I would like to go through the entire Oral and Written Law along with the basic Rishonim and Achronim. But that takes a lot of time. So I thought to share the burden. That is if people would oblige me, I would like them to build a house that would be devoted just to learning Torah and Ethics.
Take for example Tennessee. Just simply put in town a simple building that would have only the Oral and written Torah and books of straight Torah Ethics.
That means the Old Testament, and the Two Talmuds. Torah ethics is what is called Musar, and it is a well known cannon.


There are so  many cults that use Torah to hide their devious and highly destructive intentions that makes this hard to understand why it is a good thing. But I know that it is possible to base a  good and wholesome community solely around this basic building that is devoted to learning Torah.

In Sanhedrin 63, the Talmud considered that "Don't eat on the blood" לא תאכלו על הדםis a general prohibition that includes lots of subcategories. One of the things is the rebellious son בן סורה ומורהץ.
[The reasoning here is that the rebellious son has a few conditions he has to fulfill  and one is a large amount of eating raw meat and drinking something like a gallon of wine.]
But the Talmud right there says we don't give lashes for any prohibition that includes more than one subcategory.

So the question my learning partner asked was. "Then what is the prohibition?"
I answered without thinking "Don't eat on the blood" לא תאכלו על הדם. But that is obviously wrong.
He said there is no prohibition. It is just one of those things that the Torah gives a punishment for without telling you why what he did is wrong or what warning to give to him.

But Tosphot does seem to think the prohibition does come from that verse and then asks on it but we don't give lashes for a prohibition that might lead to the death penalty.  So I was not going to write about this today because it is still unclear. In any case I changed my mind and thought that this still might be interesting to people.


appendix
the general rule is even if there is a verse in the torah which gives a punishment, yo cant punush unless it also says a verse to forbid.

I have thought for a long time if you are learning, you don't need to interrupt for kadish and Kedusha.
This was because I learned in (Tur טור ארח חיים laws of Suka תר''ם) the Beit Yosef who brings down this idea that one who is involved in one mitzvah does not have to interpret for another mitzvah even when he can easily do both.
I found some support for this idea in the Gra that when one is learning Torah he can interrupt to do a mitzvah that no one else can do--but he does not have to. [See the Mishna in Peah]


For the general public I want to explain what I mean here:
In general, a person that is involved in one mitzvah is not required to do another mitzvah.
For example if a person gets married, then he and the groups of friends that are there to make merry are not required to sit in a suka for the whole seven days of marriage festivity [according to the Rambam.]
Another principle is learning Torah is a mitzvah. Torah in this context means the Old Testament or the Talmud.When one is learning Torah, he is allowed to stop to do another mitzvah, but he does not have to.{Gra}. Thus in a synagogue when people get up to say kaddish or kedusha if you are learning, you don't have to answer. All the more so since this usually happens after the time for prayer which is from dawn until 4 hours later.  After that only if one had an unforeseen emergency can he pray until noon. Other than that the pray (blessings in vain) and one is not even allowed to answer Amen.

This came up because of my learning partner who often has to interrupt to answer, and I told him he does not have to answer.

The truth be told there is a much better support for this idea. It is in the Talmud Shavuot pg 43 and 43b with the whole idea there of the "penny of Rav Joseph". [Pruta shel Rav Joseph]. That is when one is in possession of  a lost object, he is not obligated to give a penny to a poor person because he has to watch the object. And Tosphot explains there that even Raba does not disagree with this. Rather he says that just because a poor person might come, we do not say that he is a guard that is paid. The reason is a poor person might not come. So we see everyone agrees העוסק המצווה פטור מן המצווה one involved in one mitzvah does not have to stop in order to do another mitzvah even if the second mitzvah is much more important and even if not doing it involves a prohibition of לא תתעלם

 Now I am Jewish and prefer the Oral and Written Law [the Old Testament and the Talmud] as a working system.

I should mention that a lot of the  work that goes into the Talmud is because we assume the Law of God is meant to be obeyed and that it is self consistent. So ironing out the difficulties is important--it is not just an intellectual exercise but it comes from the fact that we Jews are interested in obeying the word of God.

So what I have suggested is an idea based on Hobbes. You a  government that is allotted only certain powers [as the US Constitution was originally conceived] and within that context there is a voluntary  area of people that accept on themselves to keep the Law of God.]

Is "Don"t serve false gods" a prohibition that includes many sub categories? I mean take the verse לא תעבדם "Don't serve other gods." That seems very specific.

"Don't eat on the blood"לא תאכל על הדם is used for everything except the kitchen sink.
For example the rebellious son. We know the punishment is stoning but where is the prohibition? We use, "Don't eat on the blood." Prohibition on blood from a living animal? Dito. You have a whole list.

So the question raised by my learning partner is why in Sanhedrin 63 is "Don't serve idols" considered to contain many sub categories? It does not seem similar at all.



One thing to consider here is that Rashi says this particular "Don't serve" is not the same one as for regular idolatry. The regular one is in the Ten Commandments. The one the Talmud here is dealing with is in Mishpatim [circa Exodus 30] talking about when the Jewish people enter the Land of Canaan not to serve the gods they find there. This might help someway, but I am not sure of how.

The thing which makes it hard to stick up for the Talmud is Talmudic scholars that are demons. תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים The Talmud itself deals with this problem and it in fact even comes up in the Mishna. But after that it is largely forgotten. I imagine because it was not much of a problem during the Middle Ages. During the Middle Ages  to get to be called a Talmudic scholar was so difficult that the process automatically weeded out the bad apples [sorry for the mixed metaphor.]


The best way around this problem is thus to go to any one of the basic set of straight Lithuanian  yeshivas--the three in Brooklyn, NY. (Mirrer, Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat), or the ones in Israel Ponovitch, Brisk {and many others in Israel built along the same lines, e.g., Tifrach, Silverman's Yeshivat HaGra in the Old City, etc.}


One reason why it is important to avoid the Dark Side teachers of Torah is because they teach Torah  from the Dark Side.
In summary:  avoid Talmudic scholars that are demons and also the Torah of the Sitra Achra [Dark Side].

Power, money, politics should  to be considered as meaningless. And the more people get into his teachings the more these things lose their significance.

So what to take out of all this is that there is nothing wrong with loving heroes. Everyone love heroes and Jewish people are no different in this regard. The point is to choose your heroes wisely.

What is happening in Renaissance Music is you have the basic song. But what the author does is change the chord of as many notes as he can from what you would think the chord is supposed to be to something else. This is different from Bach. Bach many times makes it a point to change the actual key as often as possible and as soon as possible. That is why it is hard to sing along with Bach. But in the Renaissance, the author leaves the song intact, and changes only the chords. This idea started during the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages also had a few characteristic chords but that is a different topic.
Bach had a few ways to change the chord. Mainly to go to the dominant of the next key he is trying to get to. E.g. he is in C major and wants to go to D major. He will thus go  to A major and then to D.
[This does not work for half steps. But it does work for major or minor keys. I.e. in this way if he is in C major he can go to D Major or D minor.(But not D flat major or minor.)]

 He will also revolve around a certain note like they did in the Renaissance.
I have not really been able to use these ideas for myself, but I thought in case there are talented people out there that might find this useful I thought I should let them know.

[If I could I would share my own music with people, but I have not been very successful in finding a way to do that.]