On 16/10/2021 a video was published about the abomination of Kanievsky, in which the foolish, clumsy and warty individual answers the question: Did the Rambam mean that one should study his book "Mishneh Torah" only, without studying the Talmud?

The idolater asks the abomination:

"Another thing, I saw that it is noted that the Rambam wrote his book for Chachamim, not for the Laypeople; however, [...] it was noted that the Rambam himself in his introduction [to Mishneh Torah] writes otherwise. He states [there] that one should study the Written Torah and afterwards read Rambam and understand everything, without the Talmud".

And the abomination replies:

"He doesn't mean without the Talmud at all; he means to know the Halacha in brief, then it will be beneficial to know what's written there and there, but for someone who is an Am Ha'aretz – will not benefit from what he sees".

And the idolater adds:

"It will not help him until he learns the Talmud". Until here are the statements from the short video.

Before we delve into the actual content presented in the video, I want to highlight an astonishing point in my opinion: notice how the idolater accepts the words of the abomination without any thought! That is, even though he is aware that our Rabbi the Rambam writes in his introduction that his book is meant for both the young and the old, and even though he knows well that our Rabbi's book is easy for anyone to understand, he still chooses not to see the truth and jumps to accept the words of the abomination: that studying "Mishneh Torah" without studying the Talmud will not be beneficial – as if this were the absolute truth!

"And now they have not seen light, it is bright in the sky" (Job 37, 21).

***

And now to the essence of the question posed by the idolater and the response of the abomination:

According to the abomination, the book "Mishneh Torah" was written solely for Talmidei Chachamim who wish to know the Halacha in brief, however, for the Amei Ha'aretz it will not help them to study the Rambam until they learn the Talmud. In other words, one should not study the Rambam, as it is only through studying the Talmud that one becomes a "Talmid Chachamim".

One must ask: If the golden language of the Rambam in his book "Mishneh Torah" will not benefit the Amei Ha'aretz, how will the language of the Sages in the Talmud help them? And if they cannot understand the simple, how will they understand the complex and difficult?

In short, the words of the abomination are lies and falsehoods meant to lead the people after the vanity, so that they will continue to dwell in the distorted and corrupt Talmud of the impure Vilna and sink further and further into the darkness of heresy that arises from their understanding of the sages' fables literally, which destroys their souls. And regarding our Rabbi's view on Talmud study, see: "Does the Rambam believe one should learn Talmud?".

I will conclude the introduction with the famous words of our Rabbi in his introduction to "Mishneh Torah":

"And for this reason I have exerted myself, I am Moshe ben Maimon the Sephardic [this emphasis severely chastised the pride of the European heretics, like the mosquito of Titus in his time], and I relied on the blessed Creator, and I meditated on all these books, and I found it appropriate to compile things that clarify all these compositions regarding what is permitted and forbidden, the impure and pure, along with the other laws of the Torah: all in clear language and a short manner, so that the Oral Torah will be entirely organized in the mouths of all [the young and the old] – without question or disassembly, not this one saying thus and that one saying thus, but rather clear close correct things, according to the judgment that will be clarified from all these compositions and interpretations that have been found since the days of our holy Rabbi [Rabbi Yehuda ha'Nasi] until now.

So that all the laws will be known to both the young and the old regarding every Mitzvah and regarding all matters established by the Sages and prophets. And to summarize, so that a person will not need any other compilation in the world regarding the laws of Israel. Rather, this work will be a gathering for the entire Oral Torah, along with the regulations, customs, and decrees established from the days of our Rabbi Moshe until the compilation of the Talmud, and as the Geonim have interpreted to us in all their compilations that they compiled after the Talmud. Therefore, I have called this compilation 'Mishneh Torah' because a person reads from the Written Torah first, and afterwards reads this, and thus knows the entire Oral Torah, without needing to read another book between them".

Next, we will study the response of the Rosh ha'Nahash which is the source of the abomination's words, in which he completely rejects the study of "Mishneh Torah", and his words in the response are rooted in infidelity against the path of truth.

1. The Snake And The Frantic – Found its Kind And Stirred.

As mentioned, the main source on which the European heretics relied to argue that Halacha should not be ruled from Mishneh Torah is the famous response of Rosh ha'Nahash (Asher ben Jehiel, Ashkenaz 1250–1327). In his reply, ha'Nahash mocks our Rabbi: "But he wrote his book as if prophesying from divine word". The Snake comes to condemn the Rambam, yet he is found praising him, and already preceded him in this way and exactly on the same matter – whether one can rule Halachot from "Mishneh Torah", the frantic from Posquières, also came to condemn the Rambam and was found praising him, and this is his wording (in the emendation on our Rabbi's introduction to 'Mishneh Torah'):

"He thought to correct and did not, because he abandoned the path of all the authors who came before him, for they brought evidence for their statements and wrote things in the name of their behalf [...] and now I do not understand why I should go back on my acceptance and observation because of this author's composition. If the one who opposes me is greater than I, then so be it; and if I am greater than him, why should I nullify my opinion because of his [...] this is nothing but 'spirit of excess' [Dan. 5, 4]".

And in the Book of Daniel that verse which the frantic quoted is used for praise and exaltation, see the text there: "All that spirit of excess and knowledge, and understanding; interpreting of dreams and declaring of riddles, and loosing of knots were found in Daniel". And in another place, among the faint shards of truth concealed by the salaried Kapach, he adds: "And a prophecy was already cast from the mouth of the Raavad that was not to his will, for the success of our Rabbi to do something comparable for both the young and the old, and every person at any level can find within it a matter of truth according to his measure, because 'the spirit of excess is in him' as it is said in Daniel, in praise of those who did not obtain this". (Introduction to the Book of the Mitzvot, note 22).

And all this is but that it is good in the eyes of God to bless the Rambam, and divine wind will be upon the Balaams…

Regarding the frantic's words: "And if I am greater than him" etc., they are very far from our Rabbi's traits and the paths of his thought, because our Rabbi did not establish what is truth based on the greatness of the Posek or his exaltation in his own or others' eyes. Rather, "accept the truth from whoever said it" – the words are judged by their content and truthfulness and not by the imaginary superiority of the one who said them; and I have expended on this point in the article: "Who is Greater Than Whom?".

I shifted to examine the words of the frantic from Posquières because the spirit of his words intoxicated the Snake, awaken him up and made him to go down to the ground and write his reply – which, in practice, infidels and rejects the pure Torah Halachot that we received from person to person, from our Rabbi Moshe at Mount Sinai. Now, let us proceed to examine and analyze the Snake's words in his response (The Snake's Q&A, Burrow 31, Den 9).

2. The Answer of the Ancient Serpent (Introduction)

In the answer, there is a story about a small spring into which drawn water (=water drawn by human hands, see Halachot of Mikvaot 4, 4–7) was poured. As a result, water flowed from the spring into a nearby empty Mikveh and filled it with forty se'ah. It was further told that a Posek named "Matzliach" was asked if the Mikveh was Kosher? Matzliach examined Halachot of Mikvaot, mistakenly declared the Mikveh invalid, and the Snake accused Matzliach of not understanding the words of our Rabbi the Rambam (incidentally, I retract what I wrote in the book 'Streams to the Rambam' where I stated that Matzliach was correct in his understanding). However, as we will see below, even the Serpent did not understand our Rabbi's words, and there is almost no connection between the Serpent's reasoning to permit the Mikveh and the Mikveh discussed in Matzliach's question above.

Later we will examine the Snake's words, but one simple Halacha suffices to understand Matzliach's mistake:

"A higher Mikveh that has forty se'ah of valid water, and one fills a vessel and pours into it [into the higher Mikveh] until the water increases, and forty se'ah descend into the lower Mikveh – the lower Mikveh is kosher" (Mishneh Torah, Mikvaot 4, 10). It is clear, all the more so, that drawn water poured into a spring and flowed to a Mikveh does not invalidate the Mikveh.

And there is no need for the exhausting treatise of the Serpent in his answer that we will see below, and besides a bothersome headache for those troubled souls who love to suffer, there is no benefit in the Serpent's answer. Although, the Serpent was correct in the final line, that the Mikveh should indeed be permitted as we saw above, but it is likely that the Serpent decided Matzliach was wrong only to provide evidence for the heretical view of the villains of Ashkenaz, according to which the Halachot of "Mishneh Torah" cannot be understood, and anyone who rules according to them will certainly err.

And why do I assert that the Snake did not truly understand the Halacha and decided that Matzliach was wrong only to uphold his heretical views? Well, there is almost no connection between the Snake's words and the conclusion that the Mikveh is Kosher for immersion. Furthermore, from Rosh ha'Nahash's words the opposite conclusion actually emerges – that the Mikveh is invalid! Meaning, the twisted casuistry of the Snake shows that the Mikveh is invalid, but from his final conclusion, it appears that the Mikveh is valid – such foolishness can only stem from the stupidity of heresy and foreign ideas that have infiltrated his mind, and as I mentioned above: His intention was to undermine "Mishneh Torah", therefore he decided that Matzliach erred and that the Mikveh is Kosher, only that the Snake did not understand why the Mikveh is Kosher, and thus his words are crooked.

3. The Answer of the Ancient Serpent (Part A)

Let us now examine the words of the Ancient Serpent in his answer and we will prove our words, and here is his wording:

"What Rabbi Matzliach wrote, an incident that occurred there where drawn water was thrown into a spring and until the water reached the Mikveh which had nothing in it [=it was an empty Mikveh] and he forbade it. And he said the reasoning: our Sages said: if the drawn water increases until it goes towards the spring, not from the outset [=meaning, they did not permit it from the outset]; yet they [the ones from the incident] are doing so from the outset, in order to dispute his opinion. And furthermore, the Rambam Z"L wrote in chapter 9 of Halachot of Mikvaot: 'One who digs next to a spring, as long as the water comes from the spring, even if it stops and returns and is drawn – it is considered as a spring water; If it stops continuing it is considered as collected water'. And in this situation, how it is done, it certainly stops being continuous; moreover, we need production and continuation, and where is the production and where is the continuation? Thus concludes the wording of [Matzliach's] statements".

So, the words of Matzliach as quoted by the Serpent are unclear and uninteresting. We shall therefore continue to the Snake's own words, which are also convoluted and tangled, but unlike with Matzliach, exposing his folly is a great Mitzvah.

"And he did not conclude well [Matzliach in his conclusion above that the Mikveh is invalid], for it is permitted [the Mikveh being discussed is valid], and even to pour drawn water into a spring [that has] any amount [of water] and to immerse in it. As is taught in the first chapter of Mikvaot: 'A spring with any amount of water that was outnumbered by drawn water is considered as purifying as a Mikveh pond and as purifying as a spring with any amount'. And all the more so in this case, where the waters are drawn to one place, that a spring with any amount and a Mikveh containing forty se'ah are not invalidated by drawn water, even if one pours into it a thousand a very large volume".

According to the Rosh of the Snake, the empty mikveh, into which flowed the drawn water that had been poured into the spring is of a higher level of purity than the spring from which the water flowed, as he says: "And even to pour drawn water into spring [that has] any amount and to immerse in [...] and all the more so in this case". And he is mistaken in this, because the Mikveh being discussed, like any Mikveh, only purifies with forty se'ah, while the spring being discussed purifies with any amount, and so our Rabbi rules (Mikvaot 9, 6): "A spring whose waters are few, and drawn water has been added to it [exactly as in this case] is equal to a Mikveh, that one shall not be purified by the water that is drawn from it, rather by the pooled water which stands in the pond; and it is equal to a spring, which purifies with any amount, for the spring has no measure of its waters, even the smallest amount purifies".

By the way, the Snake's Head quotes the explicit words of the Sages in the Mishna: "A spring with any amount of water that was outnumbered by drawn water is considered as purifying as a Mikveh pond and as purifying as a spring with any amount", and nevertheless he failed to understand that the level of purity of the spring being discussed is greater than the level of purity of the Mikveh...

Let's continue, pay attention, the Snake says: "And a Mikveh that has forty se'ah is not invalidated by drawn water" etc. However, the Halakhic question at hand does not deal at all with a Mikveh that is full of forty se'ah of water! Rather with a Mikveh that is completely empty! As Mitzliach said above: "the water reached the Mikveh which had nothing in it". Likewise, what does the matter of drawn water have to do with the Mikveh being discussed? Since the moment the water was poured into the spring it is no longer considered drawn water, therefore, why does the Snake insist on continuing to call the water that flowed from the spring "drawn water"? And as he writes above: "that a spring with any amount and a Mikveh containing forty se'ah are not invalidated by drawn water" – And is it not the case that water flowing into a Mikveh is not considered drawn water? And If they are still considered as drawn water, as suggested by the Snake, then the discussed Mikveh is indeed invalid, and as Matzliach stated, since drawn water poured into an empty Mikveh invalidates it according to all opinions!

Moreover, it emerges from the words of the Nahash that the Mikveh is invalid. from another perspective, since he writes: "a spring [...] and a Mikveh containing forty se'ah are not invalidated by drawn water". This means that only a Mikveh filled with forty se'ah is not invalidated by drawn water, but an empty Mikveh, like in this case, is invalidated by drawn water! Furthermore, according to the Nahash, the water that flowed is considered drawn water, and from this perspective as well, the Mikveh is invalid, as Matzliach stated!

The Snake's Head also writes above: "All the more so in this case, where the waters are drawn to one place", but what relevance does drawnness have here? The water flowing from the mikveh is not drawn since they are not waters gushing from a spring, but rather water that flows once and stops after a short time. And in other words, from the words of the Snake it appears that the discussed Mikveh is invalid, since it is not about drawnness, but about flowing.

To understand what "drawnness" is, see our Rabbi's words in Halachot of Mikvaot (9, 4): "'One who digs next to a spring, as long as the water comes from the spring, even if it stops and returns and is drawn – it is considered as a spring water". Therefore, the concept of "drawnness" applies only to water that continually gushes from the spring, but in this case, it is not about drawnness at all; rather, it is a one-time flow that completely stops after a short time.

See how many errors Rosh, of the Snake, has in just one paragraph! And this paragraph is the crux of his argument!

***

We will now proceed to the next paragraph of his words, and this is what the Serpent says in the continuation of his response:

"And what he brought from the words of the Rambam Z"L, he did not understand his words. For he [the Rambam] wrote from the Tosefta:

DaTanya: And these are standing waters: as long as the rains fall and the mountains (running) [cascading], the rains cease and the mountains (running) [cascading] – they are like standing waters; [when] they cease to be (running) [cascading] – they are like collected water. One who digs (a pit) by the sea, by the river, or near a tributary, they are like standing waters. One who digs (a pit) by the spring, as long as they come from the spring, even though they stops and returns and is drawn, they are like a spring, which purifies with any amount; [when] they cease to be drawn they are like standing water. [Up to here is the words of the Baraita with errors].

From this Baraita the Rambam Z"L wrote. And he did not speak about the matter of a Mikveh, but about the distinction between collected water and standing water, as we have learned in the first chapter of Mikvaot: Six degrees in Mikvaot" and etc. [end of his words].

This entire tiresome passage that the Serpent wrote is not intended to bring proof to our Rabbi's words that the Mikveh is Kosher, but to refute the words of Matzliach, because Matzliach brought proof from Halachot that are not related to the matter, and as the Serpent writes at the end of the paragraph: "From this Baraita, the Rambam Z"L wrote [those sets of Halachot from which Matzliach brought distorted proofs to invalidate the Mikveh], and he did not speak about the matter of a Mikveh [= those Halachot that our Rabbi rules from the quoted Baraita do not deal with the matter of a Mikveh at all]". And this is correct, because all these Halachot that appear in Halachot of Mikvaot (9, 1–4) indeed do not relate to a Mikveh of forty se'ah at all. And I brought the words of the Snake and explained them only so that we should not mistakenly think that we missed something.

What, then, emerges from the analysis of the response thus far? Well, only in the first paragraph does the Serpent bring proofs from our Rabbi's words that the Mikveh is Kosher, however, there is no real proof in his words that the Mikveh being discussed is indeed Kosher! On the contrary, from his words in the first paragraph it appears that the Mikveh being discussed is actually invalid! As we have shown in the analysis of the first paragraph above. And as mentioned, the correct proof is from the Halacha at the beginning of our words.

3. The Answer of the Ancient Serpent (Part B)

In the second part of the response of deceit, the Snake directly addresses the question: Is it permissible to rule Halacha based on the book "Mishneh Torah"? The Snake brandishes Mitzliach's error as an example of why it is absolutely forbidden to rule Halacha from the "Mishneh Torah"! Before I copy the rest of his response, it is important to say that his words are an insult to human morality, as well as to the intellectual Halachic integrity, and intellect, as the Snake determines based on one mistake that it is forbidden to rule Halacha at all from "Mishneh Torah"!

And according to this conclusion, all the more so it is forbidden to rule Halacha from the Gemara! Since the Gemara is a very difficult text that almost no one does not make mistakes in, and the first to make mistakes in it are the heretics and their descendants, like Rashi the Frenchman (wicked shall rot), who do not know how to study Gemara and it seems to them that the fables are like the literal meanings of the scriptures… The status of the European heretical scribbled interpretations throughout the generations, which were attached to the Vilna edition of heresy, is far worse than that of the Talmud. To say gently that they are horribly defective to the point of causing irreparable damage to thought would be a great compliment to them.

Having said that, let us add and examine the continuation of the words of the Snake, in the two paragraphs below:

And so, err all those who teach instructions from the words of the Rambam and are not knowledgeable with the Mishnah and Gemara to know where he took his words from; they are mistaken in permitting the forbidden and forbidding the permissible. Because he did not do like the other authors who brought evidences for their words and showed the places [that they ruled] where their words are in the Gemara, and from this one can stand on the principle and on the truth. But he wrote his book 'as if prophesying from divine word’, without reason and without evidence. And anyone who read it think he understands it and it is not so, because if he does not understand the Gemara he does not understand anything properly and truthfully, and he will fail in judgment and in instruction. Therefore, a person should not rely on his reading of his book to judge and instruct unless he finds evidence in the Gemara.

And so I heard from a Gedol from Barcelona, who was proficient in the three orders (of the Mishnah), and he said: 'I was astonished by people who have not studied Gemara and read in the books of the Rambam and instruct and judge from his books, thinking they will know them'. Because he said: 'I know myself that in the three orders that I have studied, I understand when I read in his books, but in his books on Halachot of Sacrifices and Seeds, I do not understand anything at all, and I know that it is the same for them in all his books".

From the response of the Snake, it emerges clearly as the sun blazing in a desolate desert that he intended to completely negate the book "Mishneh Torah", and I will prove this with points that will be explained below:

A) Pay attention that the Snake opens his words above with a sweeping and comprehensive negation: "And so, err all those who teach instructions from the words of the Rambam and are not knowledgeable with the Mishnah and Gemara to know where he took his words from, they are mistaken in permitting the forbidden and forbidding the permissible", And in other words, one should not rule based on "Mishneh Torah" unless they are "knowledgeable with the Mishnah and Gemara to know where he took his words from". And how many such people have there been in the last thousand years? How many people have been also knowledgeable in Gemara and also knew from where our Rabbi took his words from? And is it not the case that almost a thousand years and hundreds of interpreters needed to know from where Rabbi derived all his words. In other words, perhaps only one or two in a hundred years are allowed to rule based on "Mishneh Torah"...

And all the other Poskim according to the Snake: "Mistaken in permitting the forbidden and forbidding the permissible"! To such an extent! As if "Mishneh Torah" is a book written in ancient Mandarin for Hebrew and Aramaic speakers! And every intelligent person understands that this is a false and malicious Ashkenazi claim of heresy, the purpose of which is to perpetuate ignorance and folly.

B) The Snake Head further writes: "Because he did not do like the other authors who brought evidences for their words and showed the places [that they ruled] where their words are in the Gemara, and from this one can stand on the principle and on the truth. But he wrote his book 'as if prophesying from divine word’, without reason and without evidence". That is to say, the fact that our Rabbi did not cite the relevant Sugyot beside each Halacha causes it to be impossible to stand on the truth, and necessarily entails that "all those who teach instructions from the words of the Rambam err in permitting the forbidden and forbidding the permissible". In other words: the Snake claimed in practice that our Rabbi distorted and falsified the Halachic ruling of the Talmud! For if our Rabbi had copied the Talmud, the teachers would have stand on the truth – according to the Snake, it turns out that our Rabbi distorted the Halachic truth in the Talmud, and studying the Talmud will remove the lie and restore the truth to its place...

C) Rosh haNahash further writes: "But he wrote his book 'as if prophesying from divine word', without reason and without evidence". The Serpent meant to say that our Rabbi was arrogant and rude, who pretended to be a prophet! In other words, our Rabbi did not write reasons and evidences out of arrogance! It turns out, therefore, that the Nahash undermines the very manner in which Mishneh Torah was composed, he undermines the very righteousness of its birth and existence in the world, and there is no doubt according to his words that if he had the power, he would have removed all of our Rabbi's books from the world and erased his name from the history books.

D) The Nahash further writes: "And anyone who reads it think he understands it and it is not so, because if he does not understand the Gemara he does not understand anything properly and truthfully, and he will fail in judgment and in instruction. Therefore, a person should not rely on his reading of his book to judge and instruct unless he finds evidence in the Gemara". In this passage, the Nahash is practically saying that the book "Mishneh Torah" is a deceptive vision: "And anyone who reads it think he understands it and it is not so"! And how can one say about the precious Halachot of the Oral Torah that they are in fact a deceptive vision? Only heretics are capable of lying like that.

Likewise, in this passage the Nahash returns and emphasizes that whoever rules from Mishneh Torah "will fail in judgment and in instruction", and all his threats stem from the immense anxiety of the Ashkenazi heretics in the face of our Rabbi wisdom and greatness: which sheds light on their heresy and straying which is even worse than that of beasts, and also on the fact that they corrupted the Torah of Moshe and created a new, dark, inferior and impure religion, a disgusting pro-Christian Orthodox religion.

Moreover, his words are a complete delusion! For how can it be conceived that precisely one who rules according to clear-cut Halachot will err in judgment and instruction? And how many heretics and their disrupted descendants have stumbled and failed in understanding the Gemara over the past thousand years?! Is there even one issue that does not have at least ten interpretations? And multitude of interpretations primarily indicates the profound inferiority and big disruptions of the heretics and their descendants! Yet they dare to falsely claim that it is precisely those who study from clear and explicit Halachot who become confused! "Their deeds will not allow them to return to their God, for a spirit of harlotry is within them and they do not know the Lord" (Hosea 5, 4).

And our Rabbi has already addressed this folly, meaning, to the multiplicity of opinions and methods, and his words in the Guide (1, 71) are as follows:

"And you already know that even the Oral Torah, which was traditionally transmitted [from person to person], was not initially written down, as per the well-known command in the nation: 'Things I told you orally you are not permitted to write' [Gittin 60a; Temurah 14b]. And this is the ultimate wisdom in the Torah [=and therefore the Halachot were given orally], as it was a safeguard against what eventually happened, namely, the multiplication of speculations, branching out of methodologies, ambiguous judgments that would occur in the writer's explanation, and forgetfulness that would happen to him, and new disputes that would arise among people, leading to factions and embarrassed in deeds, rather, everything was entrusted to the Great Court, as we explained in our biblical compositions and as indicated by the language of the Torah. And even in the judgments of the Halacha there was concern about committing them to a book accessible to everyone due to the potential harm that eventually occurred" etc.

E) The Snake also writes in his answer: "And so I heard from a Gedol in Barcelona, who was proficient in the three Orders (of the Mishnah) [= The Serpant praised him only because that Sephardic slandered our Rabbi the Rambam], who was proficient in the three orders (of the Mishnah), and he said: 'I was astonished by people who have not studied Gemara and read in the books of the Rambam and instruct and judge from his books, thinking they will know them'. Because he said: 'I know myself that in the three orders that I have studied, I understand when I read in his books, but in his books on Halachot of Sacrifices and Seeds, I do not understand anything at all, and I know that it is the same for them in all his books".

The zigzag Snake supports his claim by a "Gedol in Barcelona" and in doing so, he practically paved the way for all the foolish pierced Sephardic of every generation, instructing them that whoever slanders our Rabbi the Rambam will merit respect among the heretics, similar to how the heretics have already treated the cursed pro-Christian Ramban.

Regarding the core of the matter: It is told of a "Gedol" of Spanish origin who claims as the Snake's, namely, that one should not instruct from the Mishneh Torah without a comprehensive understanding of the relevant Talmudic Sugyot. Note that this "Gedol" himself claims to have studied only three Orders (Festivals, Women, and Damages), and therefore he only understand the Halachot of "Mishneh Torah" related to these three Orders. However, he does not understand at all the Halachot pertaining to the other three Orders (Seeds, Sacrifices, Purity)!

And I cannot understand – how can someone who has studied three Orders of Mishnah and Gemara fail to understand simple Halachot in the Order of Seeds? And what kind of "Gedol" is this who understands nothing about the book of Seeds? Therefore, it seems clear to me that this is another lie and falsehood that the Snake scribbled in his answer, because such a thing is simply inconceivable. Also, note that the "Gedol" from Barcelona practically states that it is forbidden to ever rule Halacha based on Book of Seeds and Book of Purity from "Mishneh Torah", since there are no tractates on these topics in the Babylonian Talmud (except for Blessings and Niddah), meaning there is no way to ever permit halachic rulings from them... And anyone who studies even a little of "Mishneh Torah" will understand how cursed and wicked the Snake and his companions truly are.

By the way, it is clear that the Ashkenazi heretics would never say such a thing about themselves! Their pride would never allow them to claim that they, "the Gedolims and Geonim" understand nothing? This is another reason for the deception by the Serpent regarding that "Gedol from Barcelona". Additionally, the Serpent also trampled over the Sephardic in general, suggesting that even their Gedolim figures are very foolish and do not comprehend written texts... And the pierced Sephardic do not understand the wickedness of the Ashkenazim and even admire them.

And the Serpent's intent in these words is to completely uproot from the Torah of Moshe the book "Mishneh Torah", as he brings evidence that even a "Gedol" understands nothing about the Halachot of Seeds and Sacrifices, and thus it is strictly forbidden to rule Halacha from "Mishneh Torah" without knowledge of the relevant Sugyot from the Babylonian Talmud. And as mentioned, the practical implication is: the nullification of "Mishneh Torah" and the Oral Torah passed down to us by the transmitters of the tradition, as Halacha should not be ruled from "Mishneh Torah" except one or two people in a century, and as the Serpent repeatedly emphasizes and quotes from the "Gedol from Barcelona": "but in his books on Halachot of Sacrifices and Seeds, I do not understand anything at all, and I know that it is the same for them in all his books".

5. The Delusion and Deception of Kapach

Kapach claimed that Rosh haNahash did not intend to forbid ruling from explicit Halachot, but rather only the derivation of reasoning, i.e., to draw similarities from one matter to another using the sophisticated system of principles in "Mishneh Torah", in order to solve new situations that arise over the generations. However, Kapach based this delusion on just two words from the Serpent's above: "Therefore, a person should not rely on his reading of his book to judge and instruct", and here are Kapach's words in the introduction to the Book of Knowledge (page 19):

"The Rosh intended not to instruct on what is not clarified in the Rambam's, and the ruler [=the Halachic Posek] draw similarity from his case to what has been ruled by the Rambam [=concluding from Mishneh Torah to a new situation]. Only from this did the Rosh prevent, but to rule from the Rambam on matters expressly mentioned there [=in his book] when one is not required to draw similarities from one matter to another, the Rosh did never even considered preventing this".

"The Snake did never even considered preventing this"? Really? Was Kapach foolish and biased slave to that degree that he did not understand nothing from the clear and straightforward matters above that cry out to the heavens? Such ignorance in a well-learned man can only stem from greed and blindness by rulership and bribery, meaning, from the corrupt salaries and various grants and compensations he took over the decades.

And just as Kapach chose to focus on the words "to judge and instruct", he could just as easily have focused on the words: "instruct and judge from his books" etc. which appear later and imply instructing from explicit Halachot, as well as judging by drawing similarities, meaning that the Serpent's goal was to prohibit both activities. But however, as mentioned, his greed and pursuit of rulership corrupted his salaried intellect and blinded him from seeing clearly.

Even though the matter is clear to anyone intelligent who has not tainted their thinking with bias, we will further reject Kapach's disgraceful slander, which flatters the Ashkenazim and longs so much for their caress:

A) The serpent wrote: "And so, err all those who teach instructions from the words of the Rambam" etc. The opening word of the sentence, "And so" is meant to add to the aforementioned in the first half of the answer. This means he clearly intends to refute not only those who draw similarities but to broadly and generally refute.

B) Rosh haNahash's phrasing "and so, err all those who teach instructions" is very inclusive, and from it, it's clear to anyone who hasn't taken a bribe that he intends to comprehensively and absolutely disallow ruling and instruction from the "Mishneh Torah", whether the judgments are explicit or derived from drawing similarities.

C) Later in his writings, the Serpent expressly states the reason he forbids ruling from the Rambam, which has nothing to do with Kapach's imaginary distinction between explicit Halacha and drawing similarities, and thus the Serpent's words: "Because he did not do like the other authors who brought evidences for their words and showed the places [that they ruled] where their words are in the Gemara, and from this one can stand on the principle and on the truth. But he wrote his book 'as if prophesying from divine word', without reason and without evidence". Meaning, the Nahash undermines the very manner in which Mishneh Torah was composed, he undermine the very righteousness of its birth and existence in the world, and there is no doubt according to his words that if he had the power, he would have removed all of our Rabbi's books from the world and erased his name from the history books.

D) The Serpent further wrote: "And anyone who reads it think he understands it and it is not so, because if he does not understand the Gemara he does not understand anything properly and truthfully, and he will fail in judgment and in instruction. Therefore, a person should not rely on his reading of his book to judge and instruct unless he finds evidence in the Gemara". And again, the Serpent uses broad and all-encompassing language: "And anyone who reads it", meaning, not only deep study involving analogy but "anyone who reads it", even reading the explicit Halachot will not be understood according to the Serpent without understanding the Gemara. Moreover, from what he said "and will fail in judgment and instruction" it implies in all rulings and instructions, both the explicit and the non-explicit.

E) Also, what Kapach claimed, that the words "to judge and instruct" are limited only to drawing similarities, is not necessary, as the Serpent was not meticulous with his language, like our Rabbi, nor close to it, so one should not be too punctual with his words as if he was a true scholar. And the evidence that nothing should be inferred from this pair of words is the plethora of evidence that completely contradicts Kapach's imaginary conclusion regarding the Serpent's intent.

F) At the end of his answer, the Serpent, as mentioned, speaks of what he heard from a "Gedol" in Barcelona:

"And so I heard from a Gedol in Barcelona, who was proficient in the three Orders (of the Mishnah) [= The Serpant praised him only because that Sephardic slandered our Rabbi the Rambam], who was proficient in the three orders (of the Mishnah), and he said: 'I was astonished by people who have not studied Gemara and read in the books of the Rambam Z”L and instruct and judge from his books, thinking they will know them'. Because he said: 'I know myself that in the three orders that I have studied, I understand when I read in his books, but in his books on Halachot of Sacrifices and Seeds, I do not understand anything in them, and I know that it is the same for them in all his books”.

The meaning of the word “instruct” is that they are instructing Halachot from the explicit Halachot and not necessarily by drawing similarities. And moreover! According to the Serpent, "the Gedol from Barcelona" does not understand anything about Halachot of Sacrifices and Seeds. From this, it can be inferred that he did not understand the explicit Halachot either, not just matters learned by drawing similarities. In other words, the Snake provides a proof for his view from a Sephardic who did not broadly understand all the explicit Halachot, with the aim of establishing that one should definitively not rule Halachot based on Mishneh Torah!

G) Snakey wrote his answer with a tone of dismissal and disdain: "But he wrote his book 'as if prophesying from divine word' [meaning, who is the Sephardic Rambam to dispute the way of the Ashkenazi authors?] without reason and without evidence [is that so? And isn’t it often that our Rabbi combines logical reasons and evidence in his Halachot?] And anyone who reads it think he understands it, but it is not so [as if Mishneh Torah were a book that deceives its readers, leading him to imagine he understands but in fact he is disrupted by it]”. Additionally, in Abu-Yanki’s fabricated lies regarding the "great one from Barcelona," whom, in my opinion, never existed, there is a clear tone of contempt: "But in his books on the laws of Kodashim and Zeraim, I understand nothing of them, and I knew that it is the same in all his books”.

H) There is no doubt that the Serpent was influenced by the frantic disdaining and dismissing perspective mentioned above, as the Serpent's arguments were copied from the words of the frantic brainiac, And thus are his words: "He thought to correct and did not, because he abandoned the path of all the authors who came before him, for they brought evidence for their statements and wrote things in the name of their behalf [...] and now I do not understand why I should go back on my acceptance and observation because of this author's composition". And just as the frantic sought to question the very righteousness of existence of Mishneh Torah with these words, so did the Serpent, who followed in his path.

I) Also Kanievsky, whom we had seen above, also rejected the study of "Mishneh Torah“, stating that anyone who has not studied Gemara "will not benefit from what he sees here”. This means that there is no doubt that the abomination interpreted the words of the Serpent as explained above, meaning that the Serpent intended to reject the book "Mishneh Torah" completely and decisively. However, the abomination was not able to comprehensively reject the book "Mishneh Torah" as Rosh haNahash did, since the path of truth has been gaining momentum in the past several decades – and therefore he had to soften the Serpent's conclusion and suffice with the statement that studying "Mishneh Torah" without comprehensive and deep study of the Gemara "will not benefit" the reader – and that is enough, for whoever studies the Gemara according to the heretic’s way will already drain his soul and disrupt and pollute his intellect, and he will no longer see the truth clearly.

***

In light of all the aforementioned, a big question arises: Why was Kapach so urged as he was and entered into the breach that left scars and scratches? Why didn't he tell the truth: that the Snake intended to completely abolish ruling from the Mishneh Torah, as is really evident from the overwhelming and decisive majority of the Snake's answer – and even if there was a doubt, one should follow the majority of evidence. But clearly, his partnership in the clergy establishment clouded his mind and did not allow him to see the truth clearly, until he disrupts himself to want to believe that the Snake did not entirely reject ruling from the book “Mishneh Torah”.

To me, your servant, the matters seem entirely simple: we have no need to receive "approval" or "permission" from the Snake or the frantic brainiac or any European heretic to rule from Mishneh Torah, and all Kapach's insistence is unnecessary, even degrading and humiliating: why should we strive to get a stamp of approval from the contemptible European heretics? And as far as I'm concerned, all sorts of Gedolim of the toilets can scream day and night that one should not rule from Mishneh Torah, so what?

"Give them according to their deeds, and according to the evil of their iniquity; according to their handiwork pay them, give them their deserts " (Psa. 28, 4).

Our Rabbi explicitly, clearly, and decisively states and rules that it is desirable and even obligatory to rule practically from his book, and to the Talmidei Chachamim who study his words thoroughly, he even instructed that a new situation could be compared to an explicit ruling – and the permission of the man of truth, our Rabbi the Rambam, suffices to permit both things easily. And anyone who disagrees with us disagrees with the Rambam, and anyone who disagrees with the Rambam disagrees with the Sages of the Mishnah and Talmud, and anyone who disagrees with the rulings of the Sages of the Mishnah and Talmud disagrees with the Oral Torah given to us by divine word, and is considered among the heretics – lowering and not elevating.

And anyone whom God has granted the privilege to know the true path of the Rambam and rules Halacha from his book Mishneh Torah, merits walking on the well-paved and straight path, the path of the Sages of the Mishnah and Talmud, the path of truth, justice and integrity. "Who is wise and will understand these things? intelligent, and will know them. For the ways of the LORD are straight, and Tzadikim will walk in them" (Hos.14, 10).