Acclimating to the Akedah Lamb and Limb.

[John D. Brey]

In a concurrent thread (Redeeming the Akedah), a thorny issue has come up that's not easily or smoothly acclimatized to the existing nuances of that examination of the Akedah since the Shelah HaKaddosh claims, in his brilliant Shney Luchot Habrit, that the Passover lamb is the sacrifice of a demonic Egyptian deity? The significance of this claim is in the fact that much Jewish thought parallels the sacrifice of the Passover lamb with Abraham's circumcision, such that the Talmud, with other Jewish writings, claims both bloods are placed on the doorpost at the first Passover. Midrash Rabbah goes so far as to imply that the Passover lamb's blood is a surrogate for, or hearkens back to, the blood of Abraham's circumcision. This is all doubly significant since Isaac's sacrifice, which in the very text of the Akedah is paralleled with the sacrifice of a lamb, is also said to evoke the blood of Abraham's circumcision, which takes place prior to the conception of Isaac, such that lastly, but not yeastly, we come to realize that the lamb of God, aka Shaddai, is first revealed to Abraham at his circumcision which pre-seeds the Akedah:

The first time the word "Shaddai" is used as a name for God is at Abraham's circumcision (when the dalet is first removed from the yod), and the first time the Hebrew word seh -- "lamb" --- is used in relationship to God is at the offering of Isaac, which, the Zoharic sages suggest is presaged at Abraham's circumcision. . . God reveals that he's "Shaddai" when Abraham symbolically offers up his firstborn (circumcision as a ritual offering of the firstborn is taught throughout the Zohar) . . . and then when Abraham is willing to go even further than the symbolic offering of the firstborn (aka the Akedah), God reveals to him that "Shaddai" is the "Lamb of God,” the lamb God Himself will provide:​

​

And Abraham answered [Isaac], "God He will provide Himself the lamb for the burnt offering: `My son'," and they went on two of them together. (Genesis 22:8).​

​

Shaddai: The Lamb of God, p. 3.​

Do you see the problem? If the blood of the Passover lamb is (represents) the blood of an Egyptian demon god, and if that blood parallels Abraham's circumcision blood (ala the Talmud), and Isaac's Akedah blood (Pirke de Rabbi Elieazar), then what on earth are we to make of the blood of the Egyptian demon god (the Passover lamb) when it's supposed to parallel the blood of Abraham (brit milah) and Isaac (the Akedah)? The casual student of the Akedah will simply poo poo the exegetical reasoning of the Shelah HaKaddosh when he compares the Passover lamb with an Egyptian deity. In other words the problem is merely an error in relationship to Rabbi Horowitz (the Shelah HaKaddosh) and his belief that the Passover lamb represents an Egyptian deity.

Unfortunately, the other thread on the Akedah, as well as the one before that, and this one too, is based on the belief that to date no man has plumbed the surface of the Akedah narrative deeper than Rabbi Horowitz. If he claims the Passover lamb represents an Egyptian deity, then there's an intricate web of associations and biblical directives that direct him and us to that valuable conclusion. Which segues back to the thorny issue of trying to make sense of the parallel between Abraham's circumcision, and the sacrifice of Isaac as the lamb of God at the Akedah, in a context where the lamb and the limb are surrogates for a demonic god?



John

 

[dybmh]

much Jewish thought parallels the sacrifice of the Passover lamb with Abraham's circumcision, such that the Talmud, with other Jewish writings

Doubt it.

You made that up.

 

[John D. Brey]

Doubt it.

You made that up.

. . . How much you willing to bet?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Doubt it.

You made that up.

The Israelites took the blood of the covenant of circumcision, and they put (it) upon the lintel of their houses, and when the Holy One, blessed be He, passed over to plague the Egyptians, He saw the blood of the covenant of circumcision upon the lintel of their houses and the blood of the Paschal lamb, He was filled with compassion on Israel, as it is said, “And when I passed by thee, and saw thee weltering in thy (twofold) blood, I said unto the, In they (two fold) blood, live” (Ezek. xvi.6). “In they blood” is not written here, but in “they (twofold) blood,” with twofold blood, the blood of the covenant of circumcision and the blood of the Paschal lamb; therefore it is said, “I said unto thee, In thy (twofold) blood, live; yea, I said unto thee, In they (twofold) blood, live” (ibid.).​

​

Pirke De Rabbi Eliezer, p. 210.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Doubt it.

You made that up.

Why did God protect them through blood? So that He should remember in their favour the blood of Abraham's circumcision. On account of two kinds of blood were Israel redeemed from Egypt ---the blood of the Passover and the blood of circumcision, as it says, And I said unto thee: In thy bloods, live; yea, I said unto thee: In thy bloods, live (Ezek. xvi, 6) --viz, AND STRIKE THE LINTEL ---through the merit of Abraham, AND THE TWO SIDES-POSTS (ib.) ---in the merit of Isaac and Jacob. It was for their merit that He saw the blood and would NOT SUFFER THE DESTROYER, etc. (ib. 23).​

​

Midrash Rabbah Exodus, xvii. 2-3.​

​

AND THE LORD SAID UNTO MOSES AND AARON: THIS IS THE ORDINANCE OF THE PASSOVER, etc. Thereupon they immediately offered themselves for circumcision, and the blood of the Passover mingled with that of circumcision. God took each one, kissed him, and blessed him, as it says: And when I passed by thee, and saw thee wallowing in they blood, etc. (Ezek. xvi, 6). In thy blood live (ib.)---refers to the blood of the Passover; In thy blood live ---this refers to the blood of circumcision.​

​

Midrash Rabbah Exodus, xix, 5.​

John

 

[dybmh]

. . . How much you willing to bet?



John

$52 to the charity of your choice that has an online donation portal.

It needs to show: "the sacrifice of the Passover lamb paralleled with Abraham's circumcision" from the Talmud and at least two other "Jewish writings".

Agreed?

The Israelites took the blood of the covenant of circumcision, and they put (it) upon the lintel of their houses, and when the Holy One, blessed be He, passed over to plague the Egyptians, He saw the blood of the covenant of circumcision upon the lintel of their houses and the blood of the Paschal lamb, He was filled with compassion on Israel, as it is said, “And when I passed by thee, and saw thee weltering in thy (twofold) blood, I said unto the, In they (two fold) blood, live” (Ezek. xvi.6). “In they blood” is not written here, but in “they (twofold) blood,” with twofold blood, the blood of the covenant of circumcision and the blood of the Paschal lamb; therefore it is said, “I said unto thee, In thy (twofold) blood, live; yea, I said unto thee, In they (twofold) blood, live” (ibid.).​

​

Pirke De Rabbi Eliezer, p. 210.​

John

Your missing the claimed parallel to Abraham's circumcision, John. The blood is there, but there is no parallel. That's what's happening in your own mind. Remember, I know your writing, I know how you operate.

$52, charity of your choice. Open ended offer.

(Editted for spelling, and typos)

 

[dybmh]

Why did God protect them through blood? So that He should remember in their favour the blood of Abraham's circumcision. On account of two kinds of blood were Israel redeemed from Egypt ---the blood of the Passover and the blood of circumcision, as it says, And I said unto thee: In thy bloods, live; yea, I said unto thee: In thy bloods, live (Ezek. xvi, 6) --viz, AND STRIKE THE LINTEL ---through the merit of Abraham, AND THE TWO SIDES-POSTS (ib.) ---in the merit of Isaac and Jacob. It was for their merit that He saw the blood and would NOT SUFFER THE DESTROYER, etc. (ib. 23).Midrash Rabbah Exodus, xvii. 2-3.

Missing the parallel.

AND THE LORD SAID UNTO MOSES AND AARON: THIS IS THE ORDINANCE OF THE PASSOVER, etc. Thereupon they immediately offered themselves for circumcision, and the blood of the Passover mingled with that of circumcision. God took each one, kissed him, and blessed him, as it says: And when I passed by thee, and saw thee wallowing in they blood, etc. (Ezek. xvi, 6). In thy blood live (ib.)---refers to the blood of the Passover; In thy blood live ---this refers to the blood of circumcision.

Missing the parallel.

 

[John D. Brey]

Doubt it.

You made that up.

Rabbi Yehudah said, “If so, why blood? For we have learned: White and red and one blended of colors.” 73 He replied, “There were two bloods: one of circumcision and one of the Paschal Lamb. Of circumcision, Compassion; of the Paschal Lamb, Judgment.​

​

The Zohar (The Zohar: Pritzker Edition) (p. 109). Stanford University Press. Kindle Edition.​

​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Missing the parallel.

I wonder how many persons without $52 dollars at stake would be willing to say that the passages from Midrash Rabbah aren't "paralleling" the blood of circumcision with the blood of the Paschal lamb?




John

 

[dybmh]

Rabbi Yehudah said, “If so, why blood? For we have learned: White and red and one blended of colors.” 73 He replied, “There were two bloods: one of circumcision and one of the Paschal Lamb. Of circumcision, Compassion; of the Paschal Lamb, Judgment.​

​

The Zohar (The Zohar: Pritzker Edition) (p. 109). Stanford University Press. Kindle Edition.​

no John no

Dear Sweet-Lord, you are so confused. John, ignoring everything else except for what is in focus for this thread, John, friend, Compassion and Judgement intersect. They absolutely are not parallel. Not at all.

Look:

What is Judgement without Compassion? Judgment - Compassion = Vengeance
What is Compassion without Justice? Compassion - Justice = Obsession

Are you listening? We can go through the process of diagramming what the Zohar is actually saying, and when we do, you'll see for absolute certain that these two are NOT parallel. This is the worst example ever, John.

Justice - Compassion = Vengeance
That ^^ is a tyrant.

Compassion - Justice = Obsession
That ^^ is a stalker.

Compassion and Justice intersect. How do we know? Because they are relying on each other to exist. Bi-junctive. That's an intersection.

I wonder how many persons without $52 dollars at stake would be willing to say that the passages from Midrash Rabbah aren't "paralleling" the blood of circumcision with the blood of the Paschal lamb?

John, truth is not a popularity contest. If it were, Jesus would be a lie. Come on.

The passages are absolutely NOT paralleling the blood of the covenant ( of the covenant, not any circumcision blood from the foreskin will do ) with the blood of the Pascal Lamb ( per Torah Law, not any lamb, but a specific lamb ritually slaughtered ). All they're doing is giving you a glimpse of a Jewish ritual which includes two different types of blood.

The Zohar quote you brought, regardless of how the mistranslation is leading you astray, should be sufficient to reconcile your miscomprehension, IF, big IF, you were not enraptured with an undisclosed and unaccounted for assumption. Assumptions John, undisclosed assumptions, hiding in plain sight? It's how illusions are crafted. "Cherry Picking" John, is an illusion. You cast quite a few illusions in this thread. There is no parallel mentioned in the quotes you provided, but, if you talk about it enough, maybe other people will "read-between-the-lines" and without any other plausible explanation they will assume that you're correct. That's creating an illusion. And, to be honest, I think that there is an illusion happening in your mind, which you're not aware of. A sort of magic trick, that is being cast by you, for you, right in the theater in between your ears, in your mind.

This illusion John, is a massive stumbling block in regard to your reading comprehension of Jewish texts. I would like to dispel this illusion, by showing you how it works. It's not that Christianity is wrong, or false John. It's that you seem to have forgotten one of the core beliefs of Christianity, and, because of this, it is literally impossible for you to shed your Christian outlook and read Jewish texts in the way that the author, a Jewish Rabbi, intended. The author, John, the author gets to choose what they intend to write. If YOU read it and YOU find something in it which the author did not intend, Great! Take credit for it. It's not Jewish, but it still could be a brilliant discovery.

---

OK.

Ready? This is very very simple. This is the cognitive block. I'm going to show it to you.

Christianity asserts there is one and only one way.
Judaism asserts there's always another way if we look again .

​

Do you see it? Do you see that these are opposing. You've forgotten to take into account that you deny any other "way". That means two or more distinct and different "ways", when they are revealed to you in writing, conversation, or otherwise, are automatically assumed to be more or less the same, if they are leading to Salvation, capital "S".

---

Here is the Jewish perspective: "there's always another way".

Let's look again at the Akeidah. Please John, look again?

​

And Abraham lifted up his eyes, [ looking again ] and he saw, and lo! there was a ram, [and] after [that] it was caught in a tree by its horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.​

​

If you're interested in "Jewish Thought" and "Jewish Context", John, Pirkei Avot. The Ethics of our Fathers. Chapter 5, the whole chapter, punctuated by:

Turn it over, and [again] turn it over, [ look again ] for all is therein. And look into it; And become gray and old therein; And do not move away from it, for you have no better portion than it.​

​

Do you like King Solomon? Proverbs, John. This is famous. How can you forget this? Turn, Turn Turn? Each of these is another way.

​

Everything has an appointed season, and there is a time for every matter under the heaven:
A time to give birth and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to uproot that which is planted.​

A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to break and a time to build.​

A time to weep and a time to laugh; a time of wailing and a time of dancing.​

A time to cast stones and a time to gather stones; a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing.​

How about Moses, John? Moses? The one who received the Torah at Sinai? Surely you'll listen to him regarding "Jewish Thought"? Can there be anyone, anywhere, which is a better resource for discerning the over-arching "Jewish Context"?

Deuteronomy 8:6

And you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, to go in His ways, and to fear Him.​

​

Ways, "d'rahchav". Plural, The Lord-God commands: "Hey you, Jews, you, shall, go, in the Lord's WAYS, PLURAL."​

​

"paralleling"

John, it looks parallel to you, because you CANNOT SEE any other path.

Christianity = 1 path
Judaism = Always more than 1 path

John, try to imagine it? In your mind. Imagine you're on the highway. Driving. And me, your buddy, Daniel-Yosef, pulls up next to you. We're driving side by side. We're driving in the same direction. We're driving the same speed. Do you have the image in mind?

​

Question: Are we driving in parallel?​

Christian answer: Of Course. We're going to the same place in the same way. We are parallel.​

​

Question: Are we driving in parallel?​

Jewish answer: Depends. How many roads are there? And more important, what if I need a little snack? What if I need to pee?​

Notice, please. Jewish Thought does not exclude the Christian's "way". It includes it, along with others. It doesn't rush to judgement. It's contemplative, open minded, expansive, with one exception. Jewish Thought does not, in any way, permit making changes to our texts. No inserting words. No removing words. No changing spelling, John. The fuzzy warm feeling in your heart and mind does not permit making changes to our texts and lying about it, Or, hiding it and assuming that no one will catch it because they do not have a way to cross check your quotations.

Sidebar: I have a copy Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer. It's completely different from the one you've brought. I cannot read the entire passage which you brought to verify that it is a proper translation. Nor can I check to see whether they are including the actual reasons that the two different types of blood are being brought together. The assumed "parallel" is an illusion, John. It's an illusion which I think you are crafting unintentionally. You read a little snippet. You copy it into a digital document of some sort. Then you bask in the warm fuzzy feeling that this snippet is producing. Then, when you go back to review your notes, these various snippets form into an illusion of ... the Christian path to salvation. And if you could only convince everyone that Christ is the way ( the one and only way ) you'd be a hero. And, your own beliefs are validated. It would be super rewarding and satisfying. The pursuit, itself, is satisfying, because you're on a mission from God. You're one of the Blues Brothers. That's what I think is happening.

But John, that's not Jewish. Not only are there multiple ways to achieve salvation in our Torah, and the writings of Jewish thinkers, but, those ways, multiple ways, are happening, literally, right now. That's why our sages teach, all Jews have a portion in the world to come. This is not good news for the Christians who for some reason think they need Jews to accept their Christian salvation. We Jews are already saved. It's already happening. We don't need your Jesus, John. Never have, never will. There is no lake of fire and second death for us. But that doesn't mean that your Christ is wrong. Not at all. It just deflates the sales-pitch and puts it back where it should be and should have been all along. Christian salvation is a choice among other choices for Salvation which can be utilized and brought out depending on the circumstances.

 

[dybmh]

parallels the sacrifice of the Passover lamb with Abraham's circumcision

OK, Bro. I've typed a lot. But I don't want to depart without explaining what you're seeing here. You're not wrong, but, you're also ... sorry, super-duper wrong. Hee-hee.

This is complicated, but, I'm committed. I want, in a selfish sort of way, to engage with you in fellowship and conversation regarding some of the deepest and most sublime secrets of the Jewish faith. But I cannot do that, because there is a massive stumbling block in the way. Perhaps, you are not wanting to clear this out of the way. That's fine. If you are able to overlook it, temporarily, for the sake of discussion, that should be sufficient. But you need to be aware of it in order for that to happen. This specific issue, with the two different types of blood used in a ritual, and the illusion of "parallel" is a great specific example to explore. It demonstrates why the stumbling block is a problem. If you can understand what is actually happening in the ritual, I think you will have good reasons to overlook your "my-way-or-the-highway" assumptions when discussion anything, literally anything Jewish.

OK.

Let's begin.

---

In order to understand what's happening with these two different types of blood, they need to be placed in their context. That is step 1. This is a ritual, John. A ritual. Do you know what that means? I don't think you do. There's a reason that Jewish ritual is copied by many people. John, we're the best in the business when it comes to ritual.

Rituals 101. Ready for your first lesson, John?

Lesson #1: Layers.

Yes. Layers. Rituals are constructed from layering and layering and layering and layering. If each component is "parallel", there is no layering. They're identical. They're doing the same exact thing, but more? No. That doesn't work. So, by process of elimination, John. These 2 bloods, are not in parallel, they can't be. That's why I was so certain, NO, Jewish Thought is not describing these two bloods in a ritual in parallel. That wouldn't work. They are intersecting ON Salvation.

Rituals, John, are like making a cake. OK? Cake, then a layer of frosting, then another layer of cake, then another layer of frosting, then another layer of cake, then another layer of frosting. Then add a big layer of frosting, covering the entire cake. Then there's a layer of decorations. Then there's a layer of candles. Then the lights go out. Then the candles are lit. Then we sing. Then the cake is revealed to the individual for which it was intended. Then the singing stops. Then individual makes a wish. Then the individual blows out all the candles with one breath. Then there is applause. Then we eat the cake with the individual who made the wish. Then there are presents. Sound familiar? That. That John, is a ritual. Did you notice all the layers? And this doesn't include the layers of significance embedded in the refinement of the primary ingredient: flour. It's not including the "magic", if such a thing exists, of making a cake. Flour+ Eggs + Sugar + Butter + Liquid, John. No yeast. That's miraculous. Cake, John. Cake. Rituals 101. Got it?

One can see this sort of layering in the Jewish rituals as they are documented in our Torah. We have a whole book on it called Vayikra. Most know it as Leviticus. I know you are aware, I'm typing this any others reading this thread. Christians avoid these verses in Vayikra, John. Because, if they learn them, it's painful. Their Christ is NOT the pascal lamb, not even close. And the Pascal lamb is a lesser offering anyway. But the details are there for those who want to read it. It's possible to go through those rituals and reverse engineer everything that's happening. I am willing to go on that journey with you, John. But we have got to remove this stumbling block which is warping your reading comprehension.

---

Now, the next fundamental concept, which you need should be easy. The earth is round, not flat. The heavens are round not flat. I know it seems obvious. I know, but, it wasn't always this way. It's important, John, because if one is plotting a course on a map, and they forget that the earth is round, they will incorrectly assume ( assumptions, John. assumptions are the enemy for us. ) that traveling in the opposite direction will not get you there. "The map has an edge, If I go away from my target, I'll never get there." But, Judaism doesn't operate that way. Judaism realizes that down, can go up. All you have to do is, keep going. Are you hearing me, John? Jewish Thought asserts, even if you're going down, if you keep going, eventually, you're going to reorient yourself and ascend.

OK.

So. Let's regroup for a moment. John, this is important. The reason you are confused is completely understandable. It's a simple mistake. Anyone can make it. You are seeing "salvation". That's the intended destination. Yes, buddy, yes, you're right about that. It's extremely significant. Yes, friend, you're excellent at recognizing the significance. But the two bloods are not in parallel with each other, I object, strongly. It's the opposite, John. The two bloods cannot be parallel. They are intersecting on the point, the specific, particular, spiritual "destination" ( in quotes because no one is actually traveling anywhere ) of Salvation. Each of the different types of blood are their own, individual, path, to salvation, John. They are taking a different route, but they are converging, intersecting on salvation. X marks the spot. Two lines, intersecting, on a map. An 'X' Got it? You cannot make an 'X' on a map with parallel lines. This notion, of "only one way", Dude, no wonder there are so many Christian denominations. Think about it. There is no way to focus on a specific point. No way. One needs at least two ways in order to mark the spot. Make sense?

Not only are the two bloods taking two different routes to get to the same place, John. They are inverse and intersecting with each other. "Inverse-and-Intersecting". I chose those words very carefully. Not Parallel. No.

The blood of the Pascal Lamb is like taking a sharp right turn.
The blood of the covenant is like taking 3 left turns to go to the same place.

Then, these two paths, vectors, like forces in physics, are layered, John, layered like a cake, and embedded within a whole host of other details.

OK, there's one more important point I'm going to try to make. I don't know if you're ready for this. I'm going to type it anyway. I want to lay this foundation, hoping, praying, that we will someday, John, someday be able to use it.

---

Remember when I reminded you that the earth is round, and the heavens are round. And I mentioned that an important implication of this is that, strangely, going down is a viable path to go up? Remember? OK. It's more than that. Much more. If the earth is round, and the heavens are round, and we are, without making things complicated, on earth, which direction do we need to go to get to heaven? Is it up?

The answer is no, John. It's not up. It's out. In order to get from earth to heaven John is not up, it's ... ready for it? ... It's expanding, expanding outward. Can you see it in your mind. Expanding. Opening your mind. That's the way to depart from earth and approach the "heavens".
OK.

Right... easier said than done. The next natural question is: How? I can tell you. What's the absolute best way to expand your mind? Think about it. I already told you. Going down, keep going, keep going... in order to go up. It's weird, but it works. It actually can hurt physically if one is not used to it, but, is they are successful, their mind will literally be opening and expanding.

Now.... this, John, this is the reason why, why those two different bloods, the pair, are brought together, in the ritual, as one of the key layerings which is embedded within it. It's because when these two are brought together, they are both going to the same place but are getting there in completely opposite ways. This, John, this. It naturally and automatically is expanding. The vector is in the shape of a cloud. It's a finely tuned pairing, John. Those two are chosen specifically to maximize the expansion of the mind because they are simultaneously inverse and intersecting on salvation. Following the recipe, for a ritual is half of what's happening. The other half is cognitive and emotive. That, friend is a lesson from Rituals: 102.

So, the two bloods cannot, in anyway be parallel. However, it is completely natural and normal to misunderstand. You have an uphill battle trying to surmount the learning curve, I get that. Daniel Matt, is leading you astray. The two bloods cannot be parallel. That would never work. Using these two, particularly these, specifically these, and specifically the other details as well, produces expansion, naturally. That expansion in this context would be felt, the sensation, John, is LOFT. Ascension. Are you with me, John? They cannot be parallel. That's 100% wrong. Describing them in that manner is counter-productive to your understanding of what is actually happening in the ritual.

If you've read all of this, thank you for your attention. If you've understood it, bravo. This is extremely complicated course work. Please know John, I'm here for you. OK.

Love you, man. Have a blessed Sunday.

-daniel-

 

[John D. Brey]

Dear Sweet-Lord, you are so confused. John, ignoring everything else except for what is in focus for this thread, John, friend, Compassion and Judgement intersect. They absolutely are not parallel. Not at all.

Bingo. That's why this thread is scratching its head; why this thread is important? A sacrifice is a "judgment" on the lamb or limb that's sacrificed (since the organ is cut, bled, killed), while it's "compassion" on the one doing the offering (since they reap the reward of the offering). There's an immense theological paradox with Rabbi Horowitz's claim that the Passover lamb represents an Egyptian deity since then we wouldn't likely think of the sacrifice as being tamid, or without blemish:

The purpose of the Passover sacrifice is first and foremost to demonstrate G–d's superiority over all other deities both in Heaven and on earth. This is important; G–d had endowed many agents with different powers, and the impression that there were a number of primary sources of power in the universe had to be refuted. The discrediting of the strongest of these forces, the שר של מצרים, automatically brought about the discrediting of all other deities.​

​

Shney Luchot Habrit, Torah Shebikhtav, Bo, Torah Ohr, 7.​

Rabbi Horowitz claims the Passover lamb is the Egyptians most powerful deity:

Since the Egyptians had made it a symbol of their שר, counterpart in the Celestial Regions, it had to be slaughtered by the Jews. For the same reason it was important that the redemption take place in the month of the ascendancy of that sign, and on the day that symbolised the zenith of its orbit, i.e. its power at its supposedly strongest. The Torah's explanation in Genesis 46,34, that any shepherd was an abomination to the Egyptians is logical. The mere suggestion that sheep needed human guardians -when they were viewed as a supreme deity- is an insult to their religion.​

​

Ibid.​

I had never read or thought of the Paschal lamb as representing a pagan deity. But as you know I've long thought of the phallus (the organ sacrificed in circumcision) as representing that pagan deity such that it must be bled to death so that the fleshly serpent (created in the likeness of the celestial serpent) no longer gets first dibs --jus primae noctis ---on the Jewish bridegroom's bride on their wedding night. Circumcision is symbolically performed under the chuppah (on the eight day the mother calls her son "bridegroom") to imply that the serpent won't have his normal role in the birth of the Jewish firstborn who must thus be conceived without semen (semen being the putrid smelling poison found in the jowls of the serpent).

It wasn't until I read Rabbi Horowitz's claim that the Pascal lamb represents a pagan deity that it hit me that as a sacrifice, brit milah (ritual circumcision) would be sacrificing something technically far from being clean or unblemished. I can't believe I never thought of that until reading Rabbi Horowitz's take on the Paschal lamb. And in my opinion, Rabbi Horowitz thinks of the Paschal lamb as a pagan deity for reasons that are so theologically important that few people will realize what he's doing. It's this parallel of these two sacrifices ---lamb and limb ---- with Compassion and Judgment, that cuts so deep into the text of the Torah that we can begin to start seeing a parallel between the Paschal lamb as a pagan deity (ala Horowitz), and Jesus of Nazareth as the pagan deity the Gospels are keen to compare him with, parallel him with.



John

 

[dybmh]

That's why this thread is scratching its head; why this thread is important? A sacrifice is a "judgment" on the lamb or limb that's sacrificed (since the organ is cut, bled, killed), while it's "compassion" on the one doing the offering (since they reap the reward of the offering).

No.

 

[dybmh]

There's an immense theological paradox with Rabbi Horowitz's claim that the Passover lamb represents an Egyptian deity since then we wouldn't likely think of the sacrifice as being tamid, or without blemish:

I doubt it. But I'd need to read a lot more of the Rabbi's words to either deconstruct what you're describing as a paradox and translate it accurately or accept it as a paradox and understand the relationship which is self-perpetuating the conflicting ideas.

Important Question:

John: do you know that there are 2 types of paradoxes? Sympathetic and Antagonistic? The so-called paradox you are seeing ( which could be a figment of your imagination ) is it sympathetic or antagonistic?

Even more important question:

John: is it **actually** a paradox, or is it just confusing?

 

[dybmh]

The purpose of the Passover sacrifice is first and foremost to...

The Rabbi here ^^ ( if this is an accurate rendering, the original was not written in English, John ) is offering the over-arching GENERAL idea.

Usually, Rabbis begin with the GENERAL, then proceed to offer PARTICULAR details which qualify the general. Because you only provide a cherry picked sample, you are very likely NEGLECTING details which are in the Rabbi's commentary.

I have a copy of this, on my bookshelf. Shney Luchot Habrit? Parsha Bo? I'll go look to see what the Rabbi is saying.

 

[John D. Brey]

No.

Rabbi Yehudah said, “If so, why blood? For we have learned: White and red and one blended of colors.” 73 He replied, “There were two bloods: one of circumcision and one of the Paschal Lamb. Of circumcision, Compassion; of the Paschal Lamb, Judgment.74​

​

The Zohar, Pritzker Edition, vol. IV, p.161 (Bo 2:36a).​

​

74. Here the blood of circumcision is associated with the divine quality of Compassion. Cf. BT Shabbat 137b: “Were it not for the blood of the covenant [of circumcision], heaven and earth would not endure, as is said: Were it not for My covenant day and night, I would not have established the laws of heaven and earth (Jeremiah 33:25).” The blood of the Paschal Lamb is associated with Judgment because of the judgment executed upon the Egyptians.​

​

In the evaluation above, the blood of circumcision is related to Compassion, and the blood of the Paschal lamb with Judgment. But throughout Jewish midrashim, Abraham's circumcision is a precursor to the offering of Isaac, which, the latter, is a type of the offering of the lamb. So in this way circumcision blood and the Paschal lamb's blood both represent Compassion and Judgment.

“There, when Israel went out of Egypt—where the blood of the paschal lamb and the blood of circumcision appeared among them—it is written בדמיך (be-damayikh), In your bloods, live! Here, why In your bloods, live? Well, there are two bloods: the blood of מילה (milah), circumcision, and the blood of פריעה (peri’ah), uncovering—the one of circumcision pertains to Assembly of Israel, whereas the one of uncovering pertains to Righteous One of the World. These are two bloods through which a person attains existence in the world that is coming, as is written: In your bloods, live!” 81​

​

The Zohar, Pritzker Edition, vol. VIII, p.82 (Emor 3:92a).​

​

81. . . . However, Rabbi Ḥiyya wonders how the plural bloods can apply “here,” that is, to the act of circumcision itself. He explains that it refers to two stages of the procedure. First, the foreskin is cut and removed, disclosing the mucous membrane. This step corresponds to Shekhinah . Then, the membrane is torn down the middle and pulled back, revealing the corona. This act is called פריעה (peri’ah), “uncovering [the corona],” and it corresponds to Yesod, the divine phallus.​

​

​

John

 

[dybmh]

Rabbi Yehudah said ...

Something which you probably have misunderstood. Let's focus on one Rabbi at a time

 

[dybmh]

In the evaluation above...

Which is from an English translation of a text notoriously cryptic in the original language ( Aramaic ), translated by Daniel Matt, whose treatise on Jewish mysticism is a disaster, from an edition of the Zohar which adds words and removes words forcing it match prior Stanford University publications.

 

[John D. Brey]

I doubt it. But I'd need to read a lot more of the Rabbi's words to either deconstruct what you're describing as a paradox and translate it accurately or accept it as a paradox and understand the relationship which is self-perpetuating the conflicting ideas.

Important Question:

John: do you know that there are 2 types of paradoxes? Sympathetic and Antagonistic? The so-called paradox you are seeing ( which could be a figment of your imagination ) is it sympathetic or antagonistic?

Even more important question:

John: is it **actually** a paradox, or is it just confusing?

Shney Luchot Habrit, is almost impossible to purchase. No one anywhere on the Internet has it. But Sefaria has it. You can access the quotation posted in this thread at Sefaria. I nearly stole a three-volume copy from the university library. But that's a whole other story.

Btw, on Sefaria you can access the Hebrew version and the English.



John

 

[dybmh]

However, Rabbi Ḥiyya wonders how the plural bloods can apply “here,” that is, to the act of circumcision itself. He explains that it refers to two stages of the procedure. First, the foreskin is cut and removed, disclosing the mucous membrane. This step corresponds to Shekhinah . Then, the membrane is torn down the middle and pulled back, revealing the corona. This act is called פריעה (peri’ah), “uncovering [the corona],” and it corresponds to Yesod, the divine phallus

Bring the original Aramaic. You can't can you?

What is Aramaic for "Divine Phallus"?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous this is?

Clearly, you don't.