The Immenseness of Adam Kadmon's Menses.

[John D. Brey]

In an essay composed of a thread here a few years ago (Adam Kadmon and Her Son) a discussion was engaged about the flawed metaphysics of gender that contaminates the Masoretic tradition for interpreting the Torah text. That essay argued that the first human was, contrary to the Masoretic tradition for exegeting the text, what today we consider female. And since at that time there was no male, the first human would have been non-gendered, such that we could speak of the first human as a non-gendered female.

All of that's vouchsafed by sound science such that the secondariness of the male in sound science implies in a scientific sense, as has been argued in these parts, that the male of the Masoretic tradition would, in the new context of the original body being female, be precisely what the Masoretic tradition makes the female body: contingent, manufactured rather than created, and thus, a secondary kind of female rather than a genuine alterity or full binary opposition to the originality of the female body.

All of this is argued and referenced in the original essay which nevertheless leaves its final, explosive claim (that in sound exegesis of the original Torah text the flesh of the first human is female, while the blood is male) dangling and unexamined. In the final part of the original essay, the gender duality now associated with genitalia is said to originally be associated with the distinction between flesh versus blood; blood being male (and thus being added to ha-adam's body secondarily) and the flesh, which is female, being created first.

This essay hopes to support the idea that Adam Kadmon's menses is the key to the distinction between the first covenant and the second in a manner similar to how the blood of Adam Kadmon is the key to correcting the flawed gender dynamics found in the Masoretic treatment of gender as found in the first covenant when interpreted through the dark lens of the Masoretic Text.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

In an essay composed of a thread here a few years ago (Adam Kadmon and Her Son) a discussion was engaged about the flawed metaphysics of gender that contaminates the Masoretic tradition for interpreting the Torah text. That essay argued that the first human was, contrary to the Masoretic tradition for exegeting the text, what today we consider female. And since at that time there was no male, the first human would have been non-gendered, such that we could speak of the first human as a non-gendered female.

All of that's vouchsafed by sound science such that the secondariness of the male in sound science implies in a scientific sense, as has been argued in these parts, that the male of the Masoretic tradition would, in the new context of the original body being female, be precisely what the Masoretic tradition makes the female body: contingent, manufactured rather than created, and thus, a secondary kind of female rather than a genuine alterity or full binary opposition to the originality of the female body.

All of this is argued and referenced in the original essay which nevertheless leaves its final, explosive claim (that in sound exegesis of the original Torah text the flesh of the first human is female, while the blood is male) dangling and unexamined. In the final part of the original essay, the gender duality now associated with genitalia is said to originally be associated with the distinction between flesh versus blood; blood being male (and thus being added to ha-adam's body secondarily) and the flesh, which is female, being created first.

This essay hopes to support the idea that Adam Kadmon's menses is the key to the distinction between the first covenant and the second in a manner similar to how the blood of Adam Kadmon is the key to correcting the flawed gender dynamics found in the Masoretic treatment of gender as found in the first covenant when interpreted through the dark lens of the Masoretic Text.

"We have also seen that דם [blood]--- from the root דמה ---- is a prototype of the whole body; it is the body in its liquid state, so to speak" (The Hirsch Chumash, Bereshis, 9:6). ------Later, in the same text, Rabbi Hirsch says that the blood is the physical representation of the soul and that through the blood the soul rules the body. And yet linked with Rabbi Hirsch's clear and dogmatic statement that man's blood belongs to God, is God's property, to demand back דרש from those entrusted with it, we have an undeniable incarnational theme running through the unambiguous teaching of an important Jewish sage. Man's blood is a divine property belonging to God; it's merely on loan to each and every one of us.​

​

Adam Kadmon and Her Son, p. 11.​

Rabbi Hirsch states that human blood is a liquid form of the fleshly body. But he also says that the blood is a divine product on loan to mankind. But if the blood is just a liquid form of the fleshly body then how does the flesh diverge from the blood in a manner that it loses its divinity when the blood is found in a solid form? In Genesis two, the body is formed from the dust of the earth while the blood is given to the body, put into the body, by God. In chapter six of John's Gospel Jesus states that if you don't have his blood in your flesh you don't have everlasting life.

Presumably, in the context of Rabbi Hirsch's statement, the blood you posses prior to obtaining Jesus' blood is such that it can be taken from you, i.e., physical death, by the judgment (the left hand) of God, while purportedly, if you obtain Jesus' blood, this particular divine property (not subject to death) becomes your personal property, or a property of your very being, no longer subject to the judgment of God; it's given to you in a manner that can't be rescinded even by God?

The foregoing appears to be related to Jesus himself, in his flesh, being raised out of the grave in a manner that implies the judgment of God, through which death comes to all flesh born out of the fall of Adam, for whatever reason doesn't apply to Jesus.

Figuring out why the judgment of God, which did in fact condemn Jesus to death, the grave, hasn't the power to keep him there, would go a long way toward deciphering the confidence in which Jesus claims to be abel to give us his blood in a manner that will not only keep us from the death-wielding intent of our fellow man, but which is proclaimed to be able to keep us from residing in the grave in the same sense that Jesus' blood purportedly kept him from the power of the grave. As the hymn proclaims, the power is in the blood.

What we have here is a theological proclamation implying that Jesus' blood is different from every other blood found in every other living creature. And we find this proclamation given in a manner that those who understand the nature of the proclamation, understand it to be a challenge not to mystical theological mumbo jumbo, but a challenge to our understanding of the so-called real world. Understood in its true context, the victorious proclamation come from Jesus' mouth is a challenge to our science, and our understanding of biology, such that through scientific insight and exegesis of scripture we should be able to unravel the scientific mystery concerning Jesus' blood, which, the blood, this particular blood, wields power over life, and just, or more, importantly, death.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

When Rabbi Hirsch states that human blood is a liquid form of the fleshly body, that truism shines a light on the narrative in Genesis chapter 2 where the blood is given to the fleshly body by God. That narrative is giant since not only must the blood come from somewhere different from the "dust of the earth," but it must be compatible with the flesh manufactured from the "dust of the earth"? One of Rabbi Hirsch's most insightful examinations concerns the law of shatnez whereby you can't mix things from different species or realms. The blood provided for the flesh created in Genesis 2 must be compatible with the flesh created in Genesis 2 such that with that truism we recognize the Gordian knot Rabbi Hirsch's study of blood reveals: the blood is said to be from God, his, a divine product, lent to man in a manner that it can be taken from him presumably since this giving of blood to man would transgress shatnez in a manner that would in the very least leave a lawful death-sentence (transgression of shatnez) hovering overy everyone who possesses a divine product in a profane, fleshly, body.

It's not an exaggeration to say that anyone following this logic likely begins to perceive that this examination is leading directly into something Jesus appears to have understood about himself, and his blood, that a sound examination of the facts of the matter, scientific and theological, can unearth in a manner that removes the veil of theological mystery thereby showing that the mystical mumbo jumbo in Jesus' words was really just the impossibility of him speaking to the spirit of these things at a time and in a place where not a soul was ready or able to receive them.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

When Rabbi Hirsch states that human blood is a liquid form of the fleshly body, that truism shines a light on the narrative in Genesis chapter 2 where the blood is given to the fleshly body by God. That narrative is giant since not only must the blood come from somewhere different from the "dust of the earth," but it must be compatible with the flesh manufactured from the "dust of the earth"? One of Rabbi Hirsch's most insightful examinations concerns the law of shatnez whereby you can't mix things from different species or realms. The blood provided for the flesh created in Genesis 2 must be compatible with the flesh created in Genesis 2 such that with that truism we recognize the Gordian knot Rabbi Hirsch's study of blood reveals: the blood is said to be from God, his, a divine product, lent to man in a manner that it can be taken from him presumably since this giving of blood to man would transgress shatnez in a manner that would in the very least leave a lawful death-sentence (transgression of shatnez) hovering overy everyone who possesses a divine product in a profane, fleshly, body.

It's not an exaggeration to say that anyone following this logic likely begins to perceive that this examination is leading directly into something Jesus appears to have understood about himself, and his blood, that a sound examination of the facts of the matter, scientific and theological, can unearth in a manner that removes the veil of theological mystery thereby showing that the mystical mumbo jumbo in Jesus' words was really just the impossibility of him speaking to the spirit of these things at a time and in a place where not a soul was ready or able to receive them.

In 2 Corinthians 11:2, Paul writes that he desires to present the Church to Christ as a chaste virgin. The idea isn't that Christ will inseminate the Church with the biological semen related to the fallen gender-dynamics found in the Masoretic text and on the sheets on the profane wedding night. On the contrary, in line with the hidden gender-dynamics being examined, Jesus' blood (which is his death) is the masculine fluid that inseminates his bride the Church. This concept is found hidden in the Jewish wedding ritual when the bridegroom wears his death attire (kittel), strangely enough, under the chuppah.

Martin Buber says: “in Arabic the word hathana means to circumcise; and since among the ancient Arabs as among certain tribes to the present day, the adolescent youngster was circumcised shortly before his wedding, the bridegroom was a hathan, a cut one.” I.e. the bridegroom was a "bloody bridegroom." Franz Rosenzweig tells us the Jewish prayer shawl “directs the mind to the shroud [death attire], and to eternal life when God will sheathe the soul in his mantle.” Commenting on Rosenzweig’s statement Derrida uses Artaud’s phrase “hymen of the morgue.” The righteous bridegroom passes through the hymen of the morgue, his death attire, on his way to marital bliss. Rosenzweig: “. . . The bridegroom wears his death attire as his wedding attire, and at the very moment he becomes a true member of the eternal people he challenges death and becomes as strong as death” (Star of Redemption, p. 326).

Unwrapped from the Jewish shroud that hides the meaning from Jewish eyes, Rosenzweig is clearly pointing out that the righteous groom wears his death attire (kittel) at his wedding since he will die and the grave won't hold him ("he challenges death and becomes as strong as death"). ---He's resurrected! ---And his resurrection precedes his offering of himself to his bride. He offers her his blood that's now tested and proven more powerful than death so that rather than their intercourse proliferating more dying flesh, as is the case with semen, his bride is her, himself, the offspring of the post-resurrection intercourse. A bridegroom more powerful than death (resurrected to prove it) gives this blood not subject to death, as the seminal fluid through which his bride is reborn him or herself, rather than, as in the case of profane intercourse, the seminal fluid proliferating more dying flesh.

Semen is the testemony of a faux-male procreating with a female therein giving birth to living-death; offspring "born physically alive but spiritually dead" (R.B. Thieme, Jr.). The sole male conceived without the testemony of semen has, because of his unique conception and birth, blood that's not subject to the grave. It's that blood that's mimicked in the devil's counterfeit marriage and its sexual intercourse which, of course, produces offspring that belong to the angel of death who sires all of his young with a dictum of death writ large with what the pen is the faux-male uses to write his sons and daughters into the fallen world.



John