the Hallel service at the Passover seder by Rabbi J. Leonard Levy to his Haggadah or Home Service for the Festival of Passover (1896) pp. 32-34. The prayer does not appear in subsequent editions. The prayer threads the needle between the particularly Jewish communal focus of Passover and the…

Moshe Kerr: What separates תפילה from תחנון? A blessing requires שם ומלכות. Shemone Esrei does not contain שם ומלכות. Yet it functions as the definition of a blessing. As does kadesh, which also lacks שם ומלכות. For that matter so does ברכת כהנים וגם כן קריא שמע. The k’vanna of חנון has nothing to do with the formal prayer written in the Siddur. Why? Because all these “mitzvot” qualify as tohor time oriented commandments which require k’vanna. What’s the k’vanna of תחנון through which it defines תפילה?

Word translations amount to tits on a boar hog when the new born piglets are ravenous and the sow died after giving birth! The 5th middah of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev – חנון, serves as the functioning root שרש of the term תחנון תפילה. The tohor time-oriented commandment of תפילה learns from the additional metaphor of תחנון. Consider the Order of the Shemone Esrei blessings … 3 + 13 + 3 blessings. 6 Yom Tov and 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe, 40 days after the ערב רב Israelites – Jews assimilated and intermarried with Egyptians, no different from the kapo Jewish women who slept with Nazis. This ערב רב, according to the Torah – as expressed in the memory to war against Amalek/antisemitism – they lacked fear of אלהים. This same ערב רב referred to their Golden Calf substitute theology by the name אלהים. This tie-in explains the k’vanna of the term “fear of heaven”.

The ערב רב Jews lacked “fear of Heaven”, and therefore their avoda zarah profaned the 2nd Sinai commandment. Hence when Jews assimilate and intermarry with Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai (neither the Xtian Bible nor Muslim Koran ever once brings the שם השם first revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment – the greatest commandment of the entire Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev! Do Jews serve to obey the Torah revelation לשמה או לא לשמה? Observance of all the Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot hangs on this simple question.

Therefore תפילת תחנון interprets the k’vanna of תפילה, through the concept that a person stands before a Sefer Torah and dedicated specific and defined tohor middot which breath life into the hearts of the Yatrir HaTov of the chosen Cohen oath brit people. The verb תפילה most essentially entails the k’vanna of swearing a Torah oath. What Torah oath? The dedication, think korban, of some specified tohor middot…. Hence the concept of תפילת תחנון.

The Ripple Effect of Human Error

SA Examiner

Sandra Cruz·saexaminer.org·Mar 9, 2025

Mysticism for the Modern Seeker: A Review of ‘Embodied Kabbalah’ by Matthew Ponak

Matthew Ponak is a rabbi, a teacher of Jewish Mysticism, and a spiritual counselor. His book “Embodied Kabbalah: Jewish Mysticism for All” is a collection of 42 mystical texts with commentary that presents the essential teachings from Kabbalah and places them side-by-side with profound inspirations from our era and the world’s great wisdom traditions.

The never before translated texts shed light on unknown traditions of mystical enlightenment. Fascinating descriptions of the paradoxical nature of reality are placed next to cautionary guidance against travelling too quickly on the road to expanded consciousness. Spiritual practices for dealing with depression and sadness come along with illuminated poetry of what our world could look like if we all tried to be truly loving. Using the stunning visual layouts of traditional Torah commentary, Ponak opens the gateway for Judaism to add its much needed voice to the universal quest for meaning, inner knowing, and rooted transcendence. (Barnes & Noble, 2025)

________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Historical Narrative: Timeline of Key Events and Figures

Tzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.

Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.

Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.

Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.

Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.

David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.

Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument: Key Concepts

Pardes vs Greek logic:

Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).

Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence.

Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.

Common Law vs. Statute Law:

Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written Legislative statute decrees, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.

Statute Law: A legal system based on written government laws usually enacted by some legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review. Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.

The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH, as taught through Talmudic Aggadah – as binding mussar precedents which shape the k’vanna of mitzvot elevated to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.

Theological Critique: Key Issues

Assimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding alien Goyim cultures & customs; potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish Cohen-identity and practice.

Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; as as similarly does NT Xtians and Muslims. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law – as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive sh’itta\methodology—the (so to speak) loom that weaves warp and weft into a common cultural fabric which shapes and defines the identity of the chosen Cohen people and equally separates Talmudic law from Avoda Zara.

(Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.

____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites, like their predecessor Tzeddukim, they reject the revelation of the Oral Torah. The After meal blessing, remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim — remembered through the mitzva of lighting the Lights of Hanukkah — their ignoble disgrace, of a pre-New Testament Civil War which also rejects the Oral Torah revelation of Horev, just as much as does the church today; and the later Dark Ages European Karaites – who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither during in ancient times, nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages – from about 900 CE, which famously aroused the indignation of Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE), and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204).

These two influential “Orthodox Jewish scholars”, likewise erred and reached assimilated avoda zara ideas which, in their own unique ways, perverted the Horev revelation of the Oral Torah. Both these “Orthodox” men, raped the 2nd Sinai commandment – highly assimilated and wholeheartedly embraced the rediscovery of ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient world which witnessed the P’rushim/Tzeddukim Civil War remembered every year when Jews light the lights of Hanukkah. Assimilation to alien foreign cultures or customs fundamentally rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, and the Legislative Review Torah mandate of Sanhedrin common law courtrooms through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive logic reasoning.

Nonetheless both of the Gaonic and Reshonic “orthodox” Era scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical theology belief system. None the less the error of personal belief in some theologically defined God, this foreign assimilated error trapped both “orthodox” scholars. Both men, similar to the Tzeddukim and Karaite errors, likewise rejected the Courtroom authority of Sanhedrin common law to rule the Jewish Republic through the mandate of Legislative Review, as established through the Talmud Oral Torah codification. Both these famous rabbinic authorities placed the Karaite Tweedle Dee Tweedle Dumb supporters into a charem excommunication, just as did the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.

Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods – no different than as did the kingdom of Shlomo, the pre Ezra Samaritans, the post Ezra Tzeddukim, the messiah crazies New Testament and the Dark Ages Karaites and modern Reform Judaism of the early 19th Century. This classic error traced through the generations, commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”\”AVODA ZARA”.

The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts consequent to the Muslim invasion of Spain, reopened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights … the Rambam embraced Roman statute law which effectively abandoned the study of Talmudic common law and the logic sh’itta of Pardes introduced by rabbi Akiva. Cults of personality, famous rabbinic personalities, like for example Yosef Karo author of the Shulkan Aruch, post the Rambam Civil War, they dominated the determination of halacha. This new “replacement theology” supplanted the Sanhedrin courts-room common law jurisprudence “faith”, which stands upon the foundation of judicial precedents rather than personalized belief systems in some theologically defined God as an act of “faith”.

The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah – known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the Aristotle model, his 3-Part syllogism format. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah – rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic. This Pardes system of logic – it manifests itself through the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its ensuing Gemara commentary, based upon the working model of a LOOM. Talmudic scholarship seeks to “cement” the culture and customs practiced by all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Herein defines the purpose & scope of the Horev Oral Torah revelation.

As a loom has warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud and Gaonic Midrashim, seek to employ the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva and rabbi Yishmael’s Pardes inductive precedent based learning & 13 middot corollaries, as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, common law cultural identity which shapes and defines the Cohen people seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov.

The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism, Samaritans and New Testament Xtians all universally reject this definition of faith, which commands the pursuit of judicial justice. The Book of D’varim expresses the comprehension: the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, (think korban), the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins, which strive to make fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people – throughout all the generations which the Chosen Cohen people experience a Torah blessing and govern the sworn oath brit lands.

Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim, instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God personal I-believe- belief systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into bureaucratic categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen.

T’NaCH & Talmudic common law shaped rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s common law Mishna; all based D’varim common law; consequent to its second explicit re-defining Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, (a common law judicial system) premised upon D’varim judicial Sanhedrin common law. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to exert their Torah constitutional mandate of Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Princes which rule governments as Judges. Like the T’NaCH Book of Judges portrays.

Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Hence small wonder that the new testament revolt likewise in this same vein rejects the revelation of Oral Torah pursuit of judicial common law justice. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of judicial justice-Faith; that later courtroom Judicial rulings stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts’ judicial rulings – as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.

The later Karaim did not go as far as the ancient Samaritans. The latter replaced the 10 Tribal kingdom known as Israel. These ‘latter-day saints’, established their own Mormon like religion, they too rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! The later Karaim did not reject the masoret of the NaCH. They restricted their rejection of the Oral Torah only to their rejection of the authority of the Talmud and rabbinic Midrashim.

However, lacking the Pardes Kabbalah their “Torah wisdom” skills lacked the will to do mitzvot L’shma, a fundamental requirement to affix prophetic mussar precedents as the Aggadic basis to determine the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments – the key revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. The Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment toldoth precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar, their Mormon like new religion simply could not grasp. The public sanctification of the Name – only achieved when Jews elevate toldoth Torah commandments unto Av tohor time-oriented commandments by making precedent case/rule comparisons.

The much later Talmudic common law codification employs, so to speak, a 70 faces to the Torah — blue-print, diamond faceted, re-interpretation of the original Mishnaic language. Through employment of halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to make a critical different perspective “view” of the language of the Mishna, based upon an all together different sugya of Gemara- halachic “facet” perspective.

Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara, to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya, viewed from a wholly different sugya perspective. This common law commentary seeks to duplicate the sh’itta of how the Gemara learns the language of any given Mishna. Much like and similar to how a building contractor reads a blue-print, which contains front/top\side view perspectives. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclid’s 5th Axiom of plain geometry.

Both the Samaritans, the assimilated Tzeddukim, the NT Xtians, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – One & all they rejected, or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic taught by rabbi Akiva. The warp/weft loom, the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah, as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. However this most essential conflict, pre-dates itself back to kings David and Shlomo, and even to the Judges who ruled following the Yehoshua conquering of Canaan, long before the introduction of the Samaritans, after the fall of the kingdom of Samaria by the Assyrian empire!

The prophet Natan warns David not to copy the ways of the Goyim. Not to build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud debates a 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute. This famous Yerushalmi debate questions the central issue -Did king David, after conquering Damascus, established that city – as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom. The pro opinions argue that Israel has a claim to Syria as part of the post Balfour/League of Nations Jewish state. The negative opinions reject the idea that Israel has a claim to nationalize Syria as part of the Jewish state.

Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advice given by the elder advisors to king Shlomo; so too young king Shlomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes – dead baby – before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.

The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views downstream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions which rejected the revelaltion of the Oral Torah at Horev, all later generation followed the identical error.

King Shlomo prioritized duplicating how the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud (not into a polis city state) but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice — which strives to make fair restitution of damages. Unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah and thereby perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheistic god. Monotheism, by definition, profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein traces Human error made throughout the Ages where upon Man has walked the Face of this Earth.