The Fragility of Black Marriage: Class, Secrets, and the Night at Piney Woods Inn
**Memory is a queer creature**, an eccentric curator of our past. I still look back on that night—a pivotal moment in our **marriage and relationship history**—though not as often as I once did. How long can you live with your face twisted over your shoulder, dwelling on **regret and lost time**? No matter what people may say about **failed relationships**, this was not a failure to remember. I’m not sure it is a failure at all.
When I say that I visit the **Piney Woods Inn** in my waking dreams, I’m not being defensive; it’s the truth of **human nature and emotional intimacy**. Like Aretha Franklin sang, *A woman’s only human… She’s flesh and blood, just like her man.* My deepest regret is how hard we argued that night over **family secrets and parental legacy**. We had fought harder during our **dating and courtship phase** when we were “playing at love,” but those were standard **relationship conflicts**. At the Piney Woods, we tangled about **generational history**, and there is no fair fight to be waged about the past.
Roy called out “November 17,” a date that stopped time. When he left with the ice bucket, I sought **relationship advice** from Andre, who talked me down with his usual **emotional intelligence**. “If you lose it every time he tries to come clean, you’re encouraging to lie,” he warned. It was a lesson in **trust and transparency in marriage**.
When Roy returned, our **conflict resolution** was silent but sweet. He held the ice bucket like a bouquet of roses. However, the tension of **social class and wealth disparity** remained. “You have this perfect family,” he said. “Your father is a millionaire.”
I had to remind him of our **middle-class roots** in **Cascade Heights**. Before the Minute Maid deal, we were a standard **African American family**—no trust funds, just two parents with **higher education degrees** and decent jobs. But to Roy, I was a “rich man’s daughter.” Whether it’s **nouveau riche** or **generational wealth**, any kind of rich looks different when you come from nothing.
We discussed the **complexities of Black marriage** and being “equally yoked,” a term my mother used to describe **relationship compatibility**. She warned me that Roy and I came from two separate realities. To bridge the gap, I shared a secret about my own family: my mother was my father’s mistress before they married.
“Sometimes when you like where you end up, you don’t care how you got there,” Roy said, reflecting on **the ethics of love and deception**. But I disagreed. The journey matters. **I never want to be grateful for being deceived.**
That night, I believed our marriage was a **fine-spun tapestry**—fragile but fixable. We were young, “buzzed” on cocktails and **physical chemistry**, unaware of the **premonition of tragedy** lurking. I felt blessed in the old-fashioned sense, finding someone whose smell I enjoyed, unaware that our **family planning** dreams and “our kid” would soon be overshadowed by a **wrongful conviction and the legal system**.
I was still awake when the door burst open. The official report says the clerk handed over the key, but I know the truth: they kicked it in.
## **The Ethics of Love: Navigating Marriage Secrets, Infidelity, and Generational Truths**
There was no physical evidence of me in those old wedding photos, yet I was there—a hidden variable in the frame, tucked behind my mother’s yellow chrysanthemum bouquet. It was a moment of **family legacy** defined by a secret. When I shared this with Roy, his reaction was a mix of shock and a “low whistle.” He couldn’t believe “Mr. D” or Gloria had such a complicated **relationship history**.
“Don’t talk about my mama,” I warned, setting a boundary often discussed in **marriage counseling**: respecting parental boundaries. I admitted there was something to hold against my father; Gloria revealed he hadn’t disclosed his previous **marital status** until they had been dating for a month.
She told me this when I was eighteen, as I was moving out of **Howard University**—a premier **HBCU**—following a messy breakup. As we packed, my mother offered a profound piece of **relationship advice**: “Love is the enemy of sound judgment.” She spoke to me as one woman to another, revealing the “obligations” my father had when they met. We swore ourselves to a **confidentiality agreement** of the heart, a secret I had never betrayed until that night.
“A month isn’t long; she could have walked away,” Roy argued, looking at the **legal and ethical implications** of the choice. But according to Gloria, she was already “irreversibly in love.” Roy joked about the “warranty” being up after thirty days, but the underlying theme was serious: the **psychology of attraction** and the “One” myth.
“Sometimes when you like where you end up, you don’t care how you got there,” Roy said, touching on the philosophy of **situational ethics**. But I stood firm on the importance of **transparency and trust in relationships**. The journey matters. I never want to feel grateful for being deceived or find value in **dishonesty within a marriage**.
Roy countered with a “2.0” perspective on **lineage and existence**: if my father hadn’t hidden the truth, I wouldn’t exist, and our own **partnership** wouldn’t be possible. Despite his logic, I insisted on a “no secrets” policy for our future. I wanted us to be on the “up-and-up” so our children wouldn’t inherit the burden of **generational trauma** or family deception.
“I’m for real,” I said. “No more secrets. If you’ve got anything else, spill it.”
“I got nothing,” he replied. And with that, we found **reconciliation**, a cycle of “break up to make up” that many couples navigate. At that moment, I viewed our marriage as a **fine-spun tapestry**—a delicate balance of **emotional intimacy** and shared history, unaware of how quickly the threads could be pulled.
## **Breaking the Cycle: Relationship Transparency and the Legacy of “Irreversible Love“**
In the quiet of our room, I revealed a secret that redefined our **family legacy**. Looking at old photos, there is no outward evidence of me, yet I am there—a hidden variable tucked behind my mother’s yellow chrysanthemum bouquet. When I shared the truth with Roy, his reaction was a mix of shock and a “low whistle.” He couldn’t believe “Mr. D” or Gloria had such a complicated **relationship history** involving hidden **marital status**.
“Don’t talk about my mama,” I warned, establishing a firm boundary—a concept often central to **marriage counseling and conflict resolution**. I admitted there was a grievance to hold: my father didn’t disclose he was married until they had been dating for a full month.
My mother explained this to me when I was eighteen, just as I was leaving **Howard University**—the prestigious **HBCU**—after a painful **breakup and messy love affair**. As we sealed cardboard cartons, she offered a profound piece of **relationship advice**: “Love is the enemy of sound judgment.” This was the first time she spoke to me with **emotional intelligence**, woman-to-woman. We entered a silent **confidentiality agreement**, a secret I hadn’t betrayed until this moment of **marital intimacy**.
“A month isn’t long; she could have walked away,” Roy argued, focusing on the **ethics of dating** and personal choice. But according to Gloria, she was already “irreversibly in love.” Roy joked about a “thirty-day warranty,” but the conversation touched on the deeper **psychology of attraction** and the search for “The One.”
“Sometimes when you like where you end up, you don’t care how you got there,” Roy said, echoing a philosophy of **situational ethics**. But I stood firm on the necessity of **honesty and transparency in relationships**. To me, the journey matters. I refused to accept the idea that **deception in marriage** could ever be “for one’s own good.”
Roy countered with a “2.0” perspective on **lineage and existence**: if my father hadn’t hidden his situation, our current **partnership and marriage** wouldn’t exist. Despite his logic, I insisted on a “no secrets” policy for our future. I wanted our bond to be built on **trust and integrity** so our children wouldn’t inherit the burden of **generational secrets** or family lies.
“I’m for real,” I said. “No more secrets. If you’ve got anything else, spill it.”
“I got nothing,” he replied. And with that, we found **emotional reconciliation**. We were caught in that “break up to make up” cycle, viewing our marriage as a **fine-spun tapestry** of shared history—fragile, yet seemingly fixable through **open communication**.
## **Marriage Longevity and the Premonition of Loss: Building a Future on a “Fine-Spun Tapestry”**
“I don’t want our kid to inherit all of our secrets,” I insisted. At that moment, the conversation shifted from past grievances to **future family planning**. Roy’s reaction was electric; he pumped his fist in the air, fixated on those two words: *“our kid.”* Though I told him to stop being silly, the weight of **parental responsibility** and **generational legacy** hung in the air. We made a pact for **radical honesty in marriage**—no more secrets, just the truth.
With that, we found **emotional reconciliation**, falling back into the familiar “break up to make up” cycle that defines many **modern relationships**. I wondered then if this was our permanent pattern—to grow old together through a constant loop of accusation and forgiveness. At that time, my definition of **forever and commitment** was idealistic. In the Piney Woods, I viewed our marriage as a “fine-spun tapestry”—beautiful and silken, yet inherently fragile and prone to tearing.
We climbed into bed, a bit buzzed from our DIY cocktails, entering a state of **physical and emotional intimacy**. As I traced the lines of his face, I compared our bond to the **marriages of our parents**. Their unions were made of “durable cloth,” like burlap and twine—less refined than ours, perhaps, but built for **long-term resilience**. We felt a sense of superiority in our “rented room of our own,” enjoying the sophisticated braid of our affection. Looking back now, that sense of pride brings a heat of shame to my face.
I didn’t realize then that the human body often experiences a **premonition of grief** before the mind catches up. When my eyes filled with tears, I dismissed it as an unpredictable surge of **emotional health** issues or simple allergies. I thought of Roy’s bravery—how he once wrestled a robber to the ground—and let the tears fall, blaming an “eyelash gone rogue.” On that night in **Eloe**, I mistook this tightening of the throat for **passion and desire**, rather than a warning of the tragedy to come.
Because we hadn’t planned on a hotel stay, I hadn’t packed **luxury lingerie**, opting instead for a simple white slip. Roy’s voice caught as he said he loved me, a moment of profound **romantic connection**. In our youth and innocence, we believed this overwhelming feeling was merely the abundance of love. We were sitting in a space of “restful affection,” full of **possibility and hope**, completely unaware that our lives were about to be irrevocably altered by the **legal system and external forces**.
## **The Weight of Expectation: Reproductive Rights, Marital Bliss, and the End of Innocence**
In that moment, our desire was a thing we enjoyed in abundance. We were in that “restful affection” state—a phase of **emotional intimacy** that felt full of endless possibility. As I sat up, inhaling the scents of the day and Roy’s own personal chemistry, I reflected on my **marriage and happiness**. I felt “lucky,” but not in the superficial way described in **lifestyle magazines** that lament the “shortage of eligible men.” I wasn’t just checking boxes on a list of **relationship goals**; I felt blessed in the most primal sense: finding a partner whose very scent felt like home.
Did we love so forcefully because of a subconscious **premonition of loss**? There was a “furious bell” from the future ringing an alarm we couldn’t quite hear. A subtle warning made me reach for my slip to cover myself, while Roy pinned me to his side in his sleep. We were existing in a fragile state of **marital bliss**, unaware that our **civil rights** and safety were minutes away from being shattered.
As I lay there, my mind turned toward **family planning and motherhood**. I imagined the biological process—an eager clump of cells dividing, the beginning of **pregnancy and embryonic development**—until Roy and I became parents and our own parents became grandparents. I found myself questioning if motherhood is truly optional for women in **committed relationships**, or if it is a societal “check” that eventually comes due.
I recalled my time at a **literacy organization**, where the pressure of **racial uplift and demographics** was placed on my shoulders. My supervisor had urged me to “save the race” by having children, framing **reproductive choices** as a duty to one’s people. This wasn’t about whether I wanted to be a mother; it was the heavy realization of **social expectations** and the “debt” of being a “successful” woman in a **modern marriage**.
While Roy slept with the confidence of a man who felt safe, I closed my eyes with deep trepidation. I was still awake when the world changed. The **police report** claims the door was opened with a key in a “civilized manner,” but I know the truth: they kicked it in. In an instant, our **legal rights** and our future were thrown into the hands of a system that cares little for the truth.
The study of Talmud – requires recognition that these legal texts – both layered and exceptionally dense, which requires the skills to “read between the lines”. Have sat on explaining how Tannaim middot derive the intent of halachic precedents within the halachic portions of the Talmud. In the Aggadic portions of the Talmud and Midrashim a completely different set of middot define the k’vanna of prophetic mussar which the Aggadic portions of the Talmud explore.
קידושין (משנה תורה) סוגיה ב – אב משנה
The study of Talmud, a discipline which compares and contrasts different sets of logical middot. Upon this fundamental יסוד defines both T’NaCH and Talmudic common law systems. So far this week have contrasted how foreign alien Goyim read their scriptures; exposing how completely different Goyim view and understand their scriptures as “the word of God” as opposed to the vastly inferior idea of “word of Man”.
The Talmud and T’NaCH as judicial common law, has a vast gulf separation between Xtian fiction and Islamic poetry literature which both cultures declare as “sacred scripture”. Jewish common law never comes “from Heaven” as does Goyim scripture avoda zara. T’NaCH prophets with their Holy Writings (Gemara) commentaries examine how mussar defines the k’vanna of the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the bnai brit hearts. Aggadah together with its Midrashic reference sources, both based upon the T’NaCH; how prophetic mussar transforms rote halachic ritualism unto Avot time-oriented commandments of the Torah which require k’vanna.
The halachic portions of the Talmud make a משנה תורה-common law-legislative review employing halachot as precedents to re-interpret the language of the Sanhedrin courtroom judicial rulings codified within the 6 Orders of the Mishna. The righteous pursuit of justice defines “Faith” as the definition of Talmudic scholarship. A Grand Canyon separation between how Goyim worship their “word of God scriptures”.
Therefore for modern day Jews, struggling with assimilation to the dominant Goyim cultures and customs, and perhaps intermarried with alien Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, learning Talmud requires tremendous patience because it requires stepping outside the box of Greek deductive logic, freeing their minds from the “Word of God” cage Zoology; sinful Man condemned to Hell but either saved by a fictional messiah or warned in Arabic by some last prophet – Arabs being the last people on this Earth to receive their warning prophet.
The Framers of the Talmud already lived in g’lut/exile. There vision: to establish the Model of a Sanhedrin judicial court system which would serve as the basis, the foundation – for the time when Jews fought successful wars and reconquered our banished homelands from Goyim occupiers. Both the Mishna and the Gemara/Talmud – post disaster Bar Kokhba revolt against Roman rule (132–136 CE); post 70 CE destruction of Herod Temple ‘fairy-tale nostalgia’.
The prophet Natan’s mussar rejected king David’s assimilated fantacy to build a “House of Cedar” for God avoda zara; not because that David had “blood on his hands” – Israel anointed him king to fight their wars! The Talmud defines avoda zara as A) assimilation and B) intermarriage. Av tuma avoda zara defines “blood on his hands”, according to how the Talmud understands the 2nd Sinai commandment.
Grasping the layered nature of both T’NaCH and Talmudic common law essentially requires stepping away from the skewed perspectives of foreign cultures and customs wherein g’lut Jewry lives. T’NaCH and Talmudic common law endeavors to shape and define Jewish (chosen Cohen people) culture, customs and practices which maintains the integral Jewish identity “drop” which has fallen into the far larger ocean of Goyim societies and civilizations – all of which reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – to this very day.
The Siddur shapes the 6 “Orders” of the Mishna – words within words/רמז. The כלל always applies in Talmudic scholarship: First Order, then Speed. Scholarship must first discern which set of basic middot define the substance of a particular Gemara sugya. The first two sugyot rely heavily upon rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט middah to determine that a young child not “acquired” through קידושין through כספ שטר וביאה; this the second sugya excludes (קמ”ל) chuppa as the first sugya excluded small children. Middot function as the critical most important building blocks upon which פרדס inductive logic stands. Just that simple, no fancy dance’n. Yet the Reshonim commentaries virtually all failed to acknowledge this most essential top-priority of Talmudic transcription of Oral Torah 13 middot & Tannaim middot — unto the “written word” of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law!
The righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which strives to restore fair compensation of damages inflicted simply does not exist in Goyim avoda zara which defines faith as belief in some theologically established creed dictated belief system which “define” their Gods. T’NaCH and Talmud teach: defining the nature of the Gods beyond the Human “pay scale”. In short: the theology of Monotheism (daughter religions), an utter Torah abomination due to the arrogance of the Yatzir Ha’Raw, which prioritizes the worship of some newly – theologically created – God, over & above the righteous pursuit of justice among and between any given set of people/nations as the meaning & definition of faith.
The righteous pursuit of justice – “Words of Man” and not “words of God”. The Torah commandment to remember the slavery of Egypt, best summarized by the corrupt court of Par’o whose command withheld the essential straw required to make bricks and whose Court condemned Israelites for their failure to meet Par’o quota tale of production; learned in conjunction with Yitro’s mussar rebuke to Moshe Rabbeinu when he alone judged the disputes over damages between the Jewish people who came out of Egypt. Israel did not come out of Egypt to worship the “word of God”, but rather to physically invade conquer Canaan and rule this land with righteous judicial justice.
Torah “faith” established a completely different judicial set of priorities based upon the Tower of Babel. The latter understood as the critical mussar which addresses: How does a human civilization collapse? The answer: ‘Diverse languages’, a טיפש פשט ignorance of Torah prophetic mussar. Rather a conflict of interests wherein Man despises contractual agreements made. Herein understands the mussar of ‘diverse languages’.
For example: the modern Torah oath “Never Again”. Jews cannot dictate that we shall “Never Again” rule our homelands with a Herod like injustice. Rather, that Europeans societies in particular shall “Never Again” decide their “Jewish Problem” with their own unilateral dictates. Hence Israelis reject UN Resolutions 242, 338, 446, 2334 etc etc etc. European and post ’48 and ’67 Arabs have no ‘Fear of Heaven’. The latter repeatedly sought to complete the Nazi genocide of the Jews across the Middle East. Both corrupt religions of avoda zara have permanently destroyed their “Good Name Reputations”; on par and similar to how the nations of Canaan equally destroyed their “Good Name Reputations” through their criminal judicial injustice. Therefore the idea of “Fear of Heaven”, stands upon the foundation of the collapse of the Tower of Babel Torah prophetic mussar rebuke.
With this summation, shall now examine – based upon the midda רבוי מיעט of פרט – בראשית כג:יג, and how a precedent search comparison defines the k’vanna of the exclusion of Chuppah which this sugya currently addresses. The study of law, not a religious belief system but rather a ‘be here now’ application of prophetic mussar to Jewish day to day lives throughout the generations, times, and Eras. The rabbis of Conservative/Historical Judaism missed this most basic of fundamental, on par with off the דרך Orthodox rabbinic Judaism which fails to educate in Yeshiva the difference between common law from statute law. Each generation of Jews living compares to a new floor in the construction of the Jewish civilization which contrasts with the Tower of Babel collapse — as exemplified by the recent Fall of the Nazi, French, British, and USSR empires.
The sugya of Parshat חיי שרה – כג: א-כ. Learning in context perhaps describes rabbi Yishmael’s midda of פרט כלל או כלל פרט. Bottom line: the different middot systems of Torah and rabbinic common law compare to the straw required to make brick in Egypt. Rav Nemuraskii repeatedly emphasized: if the foundation cracked, then the entire building must come down. The statute law codes made by the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch serve as examples of a cracked foundation; in no way, shape, manner, or form do they qualify as “Oral Torah”.
The years of the life of Sarah, our mother, duplicates the number of Republics within the Persian empire. The king Cyrus the Great ordered the construction of the 2nd assimilated Jewish Cathedral as the basis of the restoration of the Jewish return to Judea. By stark contrast the rabbis of the Talmud prioritized Sanhedrin rule as the basis of the restoration of the Jewish return to Judea. The Shomronim\Canaani, Tzeddukim, Karaim, Rambam all invalidated the dedication of the lights of Chanukkah – the miracle of the restoration of Jewish National Sanhedrin Legislative Review Independence. The 13 Oral Torah Horev middot and Tannaim halachic middot “building-blocks”, by absolute juxtaposition – opposition: sanctify and validate the k’vanna of the mitzva to light the lights of Chanukkah to advertise the miracle of Jewish National Freedom which restores Sanhedrin common law Legislative Review Independence.
The acquisition of burial land for Sarah our mother, serves as an eternal building block foundation upon which stands all generations of Israelis building a civilization within the borders of the lands of Canaan. The mitzva of קידושין as both a Torah and Talmudic precedent stands upon this bedrock יסוד.
This opening sugya of חיי שרה directly linked to the two previous פ chapters of Parshat וירא which address Akadat Yitzak and the family of Rivka our mother. The Akadah established Yitzak as the chosen heir of the Cohen brit seed of Avraham as establish at the oath brit alliance – brit between the pieces. The dedication of Yitzak, placed upon the altar, not some barbeque unto Heaven טיפש פשט made by the Koran in in Surah Al-Saffat (37:102-107), but rather the sanctification of Yitzak as the dedicated father of the chosen Cohen people.
The Koran prioritizes “obedience and submission” as faith to Allah’s Will. The Torah prophetic mussar instructs the dedication, based upon the Torah precedent of korbanot, called “עבודת השם”. The time-oriented commandment Akadah established Yitzak as the father of the chosen seed of Avraham the father of the Cohen people. The Koran “obenience and submission” substitute theology completely changed the Torah Central theme; no different than the NT revisionist history which replaced JeZeus for the Chosen Cohen children of the Avot.
The Akadah represents the logical consequences of the oath sworn between the pieces that the future born chosen seed of Avram would father the Chosen Cohen people. Therefore its not the “sacrifice” which defines the mitzva of עבודת השם – the טיפש פשט reached by the Koran fraud, which fails to address the Central Torah theme – the building of the chosen Cohen people through the מלאכה חכמה שהוא נקרא עבודת השם. Herein defines the k’vanna of this time-oriented prophetic mussar Torah aggada.
All Korbanot dedications stand upon the common law יסוד of the Akada dedication of Yitzak as the chosen seed of Avraham, which like Cain & Esau both rejected as the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham. Therefore the Koran fraud fails to either submit or obey the Torah oath brit cut between the pieces which establishes Avraham as the father of the chosen Cohen people.
ויאמר בי נשבעתי נאם ה’ כי יען אשר עשית את הדבר הזה ולא חשכת את בנך את יחידך כי ברך אברכך והרבה ארבה את זרעך ככוכבי השמים וכחול אשר על שפת הים ורש זרעך את שער איביו.
כלל: Law precedes text. Avoda Zara – statues law, metaphysics, & theology. Aggadah interprets Nevuah, to shape kavvanah; aggada does not to replace halacha. Halakha functions through precedent which re-interpret the language of the Mishna, viewed from a completely different perspective, simply not fossil statute law religious dictates made by cults of personality. The Sanhedrin, not some assimilated foreign Cathedral-Temple, but rather the substance or constitutional heart of Israel. Confusing substance with form amounts to טיפש פשט.
Roman law deductive logic does not replace פרדס inductive common law jurisprudence. Kiddushin does not begin with romance, mysticism, or ritual; it begins with קניין—because marriage in Torah – a legal acquisition of obligations, not a sacrament. Classic Rabbi Akiva: 1) Define the legal object. 2) Exclude improper cases. 3) Only then build the rule. Chuppah does not create kinyan; Chuppah, a consequence of kiddushin, not its cause. Korbanot sanctify avodat Hashem – time-oriented commandments, not appeasement. Torah sanctifies human legislative authority. Torah does not come from Heaven but from Torah sages who have dedicated their tohor middot\Yatzir Ha’Tov within their hearts.
A בנין אב interpretation of the בראשית aggada: דברים ב:לא-ג:ב. The mitzva of קידושין establishes an inheritance just as does the conquering of the nations of Canaan. Translating the שם השם to Golden Calf “word translations” violates: לא תשא את שם השם אלהיך לשוא. Like as similarly does causing ones’ children to embrace and follow the cultures and customs practiced by foreign aliens who reject and despise the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Directly based upon the commandment to totally obliterate the nations of Canaan. The eternal k’vanna inheritance of the mitzva of קידושין.
Placing the blessing upon הר גרזים and the curse upon הר עיבל, the summation of the first two Sinai commandments, upon which hang – like a mountain by a hair – all other Torah commandments.
כי אם אל המקום אשר יבחר ה’ אלהיכם מכל שבטיכם לשום את שמו שם לשכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה
This p’suk understood as Sanhedrin courtroom common law justice and not some cult like building made from wood and stone. The latter compares to making permanent tatoo marks upon ones’ flesh, comparable to eating tuma and treif animal flesh.
The mitzva of קידושין compares to Jews observing Chag Pesach. This Chag not applicable to Goyim anymore than קידושין. The removal of חמץ – the destruction of avoda zara within our hearts through the dedication of the Divine Name האל. Impossible to become tohor by entering a mikva while holding a dead rat; cannot accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai while worshipping alien Gods. In like manner justice depends upon wisdom, not what a person personally believes. Israel requires righteous judicial justice-cities of refuge. Synagogues simply icing on the cake. Xtianity and Islam directly compare to the מיעט of עמוני ומואבי, excluded from the Jewish people.
As a man has an obligation to honor and build the dignity of his wife and children, this obligation extends to giving tzedakah to the poor, widows, orphans etc among our bnai brit extended family. Why do “strangers”, especially the poor or distressed merit such respect? Because poverty does not prevent Jews from doing mitzvot. Even Moshe Rabbeinu himself excluded from entering the land due to mocking the poor and weak of Torah faith among our people; when Moshe’s satire challenged, if he or Aaron, bring water out of the rock. Comparable to plagues which afflicted Egypt. This error, it forgets the humility of Sinai; wherein the Torah reveals a local god rather than a Great monotheistic Universal God.
A NaCH precedent: ישעיה יז:א-יח:ז. Hear the mussar of our prophet, the Torah curse of the Tower of Babel applies equally to all man-kind, including the nation of Israel. Who endures g’lut on multiple occasions consequent to our pride and arrogance; tuma middot which our Yatzir Ha’Raw breaths from within our hearts…