Buurman is ondertussen al enkele weken terug thuis na zijn rugoperatie. Wel mocht hij voorlopig van de dokter niet autorijden. Dus speelde ik in die tijd regelmatig taxi. Vorige week kreeg hij een document van de huisarts die bevestigt dat hij wel met de auto kan en mag rijden. Toch bleef bij hem de twijfel. Geen idee waarom, maar soit.
Gisteren had hij een afspraak op het stadhuis. Of ik hem wou brengen en bij hem blijven voor het geval hij een en ander niet begrijpt. Mij OK. Vooraleer het stadhuis binnen te stappen genoten we op een terras tussen de kermisattracties van enkele koppen koffie.
Goed op tijd stapten wij het stadhuis binnen. In no time had hij geregeld wat geregeld moet worden voor een nieuwe ID en rijbewijs. Binnen enkele weken ontvangt hij een brief met de pincode. Dan mag hij zonder afspraak de ID en rijbewijs ophalen. Ook kreeg hij de bevestiging dat hij wel degelijk mag autorijden. Een hele opluchting voor buurman.
Ondertussen was ik ook weer eens op het stadhuis. Niet meer het stadhuis waar ik decenia in gewerkt heb, maar het nieuwe dat vorig jaar open ging voor publiek. Ook het personeel is mij onbekend. Van mijn verleden als ambtenaar is geen spoor meer.
Dit was het voor vandaag.
Groetjes en tot de volgende.
🙂
De dingen des levens ! 
Ja, de nieuwe generatie heeft het overgenomen, zo gaat dat.
Ik vind het nieuwe stadhuis prachtig! De buurman mag zich gelukkig prijzen met een buurman zoals U. Bij mij in de buurt zorgen we ook nog voor elkaar, maar van collega’s begrijp ik dat dat ook redelijk uniek is.
En ja het gaat rap, als je ergens even niet geweest bent is alles veranderd. Maar ook dat is goed, denk ik.
Ja, zo gaat dat. Sporen uitgewist. Alleen weet jij nog hoe het vroeger was.
Alles en iedereen verandert Suske
The Opening sugya of mesechta קידושין
“Can’t see the forest for the trees” – being so focused on small details that you lose sight of the bigger picture. The trees – all the halachot raised in each and every sugya of Gemara. The forest, the common law basis wherein the Talmud serves as the model to re-establish common law courts of Sanhedrin Legislative Review of all government statute laws. This summates my criticism of the statute law codes; how they utterly corrupted how Yeshiva education became all corrupted and Fubar. The more polite definition of the latter Army military euphemism – “Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition”. But when a jarhead employs the term, he means: “fucked up beyond all repair”.
The assimilated statute halachic codes, focus upon making a D’sok Halacha. In the case of the Rambam Fubar – straight from the Talmud itself. In the Case of the far weaker – copy-cat – halachic statute codifications of the Tur and Shulkan Aruch – they organized a codification of Reshonim opinion upon any given halacha from the Talmud. Why does assimilated statute halacha pervert the Talmud and Reshonim commentaries upon the Talmud into a fubar? Several reasons: 1. They rely upon the syllogism deductive logic developed by Aristotle and Plato. This substitute theology of logic, it replaces the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s revolutionary interpretation of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev unto פרדס. No different, what so ever, from the ערב רב שיצאו ממצרים. The latter Jews the Torah during the reading prior to Purim which remembers the tohor middah of רחום. Specifically, the commandment to war against Amalek in all generations. רחום — עמלק, represents a כלל — פרט in how the corollary 13 middot of rabbi Yishmael amplify the פרדס kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s understanding of how the Oral Torah revelation interpret the kvanna of the Written Torah.
The Torah description of Jews as אין להם יראת אלהים – the first inference to “Fear of Heaven” in the Book of שמות. The later prophets mussar refers to assimilated Israel as אנשי סדום. They too lacked “fear of heaven” as the Book of בראשית introduces. בעל שם טוב: This term פרט, refers to the founder of Hasidic Judaism, Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov. However this term כלל, refers to the pursuit of a righteous Good Name reputation. Post Shoah Xtianity permanently lost the claim to a moral good name reputation. Hence: יראת שמים the Talmud directly applies to both a Torah sofer and a shochet.
The mitzva of kashrut, spins around public trust based upon יראת שמים.The rediscovery of the concealed Ancient Greek texts which caused the Hanukkah Civil War which pitted the P’rushim against the Tzeddukim; when Muslim Armies invaded Spain in approximately 900, during the lifetime of Saadia ben Joseph, 882–942 CE. These rediscovered ancient Greek writings caused the Jews of Spain to emphatically embrace Greek deductive logic. This triggered the “Golden Age” of Spanish Reshonim T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship!!! Alas the bards (Robert Plant (lyrics) and Jimmy Page (music) who wrote the song “Stairway to Heaven”, declared: sometimes words have two meanings.) טיפש פשט by stark contrast gets all hyper in their diaper over the obvious ‘bird brained’ ‘brain-washed’ meaning.
How the Orthodox make a simplistic understanding of the בראשית Creation story, functions as a פרט example. Another פרט example: Yeshiva bukkarim saying (all the time) מה פשט?
The false ideal to simplify or stupify abstract T’NaCH and Talmudic common law, simply brain dead. The Siddur serves as the foundation of all Talmudic scholarship. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. The Siddur stands upon the יסוד of ORDER. The ORDER of פרדס inductive logic, not the same as the ORDER of Aristotle’s syllogism – deductive logic. The assimilated statute law halachic codes – they shatter the ORDER of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law.
A three-part syllogism is a form of logical reasoning that consists of three statements: two premises and a conclusion. It is a classic structure used in deductive reasoning, often associated with the philosopher Aristotle. Hegel’s bi-polar dialectics and Aristotle’s syllogism represent two distinct approaches to logic and reasoning, each with its own philosophical underpinnings and implications. Hegel’s dialectics is a process of development through contradictions. It involves a triadic structure often summarized as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The thesis represents an initial idea or state, the antithesis is its contradiction or negation, and the synthesis resolves the conflict between the two, leading to a higher understanding or state.
Hegel’s approach emphasizes change and development. Ideas evolve through conflict and resolution, reflecting the complexity of reality. This process is not linear but rather cyclical, where each synthesis can become a new thesis, leading to further contradictions and resolutions. This late 19th Century German philosophy served as the logic foundation of Marx’s theory of Communism as a response to the Industrial Revolution. “Revolution” implies the over-throw of the ‘Old Order’. What defines the “Old Order” of the Middle Ages? The economies of the Middle Ages made wealth through the Order of village communes, known as feudalism, wherein the aristocratic lords produced wealth through agricultural production. The Industrial Revolution over-threw that ‘Old Order’, and replaced it by the production of wealth through Industrial production of goods and services. This cause a mass population transfer from peasant living in village communes tied to working for their lords. To citizens with political rights who lived and worked within the factories within huge cities.
To understand the difference between rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic from Aristotle’s deductive logic, fundamentally requires comparing the two viewed from a fair larger “BIG PICTURE” context. The two-dimensional halachic statute law codes, they compare to looking at a camera picture rather than actually seeing the event captured by the picture. The question מה פשט? Simply ideal for the two-dimensional deductive reasoning of Greek deductive logic. The mitzva of lighting the lights of Hanukkah – the dedication to interpret the Written Torah through, and only through, the inductive logic of פרדס; the latter defines the culture and customs practiced by the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot throughout all generations. The passage of this Cohonim culture and customs from generation, to generation, to generation – defines the k’vanna of תחיית המתים. As does similar, marriage with the purpose to produce children and educate them to keep the cultures and customs of the chosen Cohen people. The mitzva of קידושין.
Rabbi Akiva’s inductive logic system directly compares to a Loom. A Loom essential in the construction of the Mishkan. As a Loom as its warp & weft opposing threads, the “fabric” of the T’NaCH and Talmud contains the Aggada threads of prophetic mussar contrasted by the Halachic threads of practical halachic ritualism. Weaving the two opposing strands creates time oriented commandments which require k’vanna. The Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch deductive logic divorces halacha from aggada. Worse, the Prime assimilated Reshon Spanish רשע, his code uprooted halacha from its Home Mishna. The commentaries on the Rambam Code, in their assimilated darkness, failed to affix any Rambam halacha to the B’hag, Rif, or Rosh common law codes.
The latter understood that the Gemarah halachot serve as the “70 faces to the Torah”, they view the language of the Home Mishna from different perspectives to make depth re-interpretations of the obvious פשט language of the Home Mishna! This criticism, equally applies to Rabbeinu Tam the leader of the Baali Tosafot common law commentary upon the Talmud. Going off the dof in search of a legal precedent permits the scholar to view his sugya of Gemara based upon a radically different perspective – “70 faces to the Torah”. However, the Baali Tosafot commentaries, approximately 60 common law scholars, failed to make the required משנה תורה and make a “Legislative Review” of the language of the Home Mishna which the Gemara comments by way of comparing precedent cases!
Rashi’s common law commentary to the Chumash – radically differs from Rashi’s dictionary like פשט commentary to the Talmud. For this reason Rabbeinu Tam challenged the Rashi commentary made upon the Talmud. The question stands: Why did Rashi change from his common law פשט based upon T’NaCH and Talmudic Bavli and Yerushalmi precedent to writing a dictionary of terms to explain the language of the Talmud? Answer: Rashi witnessed the 1st Crusades and the slaughter of the Jews in Germany. Rabbeinu Tam died before the Rambam published his statute law abomination in approximately 1185. The Baali Tosafot placed the Rambam into נידוי in Paris 1232. A decade later, the Pope and King of France burned all the Talmudic manuscripts in Paris. King Philip IV of France (also known as Philip the Fair) expelled all Jews from France in 1306. This uprooted and destroyed the Rashi/Tosafot common law school of T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship. Whereas the P’rushim defeated the assimilated Tzeddukiim, which the lights of Hanukkah remember; the Rambam forced Rabbeinu Yonah to write Shari Tshuva. Rashi feared the Goyim might learn how to study the Talmud as common law. Therefore he concealed this basic kabbalah limited only to his commentary to the Chumash. He did not even extend it to his commentaries upon the NaCH or Midrash!
The Jews in ארץ ישראל possessed the wisdom, how to obey Torah mitzvot לשמה. The Jews in living under the Torah Av tumah curse of g’lut, did not possess the wisdom, how to obey Torah mitzvot לשמה. A simple מאי נפקא מינא, just that simple. No fancy dance’n. (Hence I refuse to travel to g’lut lands because I know I would immediately eat treif foods pork and shrimp yum yum.)The כלל to anything in life, but most especially to T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship לשמה – ORDER. The Siddur functions as the יסוד upon which both the T’NaCH prophetic mussar and Talmudic halachah stand. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. Therefore, sugya integrity defines how to study and learn both T’NaCH and Talmud. This discipline of scholarship known, as taught to me by Rav Nemuraskii, as learning through a sh’itta.
The internal ORDER of each and every sugya of Gemara – throughout the Sha’s Bavli and Yerushalmi. Post Shoah, Xtianity and Islam have destroyed their Good Name reputations. Jews have reconquered our homeland. Goyim rot as stinking Palestinian dhimmi refugees and Xtians wait for the 2nd coming of their Gods. What struck fear in Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, no longer exists. The shoe worn on the other foot today. Can our generations achieve self-determination in our Homeland and make the Torah the Constitution of our Republic of 12 Tribes? Can we build the lateral Sanhedrin Federal Court System of common law Legislative Review? These two fundamental questions shape and define Jewish identity today. The purpose of T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship today does not resemble the Reshonim need to codify a Jewish religion for Jewish communities scattered across g’lut having little or no communication between communities. Today we can communicate in seconds what Jews then took perhaps generations! The reality of the times determines the Halacha. This issue which confronts our generations today, can we bring a re-birth to the chosen people, the Cohen sons and daughters of the Avot?
________________________________________
________________________________________
This Mesechta of Gemara includes the commentary of the Ran רבינו נסים. He merits respect perhaps on par with the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh, and Tosafot. If Spain produced a ‘Golden Age’, perhaps he best defines it. The Ran emphasized the importance of the oral tradition and the interpretations of earlier authorities, including the Baali Tosafot. The Ran did not support the cherem (excommunication) issued by the Baali Tosafot against the Rambam’s works, but he did align with the concerns raised by the Rosh (Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel) and others regarding the potential implications of the Rambam’s rationalist approach. The Rosh was particularly critical of the Rambam’s philosophical ideas and their impact on Jewish faith.
Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel, the Rosh, openly critical of the Rambam and supported the cherem against his works, viewing them as a threat to traditional Jewish beliefs. He believed that the Rambam’s rationalism could lead to heretical ideas. The Ran, while critical of certain elements of the Rambam’s philosophy, maintained a more nuanced position, recognizing the value of the Rambam’s legal contributions while also advocating for adherence to traditional interpretations and the authority of earlier scholars.
The distinction between Jewish common law (halacha) and Roman statute law is an important aspect of legal theory, particularly in the context of medieval Jewish scholarship. Jewish Common Law (Halacha): This refers to the body of Jewish law derived from the Torah, Talmud, and later rabbinic interpretations. It is often characterized by its case-based nature, where legal principles are derived from specific cases and precedents. Roman Statute Law: This refers to the codified laws of the Roman legal system, which organized legal principles into systematic categories. Roman law had a more formalized structure, with clear definitions and classifications.
The Rosh emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of Jewish law as distinct from external legal systems, such as Roman law. He was critical of the Rambam’s codification efforts, particularly in the Mishneh Torah, which he felt could blur the lines between Jewish common law and alien legal traditions developed by both the Greek and Roman civilizations.
The Ran, while respecting the Rambam’s contributions, did not emphasize the same differentiation between Jewish common law and Roman statute law. His approach was more focused on the practical application of halacha and the integration of various legal sources, including the Rambam’s codification.
The differing approaches of the Ran and the Rosh reflect broader debates within Jewish legal thought about the nature of halacha, the influence of external legal systems, and the importance of maintaining a distinct Jewish legal identity. The Rosh’s emphasis on the uniqueness of Jewish law contrasts with the Ran’s more integrative approach, highlighting the complexities of legal scholarship in medieval Judaism.
Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, the Baali Mor, wrote a commentary critical of the Rif common law commentary written upon the Talmud. He learn the Gemara as precedent halachot by which a person could re-interpret the original language of the Mishna. Hence he learned by reliance upon other Primary Source precedents to understand the language of the Talmud viewed from multiple perspectives. Like the Front/Top\Side views of a blue-print. His chief criticism on the Rif, that his code diminished the depth fluidity of inductive logic reasoning which compares Case/Law to similar precedent Case/Law. The Baali Mor emphasized the importance of studying the Gemara as a source of halachic precedent. He believed that the Gemara should be used to reinterpret the original language of the Mishnah, allowing for a deeper understanding of the legal principles involved. A Baali Mor’s chief criticism(s) of the Rif – that his codification diminished the depth and fluidity of inductive reasoning in halachic analysis. The Rif’s structured approach, caused scholars to read his p’sok halacha in a simplified טיפש פשט sh’itta, which confused the inductive vs. deductive reasoning dispute which the Rambam later exploded into a bitter Jewish Civil War.
Court room common law makes ‘compare and contrast’ essential for inductive reasoning. Essential for deriving legal principles from specific precedent Case instances. The Baali Mor advocated for a more dynamic interpretation of halacha, where the law is not seen as static but rather as adaptable to different circumstances. Talmud in his opinion serves as the model for later common law court room jurisprudence. This perspective encourages ongoing interpretation and application of halachic principles based on the complexities of real-life situations. His critique of the Rif highlights the ongoing dialogue within Jewish scholarship about what right then required prioritization.
Religious halachic codifications vs. the fluidity of legal reasoning which differentiate the brief precedents brought by the prosecution vs. the defense. In practical terms he differentiates and prioritizes Judicial common law courts from religious codifications. The latter permits the common man in scattered g’lut communities to easily determine and shape religious halachic faith. The RambaN wrote מלחמת השם because he recognized the dire needs of g’lut Jews scattered abroad to have access to clear codes of Jewish ritual religious law.
Sugya integrity defines the substance of all Talmudic common law scholarship. The Rambam Code destroyed this יסוד, like as does Dof Yomi today. Sugya integrity has an opening and closing thesis statement. All points of halacha raised in the body of the sugya must fit somewhere on the sh’itta “line” which connects the dots between the opening thesis statement and the closing restatement of the same thesis statement … משנה תורה. The opening sugya starts on dof .ב and concludes at dof :ג. The language of the Mishna which requires a משנה תורה re-interpretation of the original language: האשה נקנית בג’ דרכים וקונה את עצמה בב’ דרכים.The opening thesis statement: האשה נקנית. מאי שנא הכא דתני האשה נקנית ו ומה שכתב התם דתני האיש מקדש משום דקא בעי למיתני דתני ה כסף. Compare this to the closing משנה תורה restatement of the Opening thesis statement: מה יבמה שאינה יוצאת בגט יוציא בחליצה קמ”ל. ואימא ה”נ אמר קרא ספר כריתות. ספר כירתה, ואין דבר אחר כורתה Now the question stands: How does the closing thesis statement amplify the opening this statement?
The phrase “A woman is acquired” refers to the legal framework of marriage in Jewish law (halacha). However, it is crucial to understand that this term does not imply that a woman is treated as a commodity or object like a slave or a prostitute. Instead, it reflects the formal legal process of marriage, which involves mutual consent and specific actions. A Jewish woman is not comparable to a slave or a whore because her acquisition in marriage is based on mutual respect, commitment, and legal obligations. The concept of acquisition in marriage (kiddushin) is fundamentally different from the transactional nature of slavery or prostitution.
Hence the closing thesis statement makes a מאי נפקא מינא separation/distinction between קידושין and חליצה. These two points establish the sh’itta line of all the rest of the subject matter raised in the body of this the opening Mishna of קידושין.
Wat fijn dat je buurman helpen. Stadhuis ziet goed uit. Bij ons mogen niet foto maken. Om veiligheid! Buurman is ook weer blij.
ik ben ondertussen 3 jaar op pensioen, en als ik mijn werk binnenga sta ik ook altijd versteld hoe het daar veranderd is , en ook het personeel
Een @->- voor je.
Echt een stadhuis nieuwe stijl, een groot atrium met veel open etages en loketten.
Er zijn ondertussen natuurlijk al meer collega’s met pensioen en in zo’n groot stadhuis zal er ook wel nieuw personeel bij gekomen zijn, dan kom je inderdaad nog weinig bekende tegen in een ook al nieuw gebouw.
Herstellen van een rugoperatie kan wel even duren.
Het is wel leuk om het nieuwe stadhuis te bezoeken. Hans
mijn verleden als ambtenaar is weer heden al was het lang geleden.
Het oude maakt plaats voor het nieuwe. Zo is het altijd geweest en zo zal het ook altijd blijven gaan. Lief dat je je buurman helpt!
Een mooi nieuw stadhuis, zo te zien. En wat werk betreft? Geldt daarbij niet heel vaak ‘uit het oog uit het hart’?
Zo gaat dat in een professionele loopbaan.
Eens je met pensioen bent, ben je iets uit het verleden geworden…
Je bent te goed voor deze wereld…..Altijd maar klaar staan voor anderen…. Over dat verdwijnen van (ons) bekende adressen en mensen binnenkort meer…
zo had je weer je koffietje verdient
Hernieuwen van ID gaat heel vlot vond ik
Ha je taxi krijgt weer wat rust 😉
Fijn als je zo kan bijspringen als het een ander even niet lukt.
En die koffie welverdiend 😁
Mooi dat je dat voor de buurman hebt gedaan hoor, gelukkig kan hij nu zelf weer autorijden.
Uit het oog, uit het hart. Niet dat ik er wakker van lig. Zonder jouw postje had ik er vandaag wéeral niet meer aan gedacht. 😂
Dat heb je weer netjes gedaan.
Ik ben intussen 20 jaar uit het werk. De organisatie waar ik voor werkte, is volledig gereorganiseerd en ik ken er niemand meer. Zo gaan die dingen, we zijn allemaal maar kleine radertjes in het systeem, die snel vervangen en vergeten zijn.
Een potje koffie smaakt altijd!
Hij zal echt wel getwijfeld hebben.. als ie zo opgelucht was te horen dat ie echt weer mag rijden.. mooi dat je ‘m zolang hebt kunnen helpen.
Mooi stadhuis.. hier is het voor administratieve taken toch meer de deelgemeentekantoren die je bezoekt.. die zijn allemaal zo’n beetje hetzelfde.. saai. 🙂
Ik geniet altijd weer van je verhalen en hoe jij mensen bijstaat en helpt Suske. Wat zal je buurman blij met je zijn. Het nieuwe gemeentehuis ziet er goed uit. Mooi en licht!
Je hebt ook een heel lang werk verleden achter de rug, dus er veranderd er ook een hoop.
Love As always
Dimario
Dat stadhuis ziet er mooi en modern uit nu. Buurman blij en jij ook…
Zo gaat dat, men is snel vergeten op het werk. Daar gaat het ook gewoon door.
mogge Suske
de buurman weer blij
en jij weer bij , wat betreft het gemeentehuis
geniet de dag
Alles en iedereen is vervangbaar. Dat merk je helemaal als je er al even uit bent. En alles veranderd. Dat is niet te stoppen.
ongelooflijk hoe snel dingen verdwijnen. Vroeger kende ik ook iedereen op het werk en nu bijna niemand meer. Misschien met het ouder worden?