The Holy Shelah: Circumcising the Divine Phallus.

[John D. Brey]

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

Pirkei Avot 5:22.




John

 

[dybmh]

Warning to fellow readers: The individual who has started this thread has a history of misrepresenting Jewish authors and Rabbis. Their primary method for this is cherry picking.

If there is content posted here which does not provide a link for you to read the entire passage, it is likely to have been quite mined.

 

[John D. Brey]

Warning to fellow readers: The individual who has started this thread has a history of misrepresenting Jewish authors and Rabbis. Their primary method for this is cherry picking.

If there is content posted here which does not provide a link for you to read the entire passage, it is likely to have been quite mined.

. . . Question to fellow readers. What's the difference between quoting a small portion of a passage, versus "cherry picking"?

. . . Second question to fellow readers. Do you understand why the Supreme Court disallowed making judgments based on motive? Hint: the distinction between reading something as a legitimate quotation, versus accusing the writer of "cherry picking," comes down to judging the author's motive for quoting the small section of a larger work.

"Cherry picking" is in the eye of the beholder. It's when the author posts quotations to support his argument not quotations that support yours.

Your avatar is false advertising.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

View attachment 93965

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

Pirkei Avot 5:22.

A student of the kabbalah would instantly notice that the sefirot related to Adam Kadmon have been turned over. Left is right, and right is left, so that a truth usually left out, is now righted. If the work of the righteous is to right wrong . . . one down . . . a million left.



John

 

[dybmh]

Your avatar is false advertising

I didn't try to help?

I didn't share information with you?

I didn't offer to be available if you had questions?

 

[John D. Brey]

View attachment 93965

For the sake of uniting the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shekhinah by means of that hidden concealed One: Blessed is YHVH forever. . . [We emerge] through the coupling of [Malkhut with] Tif'eret, whose ejaculator is "Zaddiq the foundation of the world." From [this union] the souls fly forth. For the living God is in our midst.​

​

Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, Shney Luchot Habrit, Intro to Toledot Adam, and The Great Gate, p. 1, in Miles Krassen's translation of Toldot Adam (brackets are in Miles Krassen's translation).​

​

The holy Shelah (Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz), is blessing YHVH for uniting the Holy One and Shekhinah by means of Yesod (the foundation יסוד of the world). Part of the appreciation registered by Horowitz is based on the fact that once the coupling (devekut) occurs that links the Holy One with His Shekhinah, the holy souls of the world fly forth or are poured out such that when this happens the Living God is in the midst of his offspring.

The Living God: The name is associated with the essential creative forces, represented by the Sefirah of Yesod (Foundation). In man, this force parallels the sexual organ. In Hebrew, this phrase is Elohim Chaim. . . the "Living God."​

​

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Sefer Yetzirah, p. 17.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

For the sake of uniting the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shekhinah by means of that hidden concealed One: Blessed is YHVH forever. . . [We emerge] through the coupling of [Malkhut with] Tif'eret, whose ejaculator is "Zaddiq the foundation of the world." From [this union] the souls fly forth. For the living God is in our midst.​

​

Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, Shney Luchot Habrit, Intro to Toledot Adam, and The Great Gate, p. 1, in Miles Krassen's translation of Toldot Adam (brackets are in Miles Krassen's translation).​

​

The holy Shelah (Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz), is blessing YHVH for uniting the Holy One and Shekhinah by means of Yesod (the foundation יסוד of the world). Part of the appreciation registered by Horowitz is based on the fact that once the coupling (devekut) occurs that links the Holy One with His Shekhinah, the holy souls of the world fly forth or are poured out such that when this happens the Living God is in the midst of his offspring.

The Living God: The name is associated with the essential creative forces, represented by the Sefirah of Yesod (Foundation). In man, this force parallels the sexual organ. In Hebrew, this phrase is Elohim Chaim. . . the "Living God."​

​

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Sefer Yetzirah, p. 17.​

Proverbs 10:25 tells us, "The righteous is the foundation of the world" (וצדיק יסוד עולם). In the text, "righteous" צדיק, is a singular absolute: it's not talking about a group of righteous ones, but the singular source for the plurality of righteous souls that are poured out, or that fly out, (or are "ejaculated") from the midst of this singular absolute Tzaddic. The holy Shelah dogmatically states that the righteous offspring of God emerge through devekut, i.e., divine-coupling, between malchut and tif'eret (the two sefirot in the middle-line that are found in the missionary position above and below yesod).

This sexualization of the limbs of Adam Kadmon comes into the fore skene of the holy Shelah's quoted remarks when it's realized that the sefirah in the middle of tif'eret (above) and malkut (below) ----which is therefore the foundation of the holy couple's cleaving ----is none other than yesod" יסוד, which is the so-called "divine-phallus" through which holy souls are "ejaculated" (Miles Krassen's translation of המריק שלו), therein producing the righteous ones (plural) of the world. 1

Of the seven potencies that emanate from it, the first six are symbolized as part of the Primordial Man’s body and epitomized in the phallic “foundation,” which, oddly enough, is the symbolic representation of the Righteous One . . . The ninth sefirah, yesod, is the male potency, described with clearly phallic symbolism, the “foundation” of all life, which guarantees and consummates the hieros gamos, the holy union of male and female powers.​

​

Gershom Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, p. 104, 105.​

​

​

​

John

---

1. The Hebrew phrase that includes the word translated "ejaculator" is המריק שלו צדי"ק יסוד, which in a more literal sense could be translated "the pouring-out (or flowing out) of righteous Yesod." -----But since "yesod" is understood to be the genital organ of Adam Kadmon (see image above), the Hebrew for this "pouring or flowing out," is legitimately related to "ejaculation." Furthermore, Miles Krassen (the translator) no doubt has other significant reasons for using that peculiar translation of the Hebrew text since the kabbalists were wont to play with Hebrew words and letters in a manner that often dumbfounds the dumber or less exegetically obsessed interpreters. The word Krassen translates "ejaculate" is peculiar in that it appears to be the more general word for "pouring" or "flowing out," המר, with a non-Hebrew suffix יק? Furthermore, in the holy Shelah's actual text, the word for the righteous one, i.e., tzaddic צדיק, has a gershayim (") after the yod and before the quf צדוי"ק. If Rabbi Horowitz is playing with the letters of this important, quasi-sexual statement, then what appears to be a suffix, יק (in the word המריק) is more likely a geresh and a quf, rather than a yod and a quf, so that Horowitz is playing with the quf ק in tzaddic צדיק by placing a geresh before a quf in המר–יק, in order to toy with what's likely a Yiddish play on the word for "flowing out" used to speak in jest, in Yiddish terms, of semen? Since the letter quf symbolizes "holy" or "holiness," the intense emphasis implied by the gershayim before the quf (in "tzaddic"), and the geresh before the quf (in "flowing out"), implies that the holy Shelah may be thinking of, writing concerning, something of the utmost importance to him, since in the Shelah's theology it's paradoxical in the extreme: holy semen, from a divine phallus.

 

[John D. Brey]

Of the seven potencies that emanate from it, the first six are symbolized as part of the Primordial Man’s body and epitomized in the phallic “foundation,” which, oddly enough, is the symbolic representation of the Righteous One . . . The ninth sefirah, yesod, is the male potency, described with clearly phallic symbolism, the “foundation” of all life, which guarantees and consummates the hieros gamos, the holy union of male and female powers.​

​

Gershom Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, p. 104, 105.​

Another, similar, statement from Professor Scholem segues into the meat of the current study:

We now come to the problem of the sexual symbolism which throughout the Kabbalah, is inseparable from the image of the Tsaddik [the Righteous One of God]. In terms of mirroring the structure of Adam Kadmon in the human body, the ninth Sefirah not only corresponds to the phallus; it is also, by reason of this allocation, the site of the circumcision, the sign of the Covenant.​

​

Professor Gershom Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the God-head, p. 106.​

​

The two quotations from Professor Scholem help situate the concepts of a "divine phallus" (which is the divine-organ producing righteous offspring) into the context of the ritual that begins the Abrahamic covenant: ritual circumcision (brit milah). The quotations above, to include those from the holy Sheleh, beg the question concerning how ritual circumcision (brit milah) relates to God's own, divine, phallus? If God is circumcised, as some sages argue to be the case, then the nature of God's circumcision is surely the enormous "secret of the yod" (יסוד), ye-sod, found in the unveiling, the removal of the fore skene, related to the divine phallus. The Hebrew word “yesod” is made up of a yod, followed by the word “sod” (samech-vav-dalet), i.e., “secret.” It’s therefore read as “the secret of the yod,” where the yod is the letter, or mark, directly associated with circumcision. Yesod is thus the secret of circumcision. And when yesod is God’s circumcision, the circumcision of the divine organ, the secret is no doubt a divine secret likely invisible to all but circumcised eyes as we shall see.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The two quotations from Professor Scholem help situate the concepts of a "divine phallus" (which is the divine-organ producing righteous offspring) into the context of the ritual that begins the Abrahamic covenant: ritual circumcision (brit milah). The quotations above, to include those from the holy Sheleh, beg the question concerning how ritual circumcision (brit milah) relates to God's own, divine, phallus? If God is circumcised, as some sages argue to be the case, then the nature of God's circumcision is surely the enormous "secret of the yod" (יסוד), ye-sod, found in the unveiling, the removal of the fore skene, related to the divine phallus. The Hebrew word “yesod” is made up of a yod, followed by the word “sod” (samech-vav-dalet), i.e., “secret.” It’s therefore read as “the secret of the yod,” where the yod is the letter, or mark, directly associated with circumcision. Yesod is thus the secret of circumcision. And when yesod is God’s circumcision, the circumcision of the divine organ, the secret is no doubt a divine secret likely invisible to all but circumcised eyes as we shall see.

The foregoing seamlessly parallels God's circumcision with Abraham's. And where Abraham's circumcision is understood as the precursor to the Akedah (the sacrifice of Isaac), God's circumcision logically presages the offering of God's son as a korban קרבן such that where the parallel between Abraham and God's circumcisions are appreciated, i.e., as above, so below, what we see below, signifies its spiritual counterpart.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The foregoing seamlessly parallels God's circumcision with Abraham's. And where Abraham's circumcision is understood as the precursor to the Akedah (the sacrifice of Isaac), God's circumcision logically presages the offering of God's son as a korban קרבן such that where the parallel between Abraham and God's circumcisions are appreciated, i.e., as above, so below, what we see below, signifies its spiritual counterpart.

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

​

Pirkei Avot 5:22.​

Where the kabbalistic imagery of yesod as God's own divine phallus is taken into account, its cutting, God's circumcision, naturally parallels in a heavenly way Abraham's circumcision below. When the holy Shelah expresses his excitement at noting that yesod links tif'eret and malchut to pour out holy and righteous souls, the fact that tif'eret and malchut are in the missionary position ---with yesod doing the linking ---undoubtedly produces devekut, that is a linkage, between the meaning of Abraham's circumcision, here below, as it reflects and manifests God's circumcision in the heavenly realm. As Abraham must be circumcised prior to the conception of Isaac, God would likewise need to be circumcised before conceiving his first righteous soul.

The serious student of the scripture might protest that Abraham's circumcision is the correction of the fall of the first human אדם הראשון. As Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan puts it, circumcision returns the Jew to the status of the first human אדם הראשון prior to the fall in the garden. As such, it would be difficult to situate a correlation between Abraham's circumcision as a restoration of a grave error, with God's circumcision, without imagining a grave error arising in the heavenly realm that's mirrored in the fall of the first human אדם הראשון, or vice versa.

To some degree, circumcision restored Abraham and his descendants to the status of Adam before his sin.​

​

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Handbook of Jewish Thought, p. 47.​

Isaac . . . [is] the spiritual equivalent of Adam before his sin, since he was the first person who was both conceived and born by parents who had sanctified themselves.​

​

Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, Shney Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vaera, Torah Ohr, 44.​

Rabbi Horowitz goes on to describe how Abraham is sanctified prior to Isaac's conception:

The removal of Abraham's foreskin repaired the damage Adam had done by sinning and acquiring a קליפה husk (symbol of sin). Our sages expressed this by saying that אדם הראשון משוך בערלתו, Adam pulled, i.e., disguised, the fact that he had no foreskin, as distinct from Isaac, sanctified (from birth), who became the equivalent of first man who had been formed by G-d from holy soil.​

​

Ibid.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

​

The removal of Abraham's foreskin repaired the damage Adam had done by sinning and acquiring a קליפה husk (symbol of sin). Our sages expressed this by saying that אדם הראשון משוך בערלתו, Adam pulled, i.e., disguised, the fact that he had no foreskin, as distinct from Isaac, sanctified (from birth), who became the equivalent of first man who had been formed by G-d from holy soil.​

​

Ibid.​

The saying that Adam disguised the fact that he had no foreskin means he became a min, a heretic, through epispasm (reversing what circumcision implies). When Rabbi Horowitz claims Adam's epispasm (hiding the nature of a circumcised body) make him distinct from Isaac, he is, Horowitz is, exegeting roughshod over his own valuable insight. To understand the nature of Horowitz rough exegesis we could quote Rabbi Samson Hirsch:

מילה [circumcision] is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but the beginning of a higher "octave." It marks the second, higher "birthday,". . . Physical birth belongs to the night . . . but מילה, birth as a Jew, belongs to the daytime. . . Therefore, the physical birth of the child is completed on the seventh day. The eighth day, the octave of birth, as it were, repeats the day of [physical] birth, but as a day of higher, spiritual birth for his Jewish mission and his Jewish destiny.​

​

Rabbi Samson Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash, Bereshish, chapter 17.​

In light of Rabbi Hirsch's statement, Isaac is born like Adam after the sin (Isaac posseses the skin pulled over the circumcision, i.e., the foreskin) until the eighth day when, by having his foreskin removed, Isaac is returned to the state of Adam prior to Adam's acquiring the state of uncircumcision.

This is of the utmost importance to Rabbi Horowitz exegesis since it puts the purification that makes Isaac a fitting sacrifice קרבן, relate directly, and specifically, to circumcision (his and his father Abraham's). We now know Isaac isn't born in the purified state that makes his offering as a korban קרבן possible. He, like father Abraham, must undergo a ritual removal of the uncircumcision (the foreskin) and that will qualify him for the sacrifice. If Abraham's circumcision purifies the conception of Isaac, then Isaac will be born really, rather than ritually, circumcised already:

​

. . . 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.​

The first human was created circumcised. The act that produces his uncircumcision (Genesis 2:21) so distorts and disfigures God's original creation that part and parcel of the punishment for the original sin is that it's passed down through the act the desecration makes possible, phallic-sex.

This is of the utmost importance to sound exegesis of these things since whereas Adam's original sin really, rather than ritually, passes on to his offspring (they really are born with the foreskin he wasn't created with), on the other hand, the reconsecration of the human body that Abraham performs doesn't pass on really, as the original desecration does, but only ritually. Isaac isn't born on the first day already circumcised (no foreskin) by means of Abraham's reconsecration of that organ. His organ (Isaac's) must be ritually reconsecrated just as his father Abraham's organ was ritually reconsecrated through a blood-rite "representing" the reconsecration of mankind to God.



John

 

[GoodAttention]

Abraham is proof that being born of sin doesn't have to limit a man's ability to be righteous.

Furthermore, it can be said that Abraham never lay with Sarai, and Isaac was born through the will of God only.

Therefore if Isaac was born "circumcized", it is because God allowed him to become the son of Abraham, further proof of Abraham's righteousness.

 

[John D. Brey]

Abraham is proof that being born of sin doesn't have to limit a man's ability to be righteous.

Circumcision seems to represent the sort of sacrifice that undoes having been born into sin.

Furthermore, it can be said that Abraham never lay with Sarai, and Isaac was born through the will of God only.

Where do you get the idea that, "Abraham never lay with Sarai"?

Therefore if Isaac was born "circumcized", it is because God allowed him to become the son of Abraham, further proof of Abraham's righteousness.

As was noted earlier in the thread, technically speaking Isaac isn't born circumcised. He's circumcised eight days after he's born.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

The foregoing seamlessly parallels God's circumcision with Abraham's. And where Abraham's circumcision is understood as the precursor to the Akedah (the sacrifice of Isaac), God's circumcision logically presages the offering of God's son as a korban קרבן such that where the parallel between Abraham and God's circumcisions are appreciated, i.e., as above, so below, what we see below, signifies its spiritual counterpart.

The key to the linkage between Abraham's circumcision and God's is found in the relationship between Abraham's circumcision and the Akedah. What's seminal to Abraham's circumcision and the Akedah is the fact that one represents the other. Therefore, the flesh of Abraham's phallus can be thought to represent the flesh of his firstborn son (Isaac), such that when he sacrifices that flesh (at his circumcision), its a direct portent of the Akedah.

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.​

​

Throughout Jewish religious thought (and specifically kabbalistic thought), circumcision is considered a representation of the sacrifice of the firstborn. This being the case, the flesh cut and bled in the ritual, i.e., the phallus that father's the firstborn, naturally signifies, parallels, the flesh of the firstborn.

Sacrificing the flesh of the fathering-organ is thus a natural analogue for offering up what that flesh signifies and produces: the conception and birth of the firstborn. In this way, not only does Abraham's circumcision presage the Akedah, but since Abraham's phallus represents the flesh of Isaac, we can appreciate the excitement generated by the kabbalists when they realize that God's phallus, the so-called divine phallus (yesod), of a necessity, similarly represents the Righteous One of God, which, unwrapped, is therefore God's own personal Isaac, his own flesh and blood firstborn: the living, fleshly, God, who must, in parallel with Abraham, Isaac, and the Akedah, become a sacrificial korban קרבן.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Sacrificing the flesh of the fathering-organ is thus a natural analogue for offering up what that flesh signifies and produces: the conception and birth of the firstborn. In this way, not only does Abraham's circumcision presage the Akedah, but since Abraham's phallus represents the flesh of Isaac, we can appreciate the excitement generated by the kabbalists when they realize that God's phallus, the so-called divine phallus (yesod), of a necessity, similarly represents the Righteous One of God, which, unwrapped, is therefore God's own personal Isaac, his own flesh and blood firstborn: the living, fleshly, God, who must, in parallel with Abraham, Isaac, and the Akedah, become a sacrificial korban קרבן.

Remember that if Adam had not sinned . . . 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, much as is described by our sages when they tell of the archangel Michael offering the souls of the departed righteous on the Heavenly Altar (Chagiga 12).​

​

Shney Luchot Habrit, vol. 2, p. 681.​

In the passage above, Rabbi Horowitz relays the kabbalistic significance of Isaac being sacrificed as an offering without spot or blemish rather than that offering being ritualized through the sacrifice of an animal. Because of Abraham's circumcision, symbolized by the circumcision of Isaac on the eighth day, Isaac represents a post-lapsarian firstborn conceived and delivered without spot or blemish and who's thus able to affect on a higher plane what's signified by the sacrifices of the animal:

Both the priests who offer the sacrifice and the animals to be offered must be free of blemishes because they represent sanctity. Any blemish, however insignificant, is termed רע, because it originates in the pollutant man has absorbed from the original serpent.​

​

Ibid. p. 734.​

The "blemish" that symbolizes the loss of sanctity is situated in the nature of the serpent in the Garden and the original sin of Adam and Eve affected by that serpent:

. . . 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, Torah Shebikhtav, Vaera, Torah Ohr, 39.​

​

Abraham's circumcision sacrifices the flesh through which Adam produced the original sin and thus the pollutant emitted by the fleshly serpent created on Adam's body in the likeness of the serpent; the pollutant the holy Shelah calls the evil-smelling drop of semen:

. . . the original seduction practiced by the serpent on Eve in Paradise . . . is the reason that nowadays the origin of man is the proverbial טפה סרוחה "evil-smelling drop of semen" familiar to us from the saying of Rabbi Akavyah in Avot 3, 1. If Adam and Eve had not allowed themselves to be seduced into sinning, all seed would have been holy seed. The whole subject of the covenant, the ברית מילה, which is performed on the reproductive organ, is designed to reconsecrate it to G-d.​

​

Ibid. 29.​

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. . . Isaac's body resembled that of אדם הראשון, also not the product of a drop of semen.​

​

Ibid. 46.​

Since the Akedah is the fulfillment of Abraham's ritual sacrifice of the firstborn (his circumcision), Isaac's body represents what Adam's body was before the desecration that added the fleshly serpent through which the semen came that conceived Cain and the rest of humanity by means of the evil-smelling drop of semen. What Rabbi Horowitz calls reconsecrating it to God, i.e., circumcision, is elsewhere, even according to Horowitz, considered to be sacrificing it to God. The fathering-flesh is reconsecrated not by using it to father the holy firstborn, but by sacrificing it so that it plays no part in the birth of the firstborn sanctified precisely by its absence in the conception and birth. Thus the holy firstborn in Abraham's case is Isaac, and in God's case is the previously mentioned "living God" whom Rabbi Kaplan says is also known as "Shaddai."

The Living God: The name is associated with the essential creative forces, represented by the Sefirah of Yesod (Foundation). In man, this force parallels the sexual organ. In Hebrew, this phrase is Elohim Chaim. . . the "Living God. . . We therefore have two designations for Yesod (Foundation), "Living God" (Elohim Chaim), and El Shaddai . . . God thus told Moses, "I appeared to Abraham . . . as El Shaddai" (Exodus 6:3).​

​

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Sefer Yetzirah, p. 17-18.​

Where yesod is recognized as God's fathering-organ, representing the sacrificial flesh of his firstborn (the organ that links tif'eret and malchut in order to produce holy offspring), and where, "as above, so below," is the adage linking Abraham and God, that is, where the lower parallels the higher, and earth parallels heaven, then, by means of the crux of his own sacrifice of the fleshly fathering organ, yesod, God both sanctifies his firstborn, ala Isaac, and makes his firstborn to be conceived without "blemish," such that just like Isaac, God's firstborn is abel to be sacrificed as the reality only signified in the lower realm by ritual animal sacrifice.



John

 

[GoodAttention]

Circumcision seems to represent the sort of sacrifice that undoes having been born into sin.

Any sacrifice can be said to undo any sin, but why is circumcision a sacrifice? The foreskin has literally zero use, so it doesn't make much of a sacrifice.

A sign of covenant I can understand.

Where do you get the idea that, "Abraham never lay with Sarai"?

Where does it say he ever does? It implies more so other men could have but never Abram.

The angels didn’t say Sara would no longer be barren, they were very specific that she would have a child because God would will it.

As was noted earlier in the thread, technically speaking Isaac isn't born circumcised. He's circumcised eight days after he's born.

He was destined to be circumcised by command of God, and the first to do so by 8 days of life. I would call that a margin of error and say Isaac was born (technically) circumcized.

 

[John D. Brey]

. . . why is circumcision a sacrifice? The foreskin has literally zero use, so it doesn't make much of a sacrifice.

. . . Would you believe there's no word found in the OT that's properly interpreted and translated "foreskin"?

A sign of covenant I can understand.

A "sign" signifies. That's what it does. What does the sign of the covenant signify? Don't say, "the covenant," since that produces a tautology.

Where does it say he ever does? It implies more so other men could have but never Abram.

It implies she couldn't get pregnant such that she lets Abram try with her maid.

The angels didn’t say Sara would no longer be barren, they were very specific that she would have a child because God would will it.

When the angels arrived, Abraham was healing from his circumcision such that the blood of his circumcision is the cause of Sarah's pregnancy.

He was destined to be circumcised by command of God, and the first to do so by 8 days of life. I would call that a margin of error and say Isaac was born (technically) circumcized.

If he's born from Abraham's circumcision blood then he's born of the circumcision. So in that sense he's born circumcised.



John

 

[GoodAttention]

. . . Would you believe there's no word found in the OT that's properly interpreted and translated "foreskin"?

Yes I would believe that.

A "sign" signifies. That's what it does. What does the sign of the covenant signify? Don't say, "the covenant," since that produces a tautology.

Please don’t misquote me. I said covenant, meaning agreement, not “the covenant”, hence zero risk of tautology.

Circumcizion is the sign of the agreement between Abraham and God.

It is the phallic “deed” to the promised land that Abraham’s offspring carry to this day.

It implies she couldn't get pregnant such that she lets Abram try with her maid.

Yes we are aware Sara is barren the moment she is introduced.

When the angels arrived, Abraham was healing from his circumcision such that the blood of his circumcision is the cause of Sarah's pregnancy.

If you believe a patriarch such as Abraham would have greeted his guests in such a state so be it.

Keep in mind you are adding detail to your interpretation, when I say Abraham never lay with Sara I am not adding any detail, and if I do it is because I see a righteous Abraham not laying with Sara because he knows she cannot have children.

If he's born from Abraham's circumcision blood then he's born of the circumcision. So in that sense he's born circumcised.

Sure. If you believe a bloodied man having sex after circumcision is in anyway becoming of a patriarch of Israel then I’ll have a hit of what those Rabbis are smoking..

 

[John D. Brey]

Circumcizion is the sign of the agreement between Abraham and God.

. . . the Hebrew word ot ["sign"] used by the priestly author to describe the covenant “sign” of circumcision (Gen. 17:11) is used elsewhere iconically . . . In chapter 1 I introduced the term “icon” to describe a symbolic item that points to its referent not only because we decided arbitrarily that it should, but by virtue of some inherent characteristic. Our examples were things that the Bible designates as ot ["sign"]. . . (p.90).​

​

Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman, Covenant of Blood, p. 38 and 90.​

Do you read circumcision as an arbitrary sign of the covenant, or as an icon of the covenant? If the latter, then what does the icon signify or symbolize?

It is the phallic “deed” to the promised land that Abraham’s offspring carry to this day.

What's a phallic "deed"? What does the phallus have to do with land? And for what it's worth, no less a commentator than Ibn Ezra wonders out loud why the so-called "phallic deed" established in Genesis chapter 17, doesn't include land as did the covenant ratified in Genesis chapter 15? The covenant established in Genesis17 says nothing about land.

If you believe a patriarch such as Abraham would have greeted his guests in such a state so be it.

You might be missing the parallel. Which is easy to do if you're not familiar with Jewish midrashim.

The Talmud, with lots of other Jewish texts, says that at the Passover, two bloods are placed on the doorposts (lamb's blood and the blood of the limb, i.e., circumcision blood). As fate would have it, one of the angels Abraham greeted that day is the same angel of death who does the deed at the Passover. He's on his way to destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. He passes over Abraham's house because Abraham has grabbed the doorposts where he was sitting to cool off in the heat of the day. As he gets up off the chair of Elijah he gets circumcision blood on the doorposts, just as the angel of death and destruction passes-over his doorpost-bloodied home on the way to destroying Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Jewish sages say the blood of the Paschal lamb signifies the blood that got on Abraham's doorposts the day the angel of death was keen to Passover Abraham's doorpost-bloodied home on his way to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Keep in mind you are adding detail to your interpretation, when I say Abraham never lay with Sara I am not adding any detail, and if I do it is because I see a righteous Abraham not laying with Sara because he knows she cannot have children.

That kinda begs the question how he knows she can't have children without testing it out.

Sure. If you believe a bloodied man having sex after circumcision is in anyway becoming of a patriarch of Israel then I’ll have a hit of what those Rabbis are smoking..

You might be missing the allusion. In the OT, blood is an icon symbolizing death. To say Abraham's circumcision blood makes Sarah pregnant with Isaac is to say Isaac is virgin born since the "blood" of Abraham's male-organ, in OT symbolism, means the death of that organ.

Isaac is virgin conceived and Abraham taking a knife and bleeding, sacrificing, that organ, is the symbol for the virgin conception of Isaac:

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 Habrit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayera, Torah Ohr, 46.​

The blood of Abraham's circumcision signifies that "the evil-smelling drop of semen" (Pirkei Avot 3:1), will have to find a new delivery boy.




John

 

[GoodAttention]

. . . the Hebrew word ot ["sign"] used by the priestly author to describe the covenant “sign” of circumcision (Gen. 17:11) is used elsewhere iconically . . . In chapter 1 I introduced the term “icon” to describe a symbolic item that points to its referent not only because we decided arbitrarily that it should, but by virtue of some inherent characteristic. Our examples were things that the Bible designates as ot ["sign"]. . . (p.90).​

​

Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman, Covenant of Blood, p. 38 and 90.​

Do you read circumcision as an arbitrary sign of the covenant, or as an icon of the covenant? If the latter, then what does the icon signify or symbolize?

Arbitrary.

What's a phallic "deed"? What does the phallus have to do with land? And for what it's worth, no less a commentator than Ibn Ezra wonders out loud why the so-called "phallic deed" established in Genesis chapter 17, doesn't include land as did the covenant ratified in Genesis chapter 15? The covenant established in Genesis17 says nothing about land.

I too have wondered whether the deed is acknowledgement of the Creator God first and land second, or vice versa, but never as loudly as a son of Ezra.

You might be missing the parallel. Which is easy to do if you're not familiar with Jewish midrashim.

The Talmud, with lots of other Jewish texts, says that at the Passover, two bloods are placed on the doorposts (lamb's blood and the blood of the limb, i.e., circumcision blood). As fate would have it, one of the angels Abraham greeted that day is the same angel of death who does the deed at the Passover. He's on his way to destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. He passes over Abraham's house because Abraham has grabbed the doorposts where he was sitting to cool off in the heat of the day. As he gets up off the chair of Elijah he gets circumcision blood on the doorposts, just as the angel of death and destruction passes-over his doorpost-bloodied home on the way to destroying Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Jewish sages say the blood of the Paschal lamb signifies the blood that got on Abraham's doorposts the day the angel of death was keen to Passover Abraham's doorpost-bloodied home on his way to Sodom and Gomorrah.

I would need to read the Talmud to ascertain what is being described.

That kinda begs the question how he knows she can't have children without testing it out.

Hilarious.

Where would a woman be if she didn't have a man to tell her if she could have children!

At this point it is imperative you close the scriptures and open a "female anatomy for beginners" textbook that can explain how Sarai knew she couldn't have children without needing to test it out.

What makes Abraham righteous is because he trusts Sarai and doesn't "test it out" as you have so eloquently put it.

You might be missing the allusion. In the OT, blood is an icon symbolizing death. To say Abraham's circumcision blood makes Sarah pregnant with Isaac is to say Isaac is virgin born since the "blood" of Abraham's male-organ, in OT symbolism, means the death of that organ.

Isaac is virgin conceived and Abraham taking a knife and bleeding, sacrificing, that organ, is the symbol for the virgin conception of Isaac:

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 Habrit, Torah Shebikhtav, Vayera, Torah Ohr, 46.​

The blood of Abraham's circumcision signifies that "the evil-smelling drop of semen" (Pirkei Avot 3:1), will have to find a new delivery boy.

As much as I enjoy hearing about the Jewish sages and Rabbi so and so "Texas chainsaw massacre" take of circumcizion and what it represents, I believe it adds nothing to show why God chooses Abraham, or what makes Abraham a righteous person such that God would choose him.