Isaiah 11:1.

[John D. Brey]

You keep calling circumcision "the secret of yud". But everything brought is not a secret. The foreskin is deemed impure, removing it, the sign of yud is revealed, it completes a name of God on the individual, none of this is secret.

One element of the secret of the yod is the facade of the foreskin. We did exegesis on the true nature of the "foreskin" here ---in the forum ---about four years ago. And as is the case with almost everything else we examine closely in the MT, the entire concept of the "foreskin" is itself a fore-skene to what's really being said beneath that opaque veil.

Unfortunately, going into those fourteen or so pages of foreskin-exegesis/excision detour from the concepts in this thread which build on the truth of the grammatical forgery known as the foreskin of the penis. And yet without that knowledge much of what's being said here won't be swallowed. That's the kind of paradox/problem these examinations are always going to produce.

So in a nutshell, the entire concept of the "foreskin" is a forgery and a placebo of biblical proportions. Ramban helps us sniff out the facade of phony phallic outer flesh with his typical brilliance when he himself wonders hard and out loud about the true Hebrew explanation of the topic:

In my opinion the matter is clearly explained in Scripture. It does not say, And ye shall circumcise your foreskin, thus leaving the meaning in doubt . . ..

Nachmanides.
​

Nachmanides takes an izmel to the entire foundation of modern Judaism's central face or facade (removal of the so-called "foreskin") when he notes that the Hebrew text doesn't say circumcise your foreskin (in which case you wouldn't know where to direct the knife):

. . . nor does it say, "the foreskin of your flesh," just as it says the foreskin of your heart, and the foreskin of your lips.​

This statement could be the most important statement Ramban every made. He's saying point blank that the formative text doesn't say to circumcise the foreskin of your penis since in the same exegesis he notes that the word "flesh" in the text refers to the pensis. According to his correct, and brilliant exegesis, the text doesn't say to circumcise the flesh of your penis.

So what does the text say in proper exegesis?

Nachmanides points out that except for here, i.e., the formative prototype of circumcision, the Hebrew text always points one directly to the flesh --- lips, heart, ears, etc. ----whose "foreskin" is to be removed. Ironically here it doesn't? And that's remarkable since this is the formative case of circumcision. What Ramban says next is even more remarkable:

But instead it says, And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin . . . The word "flesh" in the expression, uncircumcised in flesh, is a euphemism for the genital organ, just as in the verses great of flesh, and an issue of his flesh.​

This is truly earth-shattering since Ramban is destroying thousands of years of errant exegesis, and an entire Jewish tradition, with one correct exegetical statement. The sign of the covenant isn't a command to circumcise the foreskin of your flesh, that's perfectly backwards and Ramban says so. The Hebrew text says completely the opposite: circumcise the flesh of your foreskin.

Taking everything Ramban graciously points out to us seriously, the text is saying to circumcise the male flesh, the penis, of the orlah ערלה, which means the word "orlah" ערלה isn't speaking of the penis, or some part of the penis. The penis is merely the emblem, the organ, that represents the problem in the crosshairs of brit milah. The penis represents the orlah ערלה. The orlah ערלגה isn't even a part of the penis.

The problem isn't a little ring of flesh that contaminates the human race. That's patently asinine until someone explains how that little ring of flesh contaminates the entire human race? Why, how, does it do that? Or how does its existence (didn't God create it) accomplish the contamination of all those with it?

It's not the penis in the crosshairs at all. It's "masculinity" itself that is the orlah that God didn't design or foist onto the human race. It's "masculinity," fleshly maleness, that contaminates the human race. And that contamination was created in Genesis 2:21, when ha-adam's labial flesh is sutured סגר shut to create the penile-raphe and the organ demonized in the signature of this message.

Brit milah isn't about a cartoon caricaturistic removal of a ring of flesh around the penis. It's about eliminating the facade of fleshly, material, masculinity, returning thought and reality to the true binary dynamic where invisible spirit, deity, thought, are all masculine, while nothing material, be it stone, flesh, or actual blood, is male. Materiality is female through and through, while invisible spirit is masculine, and is the only thing that is masculine.

Brit milah removes the lie of material masculinity that was the source of the original sin ---phallic sex---created in Genesis 2:21. Prior to Genesis 2:21, ha-adam was created as a female body pregnant with bread already heating up in the closed womb, the hermetically6/hymenally sealead holy of holies of ha-ha-adam's temple. In Genesis 2:21, that bread is aborted, and leaven is added to it, to raise not unleavened bread, the Bread of Life (John 6:48), but Cain. Cain becomes the second firstborn of humanity born as leavened bread. He, and all his sons, gallivant as firstborn of God until the untimely, unlikely, unexpected, and unwanted, rejected, virgin birth of the true firstborn of humanity (John 1:11-14).



John

 

[John D. Brey]

You keep calling circumcision "the secret of yud". But everything brought is not a secret. The foreskin is deemed impure, removing it, the sign of yud is revealed, it completes a name of God on the individual, none of this is secret.

The Name worn on the body is Shaddai שדי. The yod in the name is related to the mark, symbol, sign, of circumcision. The yod represents a drop of blood ---hatafat dam brit. And, ironically, it's the blood of a demon שד. It's the blood of the angel of death שד. He's the demon where Hashem resides (Exodus 23:21).

Beware of him unless he's bleeding to death (brit milah). And if he is, then it's time for metzizah, since the blood of death is not the corpse of death, the body of death, that contaminates and spreads death. The blood of death is the death of death and thus the elixir of everlasting life. If death dies, is dead, doesn't exist, then life is everlasting. Drinking the blood of death gives everlasting life since the blood is the elimination of the body of death that spreads death when it opens veils and forces it's way into sanctified holy places by tearing the veils and membranes bull-at-a-gait.

Brit milah represents the final blow to the angel of death, who's the demon in the name Shaddai שד–י. Where the circumcision is efficacious, hatafat dam brit should be placed in a royal chalice and passed around to anyone seeking everlasting life. As the sages of the Zohar note, anyone who hasn't participated in metzitzah hasn't really obtained what the brit is all about.

So then, one of the secrets of the yod is that there's one blood that far from being sinful to drink, is required drinking if anyone is to participate in the required reading of scripture necessary to get someone to place their hand, and what force they can lend to the mohel, on top of his izmel. Godforbid the angel of death survive the holy ordeal in order to keep raising his Cain throughout human history. We need a royal army no longer fearful of, nor subject to, death whatsoever, in order to subjugate Cain's father and send him to the dustbin of history where we've already sent scriptures bearing the tell-tale mark of where his pen-is or has been.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

You keep calling circumcision "the secret of yud". But everything brought is not a secret. The foreskin is deemed impure, removing it, the sign of yud is revealed, it completes a name of God on the individual, none of this is secret.

Another secret of the yod is that the tree of knowledge and the tree of life grow from the same root. One is the the quasi-original, visually first, sexualized, trunk, we should like to make, at least ritually (brit milah), a stump.

We want to make the first trunk of the tree a stump only if we intuit that it's not seminally original since it represents sex, and the mixing associated with sex, and more importantly the concept that one of the participants of the sinful act is "male flesh" (sheer idolatry), when we know there's only one, singular, sanctified, and sanctifying, idol, of that sort, in all the universe.

To get to the one, singular, sanctified idol, i.e., male flesh, requires destroying the facade of fleshly masculinity, the original trunk of the tree of knowledge of sexual pleasure, in hopes that the root will send up a "shoot" צמח of the original fruit ---life everlasting --- fruit of the root as it was already in the earth when it was created.

The scripture tells us that when God created the first hu-woman, and the first earth-mother, he had already planted the original seed of life in the earth, and in ha-adam, in such a way that when it shoots צמח up out of the earth, and or the womb, it, and not a till, or rain, or rainmaker, opens the earth פטר רחם and the womb for the first time without the earth being tilled, watered, nor opened, prior to the revelation of that hand shooting צמח out of its place תחתי (Zech. 6:12) udderly unexpectedly (Isaiah 60:16), completely unannounced, or pre-seeded by a demonic decree חק pre-seeding the whole picture to produce at best a lovely facade, and at worst, a faux-creation by a faux-god.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

But the sequence is still not explained. The Temple is destroyed 70 years after Jesus was crucified. So, the messiah cannot be Jesus, right?

Per Yoma 39b, the temple veil was rent at the time of the crucifixion, i.e., 40 years prior to the complete destruction of the temple. According JT Berakhot 2:4, 12, Messiah is born when the veil in the temple is rent: since a temple is inoperative without its intact veil, any temple practices after the fact of the torn veil are merely going through the motions. Furthermore, to repair the veil, is like epispasm, whereby the remaining skin is stretched to undo a circumcision.

The mystery I claimed is hidden from Jewish sages is that Messiah's birth on Tisha B'Av, or more specifically on the day the veil is torn in the temple (rendering the temple inoperative), is the mysterious concept that Messiah is his own father such that the union of Father and mother, God and the temple, is that God doesn't enter the temple through Zion, or the vagina, but only comes out of it, tearing the veil, rendering the temple inoperative, unnecessary, thereafter:

"Phallus of the Male---consummation of the whole body, called Yesod. That is the very rung that sweetens the Female. All the desire of the Male toward the Female inheres in this Yesod----entering the Female, to the place called Zion and Jerusalem, which is the place of covering of the Female, like a woman's vagina.

Zohar 3:296, Indra Zuta, Pritzker Edition Zohar, vol. 9, p. 843.​

The secret סוד of the yod ---that is of circumcision (י–סוד Yesod --the yod being the mark of circumcision) is that God's "phallus" ---which represents his desire and consummation/union with the bride, in the most holy place of the temple (the Holy of holies that Rashi calls the "bedchamber") is his son. His son, every part of his flesh, is God's phallus, and it's in the womb of the temple while the veil is intact, and not put there after the fact of it being rent. Messiah comes out of the temple tearing the veil that in less sanctified conceptions is torn by the flesh created not in God's image but in the image of "another god," a strange-god, who is a complete stranger to the covenant.

“There is a man in the likeness of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is his emanation, and this is YHVH. It has no creation formation, or making, but emanation.”

Tishby Vol. I, p. 298, quoting Tikkunei ha-Zohar, end of Tikkun 67, 98b.​

The union between God and his bride is the secret that the phallus found on all lapsarian men is created not in the image of the true God, but in the likeness of Satan:

“When a man is false to the covenant of circumcision, YHVH and Shaddai leave him, and Satan, who is “another god,” dwells with[in] him. The serpent takes the place of YHVH within, and a deadly poison takes the place of Shaddai without.”

Tishby, Vol. III, Tikkunei ha-Zohar, Tikkun 22, 66a. See also Tikkun 21, 57b-58a.​

The poison is semen. And it contaminates everything inside the womb with death if it gets through the intact veil:

Death, the literal dis-integration of the husk of the body, was the grim price exacted by meiotic sexuality. Complex development in protoctists and their animal and plant descendants led to the evolution of death as a kind of sexually transmitted disease.

Lynn Margulis, Symbiotic Planet, p. 90.​

What is genetically transmitted in the semen is human nature and, together with that nature, its sickness. The newborn child shares in the guilt of the first parent inasmuch as his nature is brought into being by a reproductive movement from that parent. . . Death has spread to the whole human race inasmuch as all have sinned. Catholic faith holds firmly that all men deriving from Adam, Christ alone exempted, contracted inherited sin from him; otherwise not everyone would need Christ's redemption and that is erroneous.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia.​

The reproductive fluid of Shaddai, who is the lamb of God, is blood, even one drop of which, hatafat dam brit, saves ----if it's properly digested -----metzitzah.




John

 

[dybmh]

Moreover, every one of Israel that is circumcised enters the Garden of Eden, since the Holy One, blessed be He, places His name on the Israelite so that he can enter the Garden of Eden. And what is the name and the seal that He places upon them? It is Shaddai (the Omnipotent): The shin He placed in the nose; the dalet in the hand; and the yod in the circumcision. And therefore at the time that an Israelite goes to his final home, there is an appointed angel in the Garden of Eden who takes every son of Israel that is circumcised and brings him to the Garden of Eden. But those that are not circumcised; even though they have two letters of the name of Shaddai - as they have the shin of the nose and the dalet of the hand - they do not have the yod of Shaddai, [and so, the letters they have form] the expression, sheid (demon), meaning to say that a demon brings him to Geihinnom.

Yes, it's all about the name! And that matches Zohar! And there is no blood mentioned!

 

[dybmh]

Wolfson is hands down the most knowledgeable student of kabbalah alive today. Most contemporary Professors in the field acknowledge that quite readily and easily.

And yet, the book I'm reading by him contains mistranslations, additions to texts, and false logic. Again and again and again it happens. He either doesn't know or doesn't care about being accurate.

 

[dybmh]

One element of the secret of the yod is the facade of the foreskin. We did exegesis on the true nature of the "foreskin" here ---in the forum ---about four years ago. And as is the case with almost everything else we examine closely in the MT, the entire concept of the "foreskin" is itself a fore-skene to what's really being said beneath that opaque veil.

Unfortunately, going into those fourteen or so pages of foreskin-exegesis/excision detour from the concepts in this thread which build on the truth of the grammatical forgery known as the foreskin of the penis. And yet without that knowledge much of what's being said here won't be swallowed. That's the kind of paradox/problem these examinations are always going to produce.

I read a good chunk of it...

So in a nutshell, the entire concept of the "foreskin" is a forgery and a placebo of biblical proportions. Ramban helps us sniff out the facade of phony phallic outer flesh with his typical brilliance when he himself wonders hard and out loud about the true Hebrew explanation of the topic:

In my opinion the matter is clearly explained in Scripture. It does not say, And ye shall circumcise your foreskin, thus leaving the meaning in doubt . . ..

Nachmanides.
Nachmanides takes an izmel to the entire foundation of modern Judaism's central face or facade (removal of the so-called "foreskin") when he notes that the Hebrew text doesn't say circumcise your foreskin (in which case you wouldn't know where to direct the knife):

. . . nor does it say, "the foreskin of your flesh," just as it says the foreskin of your heart, and the foreskin of your lips.
This statement could be the most important statement Ramban every made. He's saying point blank that the formative text doesn't say to circumcise the foreskin of your penis since in the same exegesis he notes that the word "flesh" in the text refers to the pensis. According to his correct, and brilliant exegesis, the text doesn't say to circumcise the flesh of your penis.

Well, this is slightly incomplete. If there was a thread on this here it would be good to review it and see what the other objections were, I'm sure there were some. Anyway.

First, it's not true to say that ritual penile cicumcision is never spoken of in a similar way as circumcising the heart. See Ezekiel 44:7 and Ezekiel 44:9. There is not forgery or ruse or anything happening here. Yes, "orlah" means uncircumcised, in Ezekiel it prohibits those of uncircumcised flesh ( orlah-bashar literally ). In Gen 17:11 it says: you shall cut "this flesh" ( es bashar, literally ) of your uncircumcised.

Regarding "cut". You say it means "opposed to the limit". And argue that calling it literal cutting is wrong, a forgery, etc... But in Joshua God says: Make stone knives to "מֹ֥ל" all the children of Israel a 2nd time. Does it make sense to understand this as a spiritual commandment, something relating to toxic masculinity and such? What is the knife for? And if the knife wasn't required the first time, then why does it claim this is the 2nd time?

So what does Joshua do? He follows the instructions, makes a knife and makes a great big pile of what? They called the place "גִּבְעַ֖ת הָֽעֲרָלֽוֹת". Is that the "hill of the uncircumcised"? That doesn't make sense. They were just physically circumcised. Does it make sense to call it "the hill of foreskins"? Yup. Gruesome. But at least it makes sense.

If circumcision is about removing toxic masculinity, does it make sense for God to command another circumcision before going to battle at Jericho? No. The conquest of Canaan is the ultimate demonstration of toxic masculinity. And the battle of Jericho is the best example of that. And now God is commanding the men, as you and Wolfson claim, to become women, and go and conquer in a feminne manner? Does any of that make sense at all?

No. It doesn't make sense. It's just a deperate attempt to justify Christians who want to role play as "spiritual members of the covenant".

Nachmanides points out that except for here, i.e., the formative prototype of circumcision, the Hebrew text always points one directly to the flesh --- lips, heart, ears, etc. ----whose "foreskin" is to be removed. Ironically here it doesn't? And that's remarkable since this is the formative case of circumcision. What Ramban says next is even more remarkable:

But instead it says, And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin . . . The word "flesh" in the expression, uncircumcised in flesh, is a euphemism for the genital organ, just as in the verses great of flesh, and an issue of his flesh.
This is truly earth-shattering since Ramban is destroying thousands of years of errant exegesis, and an entire Jewish tradition, with one correct exegetical statement. The sign of the covenant isn't a command to circumcise the foreskin of your flesh, that's perfectly backwards and Ramban says so. The Hebrew text says completely the opposite: circumcise the flesh of your foreskin.

Much ado about nothing. The text says "cut this flesh of your uncircumcised". What is "this flesh"? It doesn't say specifically, but something is certainly being cut physically. That's from Joshua. But how else do we know? You like the Zohar, consider it scripture. What does the Zohar say?

Zohar 3:43b:11​

וְרָזָא דָּא, לַח' יוֹמִין, אִיהוּ חִיוּבָא עַל עָלְמָא, לְכָל עַמָּא קַדִּישָׁא. דִּכְתִּיב, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ. יוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי, דָּא הוּא אָת קַיָּימָא קַדִּישָׁא, וְאִיהוּ תְּמִינָאָה לְכָל דַּרְגִּין. וּגְזִירוּ דְּהַהוּא קַיָּימָא, לְאַעְבְּרָא הַהוּא עָרְלָה. מִקַּמֵּי בְּרִית

The secret of this, on the eighth of the days, it is an obligation on the world, to all holy people. As it is written, and in the eighth day "יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ". The eighth day, it is permanently holy, and it is the eighth in all the steps. And it is decreed, for that permenantly, to remove that "עָרְלָה". Before the covenant.

אַעְבְּרָא = "remove" - Klein Dictionary, בער ᴵᴵ 1

How does someone "יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ"? They remove the orlah. Not oppose, not limit. That's what Zohar says about it.
​

Taking everything Ramban graciously points out to us seriously, the text is saying to circumcise the male flesh, the penis, of the orlah ערלה, which means the word "orlah" ערלה isn't speaking of the penis, or some part of the penis. The penis is merely the emblem, the organ, that represents the problem in the crosshairs of brit milah. The penis represents the orlah ערלה. The orlah ערלגה isn't even a part of the penis.

Argument from ignorance. You don't know what an orlah is? It's perfectly fair to say, I don't know. But that doesn't mean that the flesh of the uncircumcised isn't a foreskin.

The problem isn't a little ring of flesh that contaminates the human race. That's patently asinine until someone explains how that little ring of flesh contaminates the entire human race? Why, how, does it do that? Or how does its existence (didn't God create it) accomplish the contamination of all those with it?

You're welcome to think it's asinine. You're putting the pressure on yourself to understand it. No one is compelling you to do this to yourself, right?

It's not the penis in the crosshairs at all. It's "masculinity" itself that is the orlah that God didn't design or foist onto the human race. It's "masculinity," fleshly maleness, that contaminates the human race. And that contamination was created in Genesis 2:21, when ha-adam's labial flesh is sutured סגר shut to create the penile-raphe and the organ demonized in the signature of this message.

It doesn't fit with the story of the conquest of Canaan. The nation did not remove their masculinity, and then conquer the land.

And this notion of Adam being a woman and gaining a penis through a divine sex change operation is silly, just plain silly.

And Wolfson's attempt to justify man becoming a woman and woman becoming a man is equally silly. Of course one needs to understand some key concepts in Kabbalah to see how silly it is, and one needs to be able to translate Zohar to see how he mistranslates and adds text to it, to see it. He's either ignorant or doesn't care or both. As the old saying goes, , everyone's got their mishegas, ( everyone's crazy about something ) and this is his.

Brit milah isn't about a cartoon caricaturistic removal of a ring of flesh around the penis. It's about eliminating the facade of fleshly, material, masculinity, returning thought and reality to the true binary dynamic where invisible spirit, deity, thought, are all masculine, while nothing material, be it stone, flesh, or actual blood, is male. Materiality is female through and through, while invisible spirit is masculine, and is the only thing that is masculine.

Hey, maybe that's your theology, John. It's not Jewish and it doesnt need to be. But for any reader who happens apon this thread, I hope they will believe me when I say that in Judaism the female is more spiritual than the male. The soul as it is referred to by nefesh, ruach, and neshama, are all female. The Torah is female. Blood is male. Rock is male. Flesh is male...

Brit milah removes the lie of material masculinity that was the source of the original sin ---phallic sex---created in Genesis 2:21. Prior to Genesis 2:21, ha-adam was created as a female body pregnant with bread already heating up in the closed womb, the hermetically6/hymenally sealead holy of holies of ha-ha-adam's temple. In Genesis 2:21, that bread is aborted, and leaven is added to it, to raise not unleavened bread, the Bread of Life (John 6:48), but Cain. Cain becomes the second firstborn of humanity born as leavened bread. He, and all his sons, gallivant as firstborn of God until the untimely, unlikely, unexpected, and unwanted, rejected, virgin birth of the true firstborn of humanity (John 1:11-14).

I ask 2 simple questions:

1) Humanity was given a commandment: to reproduce and populate the earth. How does that occur without phallic sex?

2) Cain's offspring are galavanting up until the book of John? So no world-wide flood then? That's not a problem, really, but if that's not true, then the story in Eden isn't true, and whatever makes you think Adam had a sex change isn't true either.

 

[dybmh]

The Name worn on the body is Shaddai שדי. The yod in the name is related to the mark, symbol, sign, of circumcision. The yod represents a drop of blood ---hatafat dam brit. And, ironically, it's the blood of a demon שד. It's the blood of the angel of death שד. He's the demon where Hashem resides (Exodus 23:21).

Let's see. Now you say the yud is a drop of blood, but previously you said it was a hand. You absolutley insisted. So, if we ignore that, let's look at a drop of blood.

There's this:



Or maybe this:



And then there's a yud, which looks like this:



You can't ACCURATELY say that the Hebrew bible commands Jewish people to follow a demon in Exodus 23. Even if that angel *is* the angel of death, the commands come from who? ( I've mentioned this before, you commented on it, so you probably remember. You're just ignoring it... )

22 For if you hearken to his [ the angel's ] voice and do all that I [ God ] say, I will hate your enemies and oppress your adversaries.
​

So the command comes from God, the angel is under God's control.

Question: Where in the Tanach does this angel make its appearance? It's in Joshua right? In Chapter 5. What does the angel demand of Joshua? "Take off your shoes." That's it. Nothing sinister about it.

Beware of him unless he's bleeding to death (brit milah). And if he is, then it's time for metzizah, since the blood of death is not the corpse of death, the body of death, that contaminates and spreads death. The blood of death is the death of death and thus the elixir of everlasting life. If death dies, is dead, doesn't exist, then life is everlasting. Drinking the blood of death gives everlasting life since the blood is the elimination of the body of death that spreads death when it opens veils and forces it's way into sanctified holy places by tearing the veils and membranes bull-at-a-gait.

No... drinking the blood of the angel of death, would make a person an angel of death. But still, who says angels and demons have blood?

Brit milah represents the final blow to the angel of death, who's the demon in the name Shaddai שד–י. Where the circumcision is efficacious, hatafat dam brit should be placed in a royal chalice and passed around to anyone seeking everlasting life. As the sages of the Zohar note, anyone who hasn't participated in metzitzah hasn't really obtained what the brit is all about.

I think this is false. You know I'm going to ask for a citation on a Zohar quote. So, prove that's what the Zohar says. I already searched, there is no Metzitzah, no Tzitzah, no Tzitz in the entire catalogue. And the only "suckling" is talking about babies.

So then, one of the secrets of the yod is that there's one blood that far from being sinful to drink, is required drinking if anyone is to participate in the required reading of scripture necessary to get someone to place their hand, and what force they can lend to the mohel, on top of his izmel. Godforbid the angel of death survive the holy ordeal in order to keep raising his Cain throughout human history. We need a royal army no longer fearful of, nor subject to, death whatsoever, in order to subjugate Cain's father and send him to the dustbin of history where we've already sent scriptures bearing the tell-tale mark of where his pen-is or has been.

And you want to do that by drinking his blood? And you think you won't become an angel of death yourself?

Anyway, the serpent never touched eve, that's all speculation. It was all intellectual. defeating the serpent is easy, all you have to do is ignore it. That is how you crush its head.

 

[dybmh]

Per Yoma 39b, the temple veil was rent at the time of the crucifixion, i.e., 40 years prior to the complete destruction of the temple. According JT Berakhot 2:4, 12, Messiah is born when the veil in the temple is rent: since a temple is inoperative without its intact veil, any temple practices after the fact of the torn veil are merely going through the motions. Furthermore, to repair the veil, is like epispasm, whereby the remaining skin is stretched to undo a circumcision.

You just flip-flopped. Before you insisted that the temple is a womb, now you're comparing it to a phallus.

Per Yoma 39b, the temple veil was rent at the time of the crucifixion, i.e., 40 years prior to the complete destruction of the temple. According JT Berakhot 2:4, 12, Messiah is born when the veil in the temple is rent: since a temple is inoperative without its intact veil, any temple practices after the fact of the torn veil are merely going through the motions. Furthermore, to repair the veil, is like epispasm, whereby the remaining skin is stretched to undo a circumcision.

The mystery I claimed is hidden from Jewish sages is that Messiah's birth on Tisha B'Av, or more specifically on the day the veil is torn in the temple (rendering the temple inoperative), is the mysterious concept that Messiah is his own father such that the union of Father and mother, God and the temple, is that God doesn't enter the temple through Zion, or the vagina, but only comes out of it, tearing the veil, rendering the temple inoperative, unnecessary, thereafter:

"Phallus of the Male---consummation of the whole body, called Yesod. That is the very rung that sweetens the Female. All the desire of the Male toward the Female inheres in this Yesod----entering the Female, to the place called Zion and Jerusalem, which is the place of covering of the Female, like a woman's vagina.

Zohar 3:296, Indra Zuta, Pritzker Edition Zohar, vol. 9, p. 843.

I don't have a problem with any of this, to be honest. God's divine presence is imagined as a phallus... no big deal. God's phallus is imagined as his son? Also no big deal. God's son ( his phallus ) is imagined to be God itself, as if all there is is a giant phallus... that's pretty silly.

“There is a man in the likeness of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is his emanation, and this is YHVH. It has no creation formation, or making, but emanation.”

Tishby Vol. I, p. 298, quoting Tikkunei ha-Zohar, end of Tikkun 67, 98b.

I'll have to look it up, but I'm guessing that this is Primordial Adam. Not God's divine presence, not God's phallus, and certainly not the messiah.

The poison is semen. And it contaminates everything inside the womb with death if it gets through the intact veil:

Not in Judaism it isn't....

The reproductive fluid of Shaddai, who is the lamb of God, is blood, even one drop of which, hatafat dam brit, saves ----if it's properly digested -----metzitzah.

In your dreams...

 

[BilliardsBall]

But the sequence is still not explained. The Temple is destroyed 70 years after Jesus was crucified. So, the messiah cannot be Jesus, right?

And . . . the prophet says the Second Temple will be more glorious than even the First, and the desire of all nations will be there--the items of Moses were not there, GOD was.

Mic drop.

 

[John D. Brey]

Let's see. Now you say the yud is a drop of blood, but previously you said it was a hand. You absolutley insisted. So, if we ignore that, let's look at a drop of blood.

The word for the yod יוד spells "hand." I have five or six books written by Jews and written specifically about Hebrew letter symbolism and I bet all of them will relate the yod to a hand.

What most of them add is that every other letter starts with a yod, and ends with a yod. When a sofer begins a Hebrew letter, the dot where he places the pen and starts motion is a yod. When he's finishing the letter, the final motion, and the dot where he leaves the parchment is a yod. The yod is the DNA of every other letter.

Rabbi Hirsch says all the body is in the blood. The DNA in the blood contains the information that makes up the body. In this sense the blood, like the yod, begins the human body, and its visible presence often portends its end.

Yahweh starts with a yod י–הוה. And the God who dies for the sins of the world ends with a yod שד–י. The yod is the DNA, the blood, of the Hebrew alef beit.



John

 

[dybmh]

The word for the yod יוד spells "hand." I have five or six books written by Jews and written specifically about Hebrew letter symbolism and I bet all of them will relate the yod to a hand.

It's inconsistent to choose to interpret the yud as hand in some places, and as a dot in other places. It's equivocation.

What most of them add is that every other letter starts with a yod, and ends with a yod. When a sofer begins a Hebrew letter, the dot where he places the pen and starts motion is a yod. When he's finishing the letter, the final motion, and the dot where he leaves the parchment is a yod. The yod is the DNA of every other letter.

And the shape of that dot is significant, as you have written about.

Rabbi Hirsch says all the body is in the blood. The DNA in the blood contains the information that makes up the body. In this sense the blood, like the yod, begins the human body, and its visible presence often portends its end.

And the same could be said about semen. But you have chosen to make semen evil, and have chosen to make blood holy. Zohar even equates spilling seed with death. So, ya know, it's still a subjective choice to love the blood but hate the semen.

Yahweh starts with a yod י–הוה. And the God who dies for the sins of the world ends with a yod שד–י. The yod is the DNA, the blood, of the Hebrew alef beit.

The assertion of 2 gods is noted inspite of what Isaiah says. I guess, according to you, Isaiah isn't always right after all.

 

[dybmh]

And . . . the prophet says the Second Temple will be more glorious than even the First, and the desire of all nations will be there--the items of Moses were not there, GOD was.

Mic drop.

I honestly think John did a better job of reconciling this issue. But thanks for the input.

 

[John D. Brey]

I read a good chunk of it...

Well, this is slightly incomplete. If there was a thread on this here it would be good to review it and see what the other objections were, I'm sure there were some. Anyway.

I imagine the thread is still available. It was only a few years ago.

First, it's not true to say that ritual penile cicumcision is never spoken of in a similar way as circumcising the heart. See Ezekiel 44:7 and Ezekiel 44:9. There is not forgery or ruse or anything happening here. Yes, "orlah" means uncircumcised, in Ezekiel it prohibits those of uncircumcised flesh ( orlah-bashar literally ). In Gen 17:11 it says: you shall cut "this flesh" ( es bashar, literally ) of your uncircumcised.

I don't think it was ever claimed that the text never speaks of circumcision of the flesh. Naturally Nachmanides knows that. What he points out is that in the seminal verse, in Genesis chapter 17, when the covenant is being proposed, the text appears to be saying to cut, oppose, the penis of your uncircumcision, and not to cut, oppose, remove, flesh from the penis. In the strict Hebrew it appears to be calling the penis itself the flesh בשר of your un-circumcision ערלה. And it's Ramban noticing this, not necessarily me.

Regarding "cut". You say it means "opposed to the limit". And argue that calling it literal cutting is wrong, a forgery, etc... But in Joshua God says: Make stone knives to "מֹ֥ל" all the children of Israel a 2nd time. Does it make sense to understand this as a spiritual commandment, something relating to toxic masculinity and such? What is the knife for? And if the knife wasn't required the first time, then why does it claim this is the 2nd time?

Rabbi Hirsch is the one who says it means "oppose to the limit." I agree with you that it means remove, extinguish; and I've argued against Rabbi Hirsch's claim that it means anything less.

A more comprehensive answer to your question occurred in another thread where it was pointed out that in Genesis 17, the text makes it clear that there's two things, the actuality of circumcision, versus the the manufacture of a "sign" signifying what the actual circumcision is. Judaism has conflated the sign and what it signifies as though they're the same thing. Abarbanel said, "Is circumcision a covenant, as in v. 10, or a `sign' of the covenant as in v. 11?"

Ritually removing some flesh from the organ that represents masculinity manufactures the sign of the covenant (by signifying the birth of a new aeon whose firstborn isn't conceived from the phallus). It seems patently absurd to assume the human body is cleansed or purified by removing a piece of flesh from the penis. That's merely a ritual, a sign, and not what's actually being signified.

So what does Joshua do? He follows the instructions, makes a knife and makes a great big pile of what? They called the place "גִּבְעַ֖ת הָֽעֲרָלֽוֹת". Is that the "hill of the uncircumcised"?

The hill of foreskins is a hill in Gilgal, which is גלגל, which, if you add a tav suffix (you know a cross in ktav ivri ), is "Golgotha" גלגלת, where a virgin born son of Israel was sacrificed to devils for the good pleasure and purposes of the sacrificers (Psalms 106:37-42). How positively ironic. Put a cross, a tav, on a hill of skulls, Gilgal,and you get Golgotha, which is the mezuzah (blood on the wooden doorpost) of the gates into Zion. A bloody wooden cross-beam משקוף over a bloody wooden post (mezuzah מזוזה) points the way, the truth of the way, and the life-blood of the way, into the Kingdom of God.

If circumcision is about removing toxic masculinity, does it make sense for God to command another circumcision before going to battle at Jericho? No. The conquest of Canaan is the ultimate demonstration of toxic masculinity. And the battle of Jericho is the best example of that. And now God is commanding the men, as you and Wolfson claim, to become women, and go and conquer in a feminne manner? Does any of that make sense at all?

Israel is supposed to be the savior of humanity. Canaan was an enemy in the way of Israel's purpose in God's grand plan. But there was an even greater enemy than Canann that has to be removed before Israel can enter the promised land and the Kingdom of God. That enemy was destroyed once and for all at גלגלת.

Israel still hasn't truly entered the promise, or the Kingdom of God. But they will when it's time. They will when they realize that ritual circumcision is, like Gilgal and the hill of foreskins, just a fore skene. The former represents a virgin birth, and the offering of that poison fruit to the devil who was just blind enough to take it and eat. The same blood that's the death of the angel of death is the everlasting life of those who know what metzitzah represents.



John

 

[dybmh]

I imagine the thread is still available. It was only a few years ago.

Can't find it, sadly.

I don't think it was ever claimed that the text never speaks of circumcision of the flesh. Naturally Nachmanides knows that. What he points out is that in the seminal verse, in Genesis chapter 17, when the covenant is being proposed, the text appears to be saying to cut, oppose, the penis of your uncircumcision, and not to cut, oppose, remove, flesh from the penis. In the strict Hebrew it appears to be calling the penis itself the flesh בשר of your un-circumcision ערלה. And it's Ramban noticing this, not necessarily me.

Actually, it is you. Ramban's conclusion is that the orlah *is* the foreskin. Deferring to his authority and expertise means accepting his conclusion. Ignoring that conclusion is YOU, not him.

If your approach is "strict Hebrew" let's look at what Ramban is saying in total, in "strict Hebrew".

Ramban on Genesis 17:14:1

וערל זכר כאן לימדך שהמילה היא באותו מקום שהוא ניכר בין זכר לנקבה לשון רש"י (רש"י על בראשית י״ז:י״ד) וכן הזכירו רבותינו (ב"ר מו ד) גם טעמים אחרים

"וערל זכר": Here teaches you that the cut it [is] in this place that it divides between male and to female says Rashi ( Rashi to Genesis 17:14 ) and so reminds us our rabbis ( Genesis Rabbah 46:4 ) also other reasons.

This is a virtual direct quote from Rashi including the referral to Genesis Rabbah.

The other reasons in Genesis Rabbah are mostly process of elimination. But there's also a link to Leviticus 19:23 which speaks of an "Arlah" as a concept which is attached to immature fruit trees. It's a good reference because it uses the exact same word "ערלתו" which is in the verse Ramban and Rashi are commenting on.
​

ורבי אברהם אמר (ויקרא יב ג) ערלתו ידועה כי הוא בערוה ואין כן ערלת לב (ירמיהו ט כה) ושפה (שמות ו יב) ואזן (ירמיהו ו י) כי כולם סמוכים

And Rabbi Avraham [Ibn Ezra] says ( Leviticus 12:3 ) "his orlah" knowing because he [is] in orlah and not thus "orlah of heart" ( Jeremiah 9:25 ) "the mouth" ( Exodus 6:12 ) "and ear" ( Jeremiah 6:10 ) because all those [are] constructs.

This is a virtual quote from Ibn Ezra's comment on Leviticus 12:3. Ramban is highlighting / *noticing* the meaning of "construct". The difference is "IN" orlah compared to a construct which means "OF" orlah.​

ולפי דעתי הדבר מפורש בכתוב כי לא אמר "ונמלתם את ערלתכם" שיהיה הדבר בספק

And according to my knowledge the matter is seperated in writing because [it] not says "and you will cut this their orlahs" which would be the matter in binding.

IOW, the phrase isn't written without the word for "flesh". Without that word it would not be clearly understood. It wouldn't be freely understandable, it would be bound.
​

ולפי דעתי הדבר מפורש בכתוב כי לא אמר "ונמלתם את ערלתכם" שיהיה הדבר בספק וכן לא אמר "ערלת בשרכם" כמו שיאמר ערלת לבבכם (דברים י טז) וערלת שפתכם (עיי' שמות ו יב) אבל אמר "בשר ערלתכם" שתכרתו הבשר שהוא ערלה בכם

And so not says "orlah of their flesh" like what [is] said "orlahs of your hearts" ( Deuteronomy 10:16 ) or "orlahs of your lips" ( see Exodus 6:12 ) but says "flesh, your orlahs" which he will cut off, the flesh that it [is] orlah on them.

No words added, strict Hebrew, to the best of my ability, the instructions in Gen 17:11-14 are talking about cutting "this flesh, your orlahs". "אֵ֖ת בְּשַׂ֣ר עׇרְלַתְכֶ֑ם". That is what Ramban is saying. THIS flesh is specific, THIS commandment is specific.​

כלומר הבשר האוטם בכם ואין בגוף בשר אוטם וכוסה אבר שיכרת הבשר ההוא וישאר בלא ערלה זולתי בשר החופה את העטרה שהזכירו חכמים (שבת קלז)

Like it says, the flesh that closes on them and no other on body flesh closes and conceals [a] limb which [is] cut off. The flesh that it is and remains without orlah except "flesh that veils this crown" which reminds us of the sages ( Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 137 ).

Here Ramban is going back to the process of elimination. There is no other flesh which can be cut off of a limb, where the flesh remains. Then he virtually quotes a phrase from Talmud "this flesh which viels much [of the] crown".

This is a little confusing, because he says above that the "flesh" is the orlah. But here he says the "flesh" remains after the orlah is cut-off. So he clarifies with the following:​

ו"ערל בשר" (יחזקאל מד ט) כנוי כמו גדלי בשר (שם טז כו) זב מבשרו (ויקרא טו ב):

And "orlah of flesh" ( Ezekiel 44:9 ) expresses like "great of flesh" ( there 16:26 ) "discharge of his flesh" ( Leviticus 15:2 ).

So Ramban is saying in a construct, orlah OF flesh, is an expression, and doesn't mean the same thing as the commandment described in Gen 17:11-14. But the word flesh has become an expression for the penis. In Gen 17, flesh is the orlah. But other places, inlcuding in his comments, flesh means penis.

So when he makes the commanet about flesh that it cut off, that's a foreskin, and when he talks about flesh remains, he's talking about a penis.

​

 

[dybmh]

Rabbi Hirsch is the one who says it means "oppose to the limit." I agree with you that it means remove, extinguish; and I've argued against Rabbi Hirsch's claim that it means anything less.

A more comprehensive answer to your question occurred in another thread where it was pointed out that in Genesis 17, the text makes it clear that there's two things, the actuality of circumcision, versus the the manufacture of a "sign" signifying what the actual circumcision is. Judaism has conflated the sign and what it signifies as though they're the same thing. Abarbanel said, "Is circumcision a covenant, as in v. 10, or a `sign' of the covenant as in v. 11?"

I can understand that. A covenant is a contract. The "sign" is signing the contract. You can't just nod your head wen buying a house, there needs to be ink on the paper and a witness.

Ritually removing some flesh from the organ that represents masculinity manufactures the sign of the covenant (by signifying the birth of a new aeon whose firstborn isn't conceived from the phallus). It seems patently absurd to assume the human body is cleansed or purified by removing a piece of flesh from the penis. That's merely a ritual, a sign, and not what's actually being signified.

The idea that there is impurity represented by the foreskin could be a late interpretation, commentary, speculation, superstition. It would be good to see that Zohar reference regarding Metzitzah you teased with earlier. I would expect, if impurity is mentioned about the foreskin, that is where it would be. Maybe if I have time, maybe I'll go and look for references to this supposed impurity myself.

The hill of foreskins is a hill in Gilgal, which is גלגל, which, if you add a tav suffix (you know a cross in ktav ivri ), is "Golgotha" גלגלת, where a virgin born son of Israel was sacrificed to devils for the good pleasure and purposes of the sacrificers (Psalms 106:37-42). How positively ironic. Put a cross, a tav, on a hill of skulls, Gilgal,and you get Golgotha, which is the mezuzah (blood on the wooden doorpost) of the gates into Zion. A bloody wooden cross-beam משקוף over a bloody wooden post (mezuzah מזוזה) points the way, the truth of the way, and the life-blood of the way, into the Kingdom of God.

I'm glad you're enjoying yourself.

Israel is supposed to be the savior of humanity. Canaan was an enemy in the way of Israel's purpose in God's grand plan. But there was an even greater enemy than Canann that has to be removed before Israel can enter the promised land and the Kingdom of God. That enemy was destroyed once and for all at גלגלת.

And that enemy was?

Israel still hasn't truly entered the promise, or the Kingdom of God. But they will when it's time. They will when they realize that ritual circumcision is, like Gilgal and the hill of foreskins, just a fore skene. The former represents a virgin birth, and the offering of that poison fruit to the devil who was just blind enough to take it and eat. The same blood that's the death of the angel of death is the everlasting life of those who know what metzitzah represents.

So all mohels are im-mohel-tal? ( kidding )

 

[John D. Brey]

Ramban's conclusion is that the orlah *is* the foreskin. Deferring to his authority and expertise means accepting his conclusion.

I respectfully and completely disagree. Ramban is a tremendous genius. And a great authority on these things. But not only have things been hidden from the tradition he serves, but in his service to that tradition, he shows biases and errors that lend themselves to you and I understanding things Ramban couldn't bring himself to accept.

If your approach is "strict Hebrew" let's look at what Ramban is saying in total, in "strict Hebrew".

Lets.

Ramban on Genesis 17:14:1

וערל זכר כאן לימדך שהמילה היא באותו מקום שהוא ניכר בין זכר לנקבה לשון רש"י (רש"י על בראשית י״ז:י״ד) וכן הזכירו רבותינו (ב"ר מו ד) גם טעמים אחרים

"וערל זכר": Here teaches you that the cut it [is] in this place that it divides between male and to female . . .

Keeping in mind the crucial point that the place of circumcision divides between male and female, what Rabbi Hirsch says is significant:

מילה [milah] does not generally mean: to cut, to circumcise; only in connection with ברית מילה [brit milah] does it occur in this sense. מול [mul] means "opposite," as in . . . (Bemidbar 22:5) . . . (Tehillim 118:10): "In God's Name, I will oppose them." As a verb, then מול [mul] means: to oppose, to the limit. To be sure, מול [mul] in connection with ערלה [orlah] means "to cut off.". . . The cutting, however, is merely a means, whereas the end and intention is to oppose, to the limit, the ערלה [orlah], or more precisely: to oppose the הערלה בשר, [the orlah of the flesh].​

Rabbi Hirsch's final statement above is wrong, backward, erroneous. And he corrects it later. He's so inundated into the false traditional reading that he distorts what the text says. It says בשר ערלת and the tav suffix means בשר is in a construct relationship with the ערלה: "the flesh of your orlah."

Everything I've written about brit milah over the years implies it represents "opposition" to the fleshly distinction between male and female. The cut is designed to oppose, with extreme prejudice, the utterly un-Jewish belief that there's such a thing as material, fleshly, masculinity. That's idolatry pure and simple. Only divine spirit is masculine. Everything else is feminine in relationship to that divine masculinity.

And Rabbi Avraham [Ibn Ezra] says ( Leviticus 12:3 ) "his orlah" knowing because he [is] in orlah and not thus "orlah of heart" ( Jeremiah 9:25 ) "the mouth" ( Exodus 6:12 ) "and ear" ( Jeremiah 6:10 ) because all those [are] constructs.

This is a virtual quote from Ibn Ezra's comment on Leviticus 12:3. Ramban is highlighting / *noticing* the meaning of "construct". The difference is "IN" orlah compared to a construct which means "OF" orlah.​

In the condensation of the thread on the forgery of the foreskin I noted the construct relationship:

According to Nachmanides, the reason the text speaks of the "flesh" at all (in relationship to the orlah ערלה) [in Genesis 17], is so that we know precisely what "orlah" ערלה is referring to in the verse. He points out that the word "flesh" speaks of the genital-organ, thereby making us aware of what particular "flesh" the orlah ערלה is being related to (since elsewhere it's used [orlah is] with the heart, the lips, and the ears).

His solution for the reversed word order [in Genesis 17] only works if the word “flesh” refers to the genital-organ since otherwise we still don’t know what particular “flesh” is being referenced by the word “orlah”? According to him that's how we're made aware of what orlah ערלה is being associated with in the statement. But if the word "flesh" בשר refers to the genital-organ (as it must), then the passage reads, "circumcise the genital organ of your orlah ערלה." And this is particularly so since the words for “flesh” and “orlah” are in a construct relationship meaning the “flesh” of the “orlah.”​

This statement is true to precisely what Ramban is saying and it's decisive: the "flesh" of the "orlah," in the Hebrew of Genesis 17, is speaking of the penis בשר of the uncircumcision ערלה since the two words are in a construct relationship.

Manufacturing the "sign" of the covenant isn't the fulfillment of the covenant. It's making a significant sign of what the eventuality of the covenant will be by removing a piece of flesh from the offensive organ whose offense is that it gallivants as "masculine" when no flesh in the universe save perhaps a singular male divinity (and it must be singular for reason we shant go into here) is ever masculine.

Masculine flesh is idolatry since it implies "divine" "flesh"; which is why the pagans worship the phallus as divinity in their phallic-cults. They know what it means to incarnate masculine "spirit" in feminine flesh.

And so not says "orlah of their flesh" like what [is] said "orlahs of your hearts" ( Deuteronomy 10:16 ) or "orlahs of your lips" ( see Exodus 6:12 ) but says "flesh, your orlahs" which he will cut off, the flesh that it [is] orlah on them.

No words added, strict Hebrew, to the best of my ability, the instructions in Gen 17:11-14 are talking about cutting "this flesh, your orlahs". "אֵ֖ת בְּשַׂ֣ר עׇרְלַתְכֶ֑ם". That is what Ramban is saying. THIS flesh is specific, THIS commandment is specific.​

In my opinion the matter is clearly explained in Scripture. It does not say, “And ye shall circumcise your foreskin,” thus leaving the meaning in doubt, nor does it say, “the foreskin of your flesh,” just as it says the foreskin of your heart,425 and “the foreskin of your lips.”426 But instead it says, And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin,427 meaning that you are to cut off the flesh which is your foreskin, namely, your flesh which obstructs, and there is no flesh in the body which obstructs and covers a limb [as is the case with the genital organ], where one can cut the flesh and remain without the foreskin, other than the “flesh that covers the corona,” which the Sages mentioned.428 The word “flesh” in the expression, uncircumcised in flesh,429 is a euphemism for the genital organ, just as in the verses great of flesh,430 and an issue of his flesh.

Ramban.​

This statement from Ramban is a test of our objectivity in the face of a serious threat to the traditional understanding of the text. This is the case since there's a particularly onerous case of cognitive dissonance adversely affecting the exegesis going on in the statement above.

Can a serious student of the word of God set aside their heartfelt respect for Ramban long enough to see his error? Or does the Jewish tradition require almost an idolatrous attitude toward sages like Ramban? Is it blasphemous to take note of the fact that in the statement above, Ramban is putting a veil over his heart so that he can't see that the traditional understanding of this seminal text is grammatically incorrect?

In the final statement, Ramban makes it clear that the word "flesh" בשר is a euphemism for the genital organ (the penis). And he's absolutely correct that it has to be the genital organ in the context of the verse in question since otherwise the text is grammatically indecipherable and God is not the author of confusion.

But if the word "flesh" בשר in the text is the "male organ" (distinguishing male from female) and it is, then since the text puts the word "flesh" בשר into a construct relationship with "orlah" ערלה, the correct reading of the text condemns the traditional reading as patently false. The grammar of the Hebrew of the text speaks of the "male organ" of your "orlah."

If a person reads Ramban's statement above, objectively, it's patently clear that he's engaged in an attempt to to exegete the meaning of the word ערלה in the text since the traditional understanding of the word, i.e., "foreskin of the male organ," is impossible according to sound exegesis of the Hebrew grammar of Genesis chapter 17. Ramban's entire exegetical exercise (in the text quoted above) is to try to figure out why the text speaks of the "male organ of the orlah" when Jewish tradition is sure it's speaking of the "orlah of the male organ"?

After he shows that there's no way around the fact that the text is speaking of the "male organ of the orlah" he merely interprets "orlah" as "foreskin" when the entire exegesis just performed, by him, shows that because of the grammar "orlah" isn't the "foreskin" of the male organ, such that it would have to be the "foreskin" of some other organ. -----But Ramban knows, as we do, that in context (Genesis 17) it isn't speaking of the "foreskin" of some other organ, which means it probably doesn't mean "foreskin" at all, but rather, "uncircumcision."

"Orlah" doesn't mean "foreskin" at all. It means "uncircumcision." So what's the "flesh" of an uncircumcised body? It's the penis.

Voila, we're prepared to properly exegete the meaning of the text. It says every Jew must be circumcised (rather than remain as the uncircumcision). And the sign signifying when this circumcision has taken place, the eschatological sign signifying that the eschaton has arrived, the sign you must guard until the glory arrives, the sign that will reveal that the glory has arrived, is that you must cut some flesh from the penis of your uncircumcision.

They were taught that when the Holy One, Blessed Is He, said to Adam, "Accursed is the ground because of you; through suffering will you eat from it all the days of your life." Then Adam said, "Master of the World! Until when?" He said to him, "Until a man will be born circumcised."

Midrash Tanchuma Bereishis 11.​

John

 

[dybmh]

Maybe if I have time, maybe I'll go and look for references to this supposed impurity myself.

Zohar 1:13a:3
Zohar 1:13a:6-7
Zohar 1:18a:5
Zohar 2:95b:4

That's all I could find. 4 references to either impure foreskin or defilement of the foreskin or filth that is the foreskin. But for someone who claims Zohar as scripture, as you have, this should be enough to confirm that the concept is valid.

 

[dybmh]

I respectfully and completely disagree. Ramban is a tremendous genius. And a great authority on these things. But not only have things been hidden from the tradition he serves, but in his service to that tradition, he shows biases and errors that lend themselves to you and I understanding things Ramban couldn't bring himself to accept.

I support your choices, John. But just a few posts ago you deferred to his authority saying my objection was with Ramban, not your conclusion. But the truth is, it IS your conclusion. and that's fine. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I think you should take credit for your innovative approach and be proud of it. You disagree with Ramban's conclusions, and you are deeply inspired by *the english translation of Ramban's comments when they are smooshed together adding some words and removing others*.

Lets.

OK, you just agreed to go through the entire comment using strict Hebrew.

Keeping in mind the crucial point that the place of circumcision divides between male and female, what Rabbi Hirsch says is significant:

מילה [milah] does not generally mean: to cut, to circumcise; only in connection with ברית מילה [brit milah] does it occur in this sense. מול [mul] means "opposite," as in . . . (Bemidbar 22:5) . . . (Tehillim 118:10): "In God's Name, I will oppose them." As a verb, then מול [mul] means: to oppose, to the limit. To be sure, מול [mul] in connection with ערלה [orlah] means "to cut off.". . . The cutting, however, is merely a means, whereas the end and intention is to oppose, to the limit, the ערלה [orlah], or more precisely: to oppose the הערלה בשר, [the orlah of the flesh].
Rabbi Hirsch's final statement above is wrong, backward, erroneous. And he corrects it later. He's so inundated into the false traditional reading that he distorts what the text says. It says בשר ערלת and the tav suffix means בשר is in a construct relationship with the ערלה: "the flesh of your orlah."

1) This is irrelevant. We have agreed that the word milah in this context means cut. I brought several sources, even Ramban uses a derivative of "caf-reish-tav" ( to cut-off ) describing what is happening.

2) I also noticed the Hebrew used at the end of Rabbi Hirsch's comment "הערלה בשר", and I agree it's not a construct, so the translation would be "the orlah, flesh". You have chosen to hand wave this away. That's not "strict Hebrew", and, something this nuanced cannot be determined without looking at the original German.

Everything I've written about brit milah over the years implies it represents "opposition" to the fleshly distinction between male and female.

That's what you've written. Good! But the approach of "strict Hebrew" renders the opposition is at the place of distinction. Not opposition to the distinction itself.

The cut is designed to oppose, with extreme prejudice, the utterly un-Jewish belief that there's such a thing as material, fleshly, masculinity. That's idolatry pure and simple. Only divine spirit is masculine. Everything else is feminine in relationship to that divine masculinity.

The reason spirit *appears* masculine is because the perspective is coming from *below*. The funnel is pointy from below, and open from above. Both masculine and feminine components are absolutley required in order for the funnel to operate. And the feminine is above the masculine. If it were only masculine, that would be a needle, or a staff, or a column, but there would be no flow. Isaiah 40:26, John. "Lift up your eyes". Not look up, *lift up*! Literally! Lift up your awareness and see "who made these".

 

[dybmh]

According to Nachmanides, the reason the text speaks of the "flesh" at all (in relationship to the orlah ערלה) [in Genesis 17], is so that we know precisely what "orlah" ערלה is referring to in the verse.

Yes. That is exactly what he says, in Hebrew literally.

He points out that the word "flesh" speaks of the genital-organ,

Buzzzzzz! That's incorrect.

What does the "strict Hebrew" say:

"ו"ערל בשר" (יחזקאל מד ט) כנוי כמו גדלי בשר (שם טז כו) זב מבשרו (ויקרא טו ב)"

"ערל בשר" is a construct! It's in a specific verse ( Ezekiel 44:9 ). It's an expression, the english in sefaria says "euphemism". How do we know that it's completely different? Because Ramban just finished telling us it's completely different!!! Ramban says "לא אמר "ערלת בשרכם" Notice the word order. It does not say "ערלת בשרכם" which would be a construct similar to "ערל בשר". Therefore, the euphemism does not apply in Gen 17!

When you quote this from the english, they leave out the construct, they leave out the citation to Ezekiel, and that makes it look like a general comment which can be applied to the original verse in Gen 17, but, it's not. The conclusion you're making, not Ramban, YOU, is not an approach of "strict Hebrew". And it ignores the middle part of the comment, instead focusing on the edges.

His solution for the reversed word order [in Genesis 17] only works if the word “flesh” refers to the genital-organ since otherwise we still don’t know what particular “flesh” is being referenced by the word “orlah”?

Buzzzzz! This is false. The error is the word "only". You're *assuming* the words in Gen 17, "בְּשַׂ֣ר עׇרְלַתְכֶ֑ם" is a construct, but, that isn't the only way to read it. Honestly, it looks like a construct based on the vowels. But you often remove vowels to make a point. So , seeing this as a construct is not the only way it makes sense. Ramban points this out in the "strict Hebrew" of his comments, but you're not approaching Ramban's comment using the "strict Hebrew".
So no, not "only works". It only works for you, based on a preconceived notion.

According to him that's how we're made aware of what orlah ערלה is being associated with in the statement.

Looking at the entire comment, Ramban is saying the conclusion of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Rabbis in Midrash Rabbah are confirmed in the verse. His comments support their conclusion, they do not oppose it.

But if the word "flesh" בשר refers to the genital-organ (as it must), then the passage reads, "circumcise the genital organ of your orlah ערלה." And this is particularly so since the words for “flesh” and “orlah” are in a construct relationship meaning the “flesh” of the “orlah.”

Buzzzzzz! This is false. "as it must" is false.

This statement is true to precisely what Ramban is saying and it's decisive: the "flesh" of the "orlah," in the Hebrew of Genesis 17, is speaking of the penis בשר of the uncircumcision ערלה since the two words are in a construct relationship.

Nope! As shown in the "strict Hebrew".

Manufacturing the "sign" of the covenant isn't the fulfillment of the covenant. It's making a significant sign of what the eventuality of the covenant will be by removing a piece of flesh from the offensive organ whose offense is that it gallivants as "masculine" when no flesh in the universe save perhaps a singular male divinity (and it must be singular for reason we shant go into here) is ever masculine.

Sure it does, John. The sign is the signature on the contract. For those who want to role-play as Jews, they don't like it. Squatters in a house don't acknowledge that physical signature on the contract either.

Regarding male divinity... "lift up your eyes". The feminine is above the masculine, but does not replace the masculine. Both are needed.

Masculine flesh is idolatry since it implies "divine" "flesh"; which is why the pagans worship the phallus as divinity in their phallic-cults. They know what it means to incarnate masculine "spirit" in feminine flesh.

I doubt that it has anything to do with flesh, and more that a phallus represents a man, and a man represents "might".