The hymen doesn't work that way, bible.

[John D. Brey]

Um. no, It is Christian if it embraces Christian theology, which it does. . . Can we start with "Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled and revealed all three elements of a ritual circumcision by the time he let out his first cry. "? Then move to "His father's flesh was absent when he was conceived." According to Judaism, it takes a father's flesh to conceive a child. Should I continue?

It's not productive to claim that whatever Christians claim to be true is not Jewish. As though an idea can't be Jewish if it makes sense in a Christian context. Rabbi Boyarin, in his book, Borderlines, shows the tragedy of Pharisaical Judaism defining itself as merely the opposite of Christianity, or that teaching that's purely Jewish only if no idea held by Christians is allowed. It's unproductive to define your doctrines as merely opposition to the doctrines of others.

You claim that according to Judaism it takes a father's flesh to conceive a child. But that's not Judaism. That's everyone's belief. Judaism is different. And not merely as opposition. Judaism is opposition to the very flesh the Gentiles require to father a child. Jewish law eliminates the ability of the father's organ to birth a Jew. He can birth the Jew's physical body, but not his spiritual essence and identity (as one born-again on the eighth day), born a second time not of the serpent, the phallus, not at night (the only time Jewish law allows phallic-sex), but in the light of day, the only time Jewish law allows circumcision to take place.

. . . מילה is invalid at night; the prescribed time for its performance is during the day, in the daylight of man's wakeful life. מילה is not an offering to the powers of nature, which rule at night over the dark side of life; מילה does not relate to the physical aspects of man, which are fettered in thick darkness. Rather, מילה consecrates man to אל שדי, Who rules freely over the dark powers He Himself created; מילה summons man and his darkest urges to the luminous heights of freedom of will. מילה is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but the beginning of a higher "octave." It marks the second, higher "birthday," man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action. Physical birth [conception] belongs to the night . . . but מילה, birth [being conceived] as a Jew, belongs to the daytime

Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23.​

John

 

[rosends]

It's not productive to claim that whatever Christians claim to be true is not Jewish.

But it IS productive to claim that whatever Christians claim which is contrary to Judaism is not Judaism and is often Christianity.

Rabbi Boyarin, in his book, Borderlines, shows the tragedy of Pharisaical Judaism defining itself as merely the opposite of Christianity, or that teaching that's purely Jewish only if no idea held by Christians is allowed.

Actually I believe he claims that much of Christianity rips off Judaism and Jewish ideas.

You claim that according to Judaism it takes a father's flesh to conceive a child.

Actually, I claim that according to biology, religion notwithstanding.

But that's not Judaism. That's everyone's belief. Judaism is different. And not merely as opposition. Judaism is opposition to the very flesh the Gentiles require to father a child.

Nope, Jews still require a male to be there. Current issues of IVF and such pose interesting legal challenges for Jewish law, but they still require that a male and his, um, organ, still be somehow involved.

(as one born-again on the eighth day),

On is not born again on the 8th day.

born a second time not of the serpent, the phallus, not at night (the only time Jewish law allows phallic-sex)

Actually, not true. True, the full light is considered immodest, but the law does say, "אָסוּר לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בַּיּוֹם, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוּא בַּיִת אָפֵל"

You know what that means, right?

 

[dantech]

It's not productive to claim that whatever Christians claim to be true is not Jewish. As though an idea can't be Jewish if it makes sense in a Christian context. Rabbi Boyarin, in his book, Borderlines, shows the tragedy of Pharisaical Judaism defining itself as merely the opposite of Christianity, or that teaching that's purely Jewish only if no idea held by Christians is allowed. It's unproductive to define your doctrines as merely opposition to the doctrines of others.

You claim that according to Judaism it takes a father's flesh to conceive a child. But that's not Judaism. That's everyone's belief. Judaism is different. And not merely as opposition. Judaism is opposition to the very flesh the Gentiles require to father a child. Jewish law eliminates the ability of the father's organ to birth a Jew. He can birth the Jew's physical body, but not his spiritual essence and identity (as one born-again on the eighth day), born a second time not of the serpent, the phallus, not at night (the only time Jewish law allows phallic-sex), but in the light of day, the only time Jewish law allows circumcision to take place.

. . . מילה is invalid at night; the prescribed time for its performance is during the day, in the daylight of man's wakeful life. מילה is not an offering to the powers of nature, which rule at night over the dark side of life; מילה does not relate to the physical aspects of man, which are fettered in thick darkness. Rather, מילה consecrates man to אל שדי, Who rules freely over the dark powers He Himself created; מילה summons man and his darkest urges to the luminous heights of freedom of will. מילה is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but the beginning of a higher "octave." It marks the second, higher "birthday," man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action. Physical birth [conception] belongs to the night . . . but מילה, birth [being conceived] as a Jew, belongs to the daytime

Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23.​

John

Dude...

 

[John D. Brey]

One is not born again on the 8th day.

. . . מילה consecrates man to אל שדי, Who rules freely over the dark powers He Himself created; מילה summons man and his darkest urges to the luminous heights of freedom of will. מילה is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but the beginning of a higher "octave." It marks the second, higher "birthday," man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action. Physical birth [conception] belongs to the night . . . but מילה, birth [being conceived] as a Jew, belongs to the daytime

Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23 (emphasis mine).​

John

 

[rosends]

. . . מילה consecrates man to אל שדי, Who rules freely over the dark powers He Himself created; מילה summons man and his darkest urges to the luminous heights of freedom of will. מילה is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but the beginning of a higher "octave." It marks the second, higher "birthday," man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action. Physical birth [conception] belongs to the night . . . but מילה, birth [being conceived] as a Jew, belongs to the daytime

Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23 (emphasis mine).​

John

So you are reading this to say that a birthday is a day on which a person is "born again"? Well then, I have been "born again" over 40 times! What is amazing is that if you look around, you see people connecting Rabbi Hirsch with the phrase "born again" in reference to sacrifices, the new month, the receiving of the torah. But no where, not even in this that you quote, is there reference to the 8th day being "born again."

R. Nachman of Breslov uses the words to refer to the state of being beyond time. The rabbeinu Yonah mentions it as a function of repentance. And neither uses it in any way related to how you do.

 

[Thanda]

I can't answer that question. And I am going to ask you what your point is in asking it?

But I do know of one study that said that 52% of sexually active girls between 13 and 19 had intact hymens (source). Now that is one study, and not a huge one. But whatever the exact percentage is the point is made. A hymen that does not tear the first time could still tear the second time, or the third, or the tenth, or not at all. And it could tear the first time with a different person. I can't tell you what the odds are, but it is possible and not that rare. Blood on the sheet is not proof of virginity, and the lack of it is not proof of the lack of virginity.

Virginity is a ridiculous concept anyway. Like there is some substantial difference between a women who has had a penis inside her and one who hasn't. It is just a stupid idea when you think about it.

Why do you ask?

My assumption is that the more often a girl has had sex the less likely it is that she will have an intact hymen - and therefore the less likely she is to tear it and bleed when she does have sex. Therefore a person who bleeds when they have sex is more likely to be a virgin than someone who did not bleed (we're working with probabilities here).

And note that, according to the scripture, if she has bled, even if it wasn't her first time having sex she will be considered a virgin (unless someone else has other evidence, obviously). So if what you are telling me is true then actually there were probably quite a few girls who may not have been virgins who got away with it.

And as Tumah was explaining, it appears that the blood on the sheet was only one of the pieces of evidence that was considered in determining virginity.

As for the importance of virginity: I think in our world of STDs we know more than any other group of people how important sexual fidelity is. And women catch some STDs more easily than men and are more adversely affected by it than men. These difficulties are present now even with our advanced medicine - imagine the risk that was present thousands of years ago?

 

[Tumah]

It's not productive to claim that whatever Christians claim to be true is not Jewish. As though an idea can't be Jewish if it makes sense in a Christian context. Rabbi Boyarin, in his book, Borderlines, shows the tragedy of Pharisaical Judaism defining itself as merely the opposite of Christianity, or that teaching that's purely Jewish only if no idea held by Christians is allowed. It's unproductive to define your doctrines as merely opposition to the doctrines of others.

That's dumb. Out of 7,000 folio pages of expression of Pharisaical thought that is the Babylonian Talmud, there are maybe a grand sum total of about 15 lines that reference Jesus or Christianity. I'm not sure its realistic to say that Phraisaical Judaism defines itself as not being Christianity.

You claim that according to Judaism it takes a father's flesh to conceive a child. But that's not Judaism. That's everyone's belief. Judaism is different. And not merely as opposition. Judaism is opposition to the very flesh the Gentiles require to father a child. Jewish law eliminates the ability of the father's organ to birth a Jew.

Some gentiles need circumcision as well.

"My commandment he has broken (Gen. 17:14)" to include the sons of Keturah
-Talmud

The Sages said that the children of Keturah who are of the seed of Abraham that came after Ishmael and Isaac, are required to perform circumcision. And since today the children of Ishmael are mixed in with the children of Keturah, they are all required to perform circumcision on the eighth day.
-Maimonides et. al.

Judaism is not in opposition to the very flesh gentiles require to father a child. A foreskin is not necessary in fathering a child. If anything circumcision is about fulfilling the potential of the father's organ to the greatest possible extent. There is a lot of literature on the relationship between the male and female and specifically that male and female procreative organs. You keep showing your ignorance every time you post something about it. Which is to be expected because you're not a Jewish scholar. You think you know something because you found a quote that you can twist to say what you want. But typical of Christians, you're reading the quote in a vacuum which is not how it was written.
Stop trying to one up Jews in Judaism.

Actually, not true. True, the full light is considered immodest, but the law does say, "אָסוּר לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בַּיּוֹם, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוּא בַּיִת אָפֵל"

You got it first!

 

[rosends]

. . . מילה consecrates man to אל שדי, Who rules freely over the dark powers He Himself created; מילה summons man and his darkest urges to the luminous heights of freedom of will. מילה is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but the beginning of a higher "octave." It marks the second, higher "birthday," man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action. Physical birth [conception] belongs to the night . . . but מילה, birth [being conceived] as a Jew, belongs to the daytime

Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23 (emphasis mine).​

John

A few other notes after checking in with R. Hirsch:
1. Your quote here is wrong (I am transcribing from page 310) "It is not a completion or supplement of the actual physical birth, but is the octave of it, the second, higher day of birth"

this is not a rebirth, nor a being born-again, but the creation of a separate person, with echoes of the idea of the 2 Adams in Soloveitchik's Lonely Man of Faith.

2. In Hirsch's "Collected Writings, Vol. 3" (Page 82) he establishes that there are only 2 parts to circumcision, milah and peri'ah, and that peri'ah wasn't done in the 400 years between Abraham and Joshua, meaning that any conclusion being drawn from the textual mention of circumcision in Genesis is necessarily wrong because peri'ah wasn't even present.

3. In the collected works, on page 107, he comments on conversion directly, saying "unlike a child of a Jewish mother who is Jewish regardless of whether or not he had been circumcised, a child whose mother was not Jewish at the time of his birth can become a Jew only through circumcision..." He never creates two levels of being Jewish. The identity of being Jewish is what it is.

4. On page 111 he discusses the value of the eighth day. He says that all the celebrations which require recognizing the 8th day are connected. For the holidays, he writes "the eighth day resumes the celebration of survival but this is a higher spiritual form" note the word "resume" and nothing else. He continues, "The eighth day, the octave of the birth, as it were, repeats the day of birth but as a day of higher spiritual birth." Not "born-again."

5. And about sex, he writes (on Gen 17:11) "to be a Jew means making the most sensuous life, kept within the prescribed moral limits" No distinction between types of sex, or avoidance of the sensuality in the process.

 

[John D. Brey]

. . . מילה consecrates man to אל שדי, Who rules freely over the dark powers He Himself created; מילה summons man and his darkest urges to the luminous heights of freedom of will. מילה is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but the beginning of a higher "octave." It marks the second, higher "birthday," man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action. Physical birth [conception] belongs to the night . . . but מילה, birth [being conceived] as a Jew, belongs to the daytime

Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23 (emphasis mine).

So you are reading this to say that a birthday is a day on which a person is "born again"? Well then, I have been "born again" over 40 times! What is amazing is that if you look around, you see people connecting Rabbi Hirsch with the phrase "born again" in reference to sacrifices, the new month, the receiving of the torah. But no where, not even in this that you quote, is there reference to the 8th day being "born again."

Rabbi Hirsch is pretty explicit in stating that milah מילה (ritual circumcision) is not a supplement, or completion (and I would add not a celebration) of the physical birth, but marks a higher, spiritual birth, man's entry into the Divine level of free moral action.

Rabbi Hirsch's implicit meaning is Christian through and through. In Christianity, the new birth (being born-again) is taught throughout the NT to free the new man from slavery to the old law. The law was nailed to the cross of Christ, freeing the new man, from the power of the law. Rabbi Hirsch states that the eighth day represents, marks, "man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action." Man is entered into a new state where he, and not the law, determines his moral actions. He is free from the authority of the law and functions on the Divine level of freedom concerning his moral actions.



John

 

[rosends]

Rabbi Hirsch is pretty explicit in stating that milah מילה (ritual circumcision) is not a supplement, or completion (and I would add not a celebration) of the physical birth, but marks a higher, spiritual birth, man's entry into the Divine level of free moral action.

Yes, the creation of an identity bound to the laws and obligations and identity of being a Jew - an entry into a covenant defined by Israel's obligations to God. I can get the chapter in his writings where he discusses the relationship between freedom and obligation/slavery to God if you would like.

Rabbi Hirsch's implicit meaning is Christian through and through.

Well, what you infer, not what he implies. But even if it was what he implied, it would be so only because Christianity took an idea from Judaism. Don't put the cart before the horse.

. Rabbi Hirsch states that the eighth day represents, marks, "man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action." Man is entered into a new state where he, and not the law, determines his moral actions. He is free from the authority of the law and functions on the Divine level of freedom concerning his moral actions.

Nope, you completely didn't read Hirsch. The higher level is one based in relationship to God and his law, not free from it. The law, not the physical man defines the morality. Note point 5 above about "prescribed moral limits" not anything from the man's sense -- from externally imposed limits. You have taken what Hirsch explicitly and repeatedly says and flipped it over because it suits you. That's not intellectually honest. You should be ashamed.

 

[John D. Brey]

born a second time not of the serpent, the phallus, not at night (the only time Jewish law allows phallic-sex)

Actually, not true. True, the full light is considered immodest, but the law does say, "אָסוּר לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בַּיּוֹם, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוּא בַּיִת אָפֵל" . . .You know what that means, right?

R. Johanan stated: It is forbidden to perform one's marital duty in the day-time.

Niddah 16b.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Rabbi Hirsch states that the eighth day represents, marks, "man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action." Man is entered into a new state where he, and not the law, determines his moral actions. He is free from the authority of the law and functions on the Divine level of freedom concerning his moral actions.

Nope, you completely didn't read Hirsch. The higher level is one based in relationship to God and his law, not free from it. The law, not the physical man defines the morality. Note point 5 above about "prescribed moral limits" not anything from the man's sense -- from externally imposed limits. You have taken what Hirsch explicitly and repeatedly says and flipped it over because it suits you. That's not intellectually honest. You should be ashamed.

. . . Rabbi Hirsch speaks of "man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action." As Rabbi Hirsch makes clear, the new birth on the eighth day frees man from the law, which Rabbi Hirsch actually says rules over nature (and the flesh conceived by natural procreation), and enters man into a new plane of existence whereby he's free to make moral judgments for himself, without the law that rules over the old man, whose birth (the old man) is complete on the seventh day, prior to the new birth on the eighth day.


John

 

[rosends]

R. Johanan stated: It is forbidden to perform one's marital duty in the day-time.

Niddah 16b.​

John

So you quoted a talmudic opinion and I quoted Jewish law. Maybe this bespeaks a lack of knowledge on your part as to the details of Judaism.

 

[rosends]

. . . Rabbi Hirsch speaks of "man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action." As Rabbi Hirsch makes clear, the new birth on the eighth day frees man from the law, which Rabbi Hirsch actually says rules over nature (and the flesh conceived by natural procreation), and enters man into a new plane of existence whereby he's free to make moral judgments for himself, without the law that rules over the old man, whose birth (the old man) is complete on the seventh day, prior to the new birth on the eighth day.


John

Not at all accurate. I will try to remember to scan in the pages from Hirsch's word about man's obligation to the law tomorrow or Monday. Then, once you are shown to have no comprehension of Hirsch, you can just go away and rethink your entire world view.

 

[rosends]

@John D. Brey Here is the quote you made and your claim:
"As Rabbi Hirsch makes clear, the new birth on the eighth day frees man from the law, which Rabbi Hirsch actually says rules over nature (and the flesh conceived by natural procreation), and enters man into a new plane of existence whereby he's free to make moral judgments for himself, without the law that rules over the old man,"

Hirsch writes (page 301 of his commentary on Genesis, writing about verse 17:11)
"With cutting away the foreskin, the whole body receives the stamp of submission to the spirit carrying out the Divine Law of morality."
Note -- divine law, not man's freedom to make his own judgments.

Or, we can go back to volume 3 of the collected writings. The entire section on circumcision is on point, but here's a quote from p. 78, "All the physical aspects of our earthly existence, with all the impulses and forces, its riches and pleasures, must be brought under the firm control (milah) of the holy will of God."

Circumcision is, according to Hirsch, a matter of binding the self in a covenant rife with obligations and rules as established by God. You might want to look at page 81 also, the first complete paragraph which starts "A mere glance at the Divine legislation given to Israel is sufficient to show that this Law does not in any way limit itself to regulating relations between man and man or to setting standards of justice and kindness for human society." Just read that and the rest, and your theory that circumcision frees one to make any of his own rules or to be separate from any divine law is blown out of the water. The paragraph on the top of 82 really destroys your premise. Do you have a copy of the text or should I type it all in for you? Turn to page 85 which then gets into the additions of positive commandments. At the bottom of 95 and going to 96 is also worthy of note: "It is to such a man that circumcision addresses itself, placing the knife into his hand and demanding that he himself apply the limits of God's Law to the sensual aspects of his body."

So, there you have it.

 

[john landes]

These patriarchal obscenities are just evidence of the human-made nature of the bible and other scriptures. Check out the book, Seeing Through Christianity.

 

[Ken Brown]

Shalom All, why does everyone think they know something, when they know nothing at all (I'm hoping I don't fall within that judgment-). Elohim has a Penis, and His Wife has a Vagina, and it is a great Mystery to understand THEIR Love Making. To be sure, His Wife does have a Hymen covering Her Vagina, and His Penis WILL penetrate it. Does anyone know HOW that takes place? And what happens WHEN His Wife brings Him to Completion? But you know, it is a shame, He had to DIVORCE one of His Wives, because she would not SUBMIT to Him, and committed adultery (Jeremiah 3:8). Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm hoping I don't fall within that judgment

Keep hoping.

 

[Ken Brown]

Keep hoping.

Shalom SF, thank you for the advice. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[rusra02]

The passage of scripture does not mention hymen nor blood, but "evidence of virginity". If we assume this is blood, bleeding is extremely common when a virgin has intercourse, and not just from the hymen being ruptured.God's law would have served as a deterrent to Israelite women fraudulently claiming virginity when such was not the case. Israelite men were free to marry non-virgins if they so desired. Further, Jehovah would know the facts in any unusual case.