The Gospel According to the Shelah.

[John D. Brey]

The Shelah is a consummate scholar who demonstrates mastery in every aspect of rabbinic learning, to wit, halakah and talmudic jurisprudence, homiletics and biblical exegesis, philosophy and ethics, and above all else the esoteric traditions known as Kabbalah. Horowitz combines an extensive knowledge of talmudic-halakhic Judaism and kabbalistic lore and thereby forges a synthesis that he presents as the basic reality of Jewish religiosity.​

​

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson.​

In one sense, Professor Wolfson's statement doesn't fully compute, since anyone who adds up all the Shelah's wisdom and knowledge would surely equate him a polymath. Which is a mathematical way to say that what Professor Wolfson's states above is somewhat of an understatement. With Professor Wolfson's comments in the foreground, it's at least ironic to speak of the Shelah (the great Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz) producing important commentary on the Gospel that was spread by a group of itinerant heretics in the first two centuries of the current era. A broad and careful perusal of the Shelah's magnum opus (Shney Luchot Habrit) leaves little doubt that knowingly or unknowingly he's plagiarizing the four Gospels throughout the most important parts of his own gospel truth.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

​

In one sense, Professor Wolfson's statement doesn't fully compute since anyone who adds up all the Shelah's wisdom and knowledge would surely equate him a polymath. Which is a mathematical way to say that what Professor Wolfson's states above is somewhat of an understatement. With Professor Wolfson's comments in the foreground, it's at least ironic to speak of the Shelah (the great Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz) producing important commentary on the Gospel produced by a group of itinerant heretics in the first two centuries of the current era. Nevertheless, a broad and careful perusal of the Shelah's magnum opus (Shney Luchot Habrit) leaves little doubt that knowingly or unknowingly, he's paralleling the four Gospels, in the most important elements of his own gospel truth.

Since this examination fancies itself little more than a thumbnail sketch, and since only the broadest and most orthodox parts of the Gospel message are being examined, it would be useful to draw a brief outline of the Gospel elements being parroted (meaning no disrespect) by the Shelah.

The Lord shall give a sign. The Lord shall give a miracle. . . And why did it have to be virgin birth . . . because . . . we are born sinners. We have the imputation of Adam’s sin. We have a sin-nature. We sin personally as a result of having a sin-nature. . . We are born spiritually dead. And the only person who can redeem us . . . is a member of the human race who is a free man, who is not born spiritually dead. That is, a person who is born without a sin-nature.​

​

R.B. Thieme, Jr., Isaiah, lesson # 6 (last 17 minutes of sermon).​

Col. Thieme's statement above, is, in a nutshell, the foundation of the Gospel message. Vis-à-vis Adam's first, or original, sin, transfers by means of the act (sexual copulation) to the receiving end of that act, i.e., all who are conceived by means of the first sexual act (and all such acts that follow) leaving only one conceived apart from that act, say someone virgin born, as qualified to offer himself up in sacrifice (should he so desire) for those unqualified to approach God by reason of the fact that their very conception separated them from the ability to be in the presence of God and infected them with a death-sentence:

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, National Academy of Science, National Medal of Science, Darwin-Wallace Medal, wife of Carl Sagan, mother of Dorian Sagan, quotation from Symbiotic Planet, p. 90.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

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, National Academy of Science, National Medal of Science, Darwin-Wallace Medal, wife of Carl Sagan, mother of Dorian Sagan, quotation from Symbiotic Planet, p. 90.​

This "sexually transmitted disease" is what Christians call "sin nature," and which Jews call the "evil inclination" יצר הרע (yetzer hara). Thieme points out that since this disease is transmitted through sexual congress, i.e., copulation, therefore, if a person is conceived apart from sexual copulation and its death-sentence (as legalized through an act of sexual congress), e.g., a virgin conception and birth, the person born of a virgin is free from the "sin nature," and thus able to directly mediate for sinners before God since like Adam prior to the Fall, one who is virgin born, is capable, prior to any personal sin of his own, of contact and direct communication with God on behalf of himself and others.

By means of the virgin birth, one would come into the world . . . who would not have a sin-nature, who would not have the imputation of Adam’s sin, who in the realm of his humanity would live a perfect life, and therefore . . . could go to the cross not simply because he had not committed an act of personal sin, but, because he had no sin-nature, he had no imputed sin. . . Now all of this begins with the virgin birth. No virgin birth, no salvation. . . For the death of the one who dies on the cross to be efficacious, he must be free from the sin-nature, he must have freedom from the imputed sin of Adam, and he must live a life without any personal sin. . . So you can never disassociate the virgin birth from the doctrine of soteriology. Salvation and the virgin birth go together.​

​

R.B. Thieme, Jr., Isaiah, lesson # 6 (last 16 minutes of sermon).​

Since this is the foundation and basis of the Gospel message, it would be peculiar and enlightening to see a Jewish polymath, one of the greatest thinkers of Judaism, presenting this very message in hopes that it might be swallowed by the Jewish faithful.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Since this is the foundation and basis of the Gospel message, it would be peculiar and enlightening to see a Jewish polymath, one of the greatest thinkers of Judaism, presenting this very message in hopes that it might be swallowed by the Jewish faithful.

But when he became corrupted and sinned, the pollution of the snake went into him, the snake being the Satan and the evil impulse. And that is the leavening in the dough. And then the dough became leavened and became a turbid body of a skin tunic; so he caused his own death. . . if man on earth had not failed and as a result become garbed in the pollutants emitted by the serpent, there would not have been such a thing as shame, negative aspects to the act of procreation. . . [the] person born as a result . . . would have come into the world with the same stature as Adam​

​

Shney Luchot HaBerit, Aseret HaDibrot, Pesachim, Torah Ohr 25; Shney Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vaera, Torah Ohr, 39.​

As fate would have it, in the Shelah's nomenclature, "the pollution of the snake" is none other than the seed of the man, semen, through which, according to Thieme, and Christian doctrine, the "sin-nature" (that is the "evil inclination") is passed on to the next generation thereby contaminating the next generation with the "pollution of the snake":

Eve's sin was due to her being seduced by the serpent which had mated with her and introduced its pollutant into her body. The potency of that evil-smelling drop of semen caused her to become subject to menstruation at regular intervals; she therefore had to remain in a state of impurity for seven days, corresponding to the days it took to create the universe. She, after all, had damaged the work of the six days of Creation. When a woman gives birth she is also subject to ritual impurity in a similar way to the impurity of menstruating women, as per Leviticus 12,2. This too is due to the original sin for which she has to suffer great pain when giving birth as per Genesis 3, 16.​

​

Shney Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Sefer Vayikra, Torah Ohr, Vayikra 77.​

Here, in the Shelah's own words, the fleshly serpent enters Eve's body polluting her and the one conceived in her womb. The pollution comes, literally, from the sin of conception that the Shelah goes so far as to label the "original sin." This original sin of conception is the one Eve gets punished for in Genesis chapter 3. And lest there be any doubt that this transferable sin is the self-same "sin-nature" Thieme says gets transferred through the male-seed (becoming spiritual-death through an act of sexual congress), the Shelah goes on:

Because of this, all the people born nowadays originate in what Rabbi Akavyah has called the טפה סרוחה, the smelly drop of semen. . . The name אדם for man, the species, stems from the word אדמה in the sense of something very superior. Man was entitled to that appellation as long as he had not sinned. Man will again be entitled to that name when the Messiah has come and the repair to the world caused by Adam's sin has been completed.​

​

Shney Luchot HaBerit, Torah Sheikhtav, Vayeshev, Miketz, Vayigash, Torah Ohr, 76.​

Add to the Shelah's statement above, the Christian concept that Messiah is born of a virgin, so that the way people nowadays originate (with the smelly drop of semen), doesn't affect his conception, and it becomes reasonable to posit that Messiah represent the possibility of a human "korban" (sacrifice) that's efficacious so far as redeeming those born the way everyone but Messiah is nowadays conceived:

Remember that if Adam had not sinned the whole concept of areas that are sanctified and areas that are not would not have existed. . . Man would not have been required to bring himself close to G'd by means of an animal sacrifice; he himself would have been the sacrifice . . . The entire laws pertaining to sacrifices . . . are all reminders of the first sin committed by Adam and the resultant diminution of man's stature in the universe. . . Instead of offering the souls of the righteous, Aaron could only offer animal sacrifices i.e., from domesticated beasts such as cattle and sheep. This was basically no different from what Adam himself had done after he had sinned.​

Shney Luchot Habrit, p. 681-682; 700.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

​

Remember that if Adam had not sinned the whole concept of areas that are sanctified and areas that are not would not have existed. . . Man would not have been required to bring himself close to G'd by means of an animal sacrifice; he himself would have been the sacrifice . . . The entire laws pertaining to sacrifices . . . are all reminders of the first sin committed by Adam and the resultant diminution of man's stature in the universe. . . Instead of offering the souls of the righteous, Aaron could only offer animal sacrifices i.e., from domesticated beasts such as cattle and sheep. This was basically no different from what Adam himself had done after he had sinned.​

Shney Luchot Habrit, p. 681-682; 700.​

In the quotation above, the Shelah points out that all the laws pertaining to sacrifices are reminders of the first sin committed by Adam, through which man's diminution of stature, to include the senescence and death of his physical body, come into being. In this context, the Shelah notes that prior to the first sin, Adam was in a state whereby he could have himself been the perfect substitute for his later sin. Existing in the pristine state of his creation, which didn't include being conceived from the poison known as the smelly drop of semen, come from the fleshly serpent, Adam, not yet subject to his later sin, was able to have been a korban קרבן, a sacrifice, able to atone for the sins of others.

Under such conditions he represented the closest one could come to G'd, i.e., the objective of the very concept of קרבן [korban], offering, self-sacrifice.​

​

Shney Luchot Habrit, p. 699.​

After his sin, not only is Adam no longer a fitting korban/sacrifice קרבן, it's he himself, and his other, Eve, who require the atonement his prior state would have afforded him and her. Instead, they must revert to the symbolic sacrifice of those animals the ancient mind often used to represent perfect, blameless, deity. Adam sacrificed these beasts, as did his offspring, as emblematic of what might have been if he had not himself sined, and moreso what could come to be if by the grace of God some future son of man, stillborn for sure, could nevertheless still be born without the sin that befell Adam, such that through this seed of the woman, this future son of man, not only Adam, but all those conceived by means of the smelly drop of semen, might find a redeemer capable of offering himself as an efficacious korban to God. It's this hope, for a fitting human korban, upon which all messianic desire within the sons of men are hung.

Now all of this begins with the virgin birth. No virgin birth, no salvation. . . For the death of the one who dies on the cross to be efficacious, he must be free from the sin-nature, he must have freedom from the imputed sin of Adam, and he must live a life without any personal sin. . . So you can never disassociate the virgin birth from the doctrine of soteriology. Salvation and the virgin birth go together.​

​

R.B. Thieme, Jr., Isaiah, lesson # 6 (last 16 minutes of sermon).​

John

 

[GoodAttention]

In the quotation above, the Shelah points out that all the laws pertaining to sacrifices are reminders of the first sin committed by Adam, through which man's diminution of stature, to include the senescence and death of his physical body, come into being. In this context, the Shelah notes that prior to the first sin, Adam was in a state whereby he could have himself been the perfect substitute for his later sin. Existing in the pristine state of his creation, which didn't include being conceived from the poison known as the smelly drop of semen, come from the fleshly serpent, Adam, not yet subject to his later sin, was able to have been a korban קרבן, a sacrifice, able to atone for the sins of others.

Under such conditions he represented the closest one could come to G'd, i.e., the objective of the very concept of קרבן [korban], offering, self-sacrifice.​

​

Shney Luchot Habrit, p. 699.​

After his sin, not only is Adam no longer a fitting korban/sacrifice קרבן, it's he himself, and his other, Eve, who require the atonement his prior state would have afforded him and her. Instead, they must revert to the symbolic sacrifice of those animals the ancient mind often used to represent perfect, blameless, deity. Adam sacrificed these beasts, as did his offspring, as emblematic of what might have been if he had not himself sined, and moreso what could come to be if by the grace of God some future son of man, stillborn for sure, could nevertheless still be born without the sin that befell Adam, such that through this seed of the woman, this future son of man, not only Adam, but all those conceived by means of the smelly drop of semen, might find a redeemer capable of offering himself as an efficacious korban to God. It's this hope, for a fitting human korban, upon which all messianic desire within the sons of men are hung.

Now all of this begins with the virgin birth. No virgin birth, no salvation. . . For the death of the one who dies on the cross to be efficacious, he must be free from the sin-nature, he must have freedom from the imputed sin of Adam, and he must live a life without any personal sin. . . So you can never disassociate the virgin birth from the doctrine of soteriology. Salvation and the virgin birth go together.​

​

R.B. Thieme, Jr., Isaiah, lesson # 6 (last 16 minutes of sermon).​

John

Is not the birth of this redeeming, Messianic child, who was himself sacrificed for the salvation of the sons of men and their generational sin, therefore the end of the matter?

 

[John D. Brey]

Is not the birth of this redeeming, Messianic child, who was himself sacrificed for the salvation of the sons of men and their generational sin, therefore the end of the matter?

Not sure what you mean?



John

 

[GoodAttention]

Not sure what you mean?



John

My understanding of your words is that salvation for all men has been achieved by the sacrifice of a sinless child from a virgin birth.

What more does a person need?

 

[John D. Brey]

My understanding of your words is that salvation for all men has been achieved by the sacrifice of a sinless child from a virgin birth. What more does a person need?

They need a mechanism to receive the salvation that's provided through the sacrifice.



John

 

[GoodAttention]

They need a mechanism to receive the salvation that's provided through the sacrifice.



John

Is the salvation not passed on to the next generation?

What is the point of Christ is one’s semen remains foul?

 

[John D. Brey]

Is the salvation not passed on to the next generation? . . . What is the point of Christ is one’s semen remains foul?

Since Jesus was conceived without semen, even his physical body was free from the poison that infects everyone else. If he fathered offspring through phallic-sex, his offspring would be immortal since the seed of the woman, if not infected by contaminated semen, is immortal and can return mankind to the immortality that existed prior to the rise of senescence and death, come, from phallic-sex.

Since Jesus wasn't conceived with the evil smelling drop of Adamic semen, his own semen wasn't smelly (so to say). His mother's womb, because it had no semen in it when he was conceived, was the mikveh that purified his flesh to include his semen. He could have returned mankind to the immortality of the garden of Eden merely by impregnating a woman with his pure semen and therein beginning a new, immortal, branch of humanity. That's what Judaism was expecting from Messiah.

But that's merely biological immortality. Jesus's physical offspring could have lived for hundreds or thousands of years so long as nothing destroyed their physical, immortal, fleshly body. But if they tripped and fell off a cliff, they'd fair no better than a born-sinner.

Ergo, Jesus sought something even more lasting than biological immortality. He didn't father immortal offspring, as was an expectation associated with the Jewish Messiah, since then all he'd do is return mankind to the immortality possessed in the garden of Eden. Mankind would still be subject to death whether they were biologically immortal or not.

Jesus didn't merely return mankind to the immortality it once possessed in the garden of Eden. He came for a higher calling that was hidden so deep in the Tanakh that not even the greatest Jewish sage could have found it there. He came not to return mankind to biological immortality, something all organisms possessed prior to phallic-sex and its death-sentence (Genesis 2:17), but to offer the most valuable possession any creature could ever possess: everlasting life (John 11:26).



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Now all of this begins with the virgin birth. No virgin birth, no salvation. . . For the death of the one who dies on the cross to be efficacious, he must be free from the sin-nature, he must have freedom from the imputed sin of Adam, and he must live a life without any personal sin. . . So you can never disassociate the virgin birth from the doctrine of soteriology. Salvation and the virgin birth go together.​

​

R.B. Thieme, Jr., Isaiah, lesson # 6 (last 16 minutes of sermon).​

The Shelah gets the gist of all this.

Abraham and Sarah are the תיקון, reformation of Adam and Eve ensuring their continuity.​

​

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Sheikhtav, Vayera, Chayei Sara, Torah Ohr, 7.​

Rabbi Samson Hirsch implies that the language used to affect the covenant in Genesis 17, implies that God is not initiating a wholly new covenant with Abraham, but transferring a previous covenant that's become defunct. Consequently, the organ added to Adam in Genesis 2:21, i.e., the organ through which the evil smelling drop of semen comes, making the original covenant defunct, is very literally in the crosshairs of the covenant established in Genesis 17. What's added to Adam in order to contaminate Eve and the seed of the woman, is cut and bled in Genesis 17, prior to the birth of Isaac. In effect, Isaac is conceived, at least symbolically, apart from the evil smelling drop of semen since its delivery-mechanism has been put in the crosshairs of the reestablishment of the covenant where it, rather than the covenant, is made obsolete.

Abraham was told about the impending birth of Isaac being itself a sacrifice, since Abraham had already sacrificed himself when he performed circumcision on his own body.​

​

Shney Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayera, Torah Ohr, 57.​

Stated more accurately, the statement above would say that Abraham was told about the impending birth of Isaac making Isaac fit for sacrifice since father Abraham has already sacrificed the fathering-organ at his ritual circumcision whereby the delivery-mechanism for the evil smelling drop of semen is put in the crosshairs of his knife and ritually executed, that is bled. We know this is more accurate since most of the sagely midrashim parallel Abraham's circumcision with the Akedah itself.

The sages of Judaism see a direct parallel between Abraham offering the organ required to father Isaac, and the offering of Isaac. The parallel is at least twofold since typically, if you sacrifice the organ through which Isaac's birth is conceived, you've sacrificed the possibility of his conception and birth, and thus you've sacrificed his life. For the time being, i.e., prior to Isaac's conception, the flesh of Abraham's fathering organ represents the possibility of Isaac's conception, so that if you sacrifice that flesh it's tantamount to sacrificing Isaac.

The fact that Isaac's conception isn't stillborn, he's still born, can be read to imply, symbolically, that he's conceived without the evil smelling drop of semen which would thereby make his flesh worthy of being offered to God as a living sacrifice. In the words of R.B. Thieme, Jr., Isaac would needs be born without the imputation of Adam's sin, come, as it were, through the evil smelling drop of semen, and also, Isaac cannot sin himself prior to the sacrificial offering.

It follows then that Isaac's life after the עקדה, was the life of a human being who had not originated from a drop of semen. We must view Isaac as someone reborn in consequence of that experience: a totally new creature. G-d had applied the strictest yardstick to him by letting him die, and subsequently by infusing him with a new soul. He had also sanctified his body; from that time on Isaac's body resembled that of אדם הראשון, also not the product of a drop of semen.​

​

Shney Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayera, Torah Ohr, 46.​

There's a vertiginous element to the Shelah's statement above since by taking a knife to the fathering-organ through which Isaac would be contaminated by the evil smelling drop of semen, Isaac is symbolically, or ritually, conceived as אדם הראשון (prelapse Adam) was created. In the ritual enactment of Abraham's circumcision (and that's all it is since he doesn't cut all the way to the bone of the truth of bleeding that organ), Isaac is conceived and born a human being who had not originated from a drop of semen. But since being born that way makes Isaac the first human being worthy of being offered as a living sacrifice, a korban offering, the Akedah is presupposed in Abraham's ritual circumcision.

Unfortunately, so far as the Shelah’s rendering is concerned, the foregoing implies that since Isaac’s first birth is only ritually freed from the evil smelling drop of semen, by means of Abraham ritually emasculating himself (rather than actually doing so), the Akedah can only be the ritual sacrifice of Isaac, since Isaac isn’t really conceived without the evil smelling drop of semen (and thus isn't qualified to be a korban offering). Isaac isn't really, but only ritually, qualified to be a living sacrifice, a korban offering to God. Abraham's ritual circumcision, followed by the Akedah, are both symbolic/ritual proceedings presaging a later offering affected by a latter-day virgin birth that isn't merely ritually freed from the evil smelling drop of semen (but genuinely so), such that the one so conceived is really, rather than ritually, a fitting korban offering to God.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Unfortunately, so far as the Shelah’s rendering is concerned, the foregoing implies that since Isaac’s first birth is only ritually freed from the evil smelling drop of semen, by means of Abraham ritually emasculating himself (rather than actually doing so), the Akedah can only be the ritual sacrifice of Isaac, since Isaac isn’t really conceived without the evil smelling drop of semen (and thus isn't qualified to be a korban offering). Isaac isn't really, but only ritually, qualified to be a living sacrifice, a korban offering to God. Abraham's ritual circumcision, followed by the Akedah, are both symbolic/ritual proceedings presaging a later offering affected by a latter-day virgin birth that isn't merely ritually freed from the evil smelling drop of semen (but genuinely so), such that the one so conceived is really, rather than ritually, a fitting korban offering to God.

Since Abraham circumcised himself on Passover, and since technically speaking his circumcision symbolizes his willingness to sacrifice Isaac as a human lamb (korban peshat), it's patently obvious why the Jewish sages say two blood were placed on the doorpost on Passover: the blood of the lamb and limb. The logic of the two bloods is that Abraham's circumcision blood represents Isaac's blood since Abraham's circumcision represents the sacrifice of Isaac. At the Akedah, Abraham tells Isaac that God will provide, himself, the "lamb" for the offering. Later in the narrative, though the lamb, Isaac, isn't offered, a peace-offering (ram) to God is offered as though the korban offering of the lamb, Isaac, had actually taken place. Within the deep symbolism, the circumcision blood represent the elimination of the evil smelling drop of semen necessary for the human sacrifice of the son to take place.

Happy are Israel who bring a favorable offering to the blessed Holy One, offering up their sons on the eighth day.​

​

The Zohar, Lekh Lekha 1:93 a.​

For the sons to be offered up, they must be without spot or blemish, which is to say they must be conceived without the evil smelling drop of semen such that ritual circumcision is a strange syzygy in that it represents the blood sacrifice of the delivery-mechanism for the evil smelling drop of semen while at the same time representing the sacrifice of the flesh that represents the possibility of conceiving the son. The circumcision blood makes the sacrifice of the son possible (by eliminating the evil smelling drop of semen), while it also ritually eliminates the flesh that represents the firstborn son (represents the possibility of his conception without which his existence is sacrificed).

Where Abraham's circumcision takes place on Passover, and where the blood of his circumcision represents the sacrifice of the deliverer of semen and simultaneously the sacrifice of the firstborn, this one blood not only symbolizes both bloods placed on the Passover doorposts, but in its first iteration the blood represents the very means for allowing the sacrifice of the firstborn (i.e., the second blood) since in its first iteration the blood represent the elimination of the evil smelling drop of semen without which the sacrifice of the firstborn would be an abomination. Since the evil smelling drop of semen is the contaminant that makes the firstborn son worthy of death, the elimination of it (i.e., circumcision) implies that a conception without the evil smelling drop makes the firstborn no longer subject to death, such that if he's not subject to death, his sacrifice isn't murder, since he'll either survive the ordeal, or else rise from it unscathed (transforming his sacrifice, at worst, into a victim-less crime).



John