The Unadulterated Mohel.

[John D. Brey]

The phallus is the tree of life (its fruit was required for each of us to become alive). It's also the tree of death (biologists tell us prior to the rise of phallic sex organisms were all immortal). And lastly, it's the source of everlasting life.

Semen is the source of human life and death (the latter being the penalty for the original sin passed down through the evil smelling drop of semen, Avot 3:1). -----But the phallus is also the source of everlasting life when it's bled to death (ברית מילה).

The phallus is the symbol of the angel of death. Therefore the "blood" of the phallus (which "blood" always symbolizes death), is not just any blood; it doesn't represent any ole death; it represents the death of death itself (since the phallus represents death itself). In this sense, the blood of the phallus, דם ברית, represents the death of death, as it simultaneously represents everlasting life, since if death dies, then there's no longer death, which is to say life is everlasting.

Death reigns supreme only until death itself dies. Then there's no longer death to deal in death, since death is dead. Cutting and bleeding the symbol of death ברית מילה represents no mere garden of Eden variety death; it represents the death of death itself. When the phallus can no longer spread death through the evil smelling drop, its new fluid of life is its blood, which is now, ironically, the elixir of everlasting life.

Since "blood" has always been, and will always be, the symbol of death, when it's transformed by becoming the symbol of everlasting life, through ritual circumcision, it's thereafter the symbol of both: life and death share the same symbol. At that time, the meaning of the cross of Christ will be better appreciated since like the post-circumcision blood of the phallus, the blood of the cross of Christ represents both death and everlasting life. Which is the basis for the so-called "secret of the yod" י–סוד (yesod).

In this context, transforming "blood" (death) into a symbol of everlasting life (John 6:53), is less a naked transformation, and more a reformation, since truth be told, "blood" is the original symbol and source of everlasting life. Prior to the original sin where it gets adulterated, watered down, through the creation (Genesis 2:21) and original use of the phallus in the original sin, blood is the symbol and source of everlasting life. Until the first adulteration of "blood" where it gets mixed with water, creating semen, "blood" represents everlasting life. When it's adulterated by mixing it with water, to create semen, it suddenly represents the adulteration of everlasting life, which is everlasting life watered down with eventual death.

The "circumciser" is called a "mohel" מהל. The word is a hapax since it's only used one time in the entire Tanakh (Isaiah 1:22). Gesenius says the word is related to "adulteration." And in Isaiah 1:22 the word "mohel" speaks of the adulteration (dilution) of wine by mixing it with water.

Throughout the Tanakh, most explicitly in Song of Solomon, wine represents sex, while simultaneously in kabbalistic symbolism (as in the Gospels), wine represents blood. This is important when it's understood that the original sin was phallic sex, and that the possibility of that sex is put into effect in Genesis 2:21 when the first phallus is manufactured creating the dual-gender necessary to perform phallic sex. Properly exegeted, the scripture reveals that the anomalous gender in Genesis chapter 2 isn't the female, Eve, who's in fact a clone of ha-adam prior to Genesis 2:21, but, contrary to what we're made to swallow through the malfeasance of the Masoretes, the male (post-Genesis 2:21 "Adam") is the newfangled gender that's manufactured rather than being created originally by God.

This is important to the proper exegesis of the "mohel" who's the so-called "circumciser." It's important since the righteous mohel doesn't adulterate so much as he reverses the first case of adultery, which is the first case of phallic sex.

In the symbolism of the Bible, mixing wine with water speaks of "watering down," or adulterating sex, which is mixing what was originally the sole elixir of everlasting life ---blood/wine----with water, such that everlasting life is watered down so that it's no longer everlasting. Watering down everlasting life requires death, since death is the adulteration of everlasting life that came for the first time at the same time ha-adam did.

With this we see that "semen" represents the mixture of wine/blood (sex) and water (forming adulterated wine) so that the meaning of both the "evil smelling drop" of semen (Avot 3:1), and also the exegetical basis for the name of the angel of death, "Satan," come from the same source since etymologically speaking "Satan" comes from the idea of urinating on a wall. The angel of death, "Satan," is the adulteration of wine/blood (sex) whereby it's mixed with water (urine) creating the evil smelling drop that's the transfer mechanism for death, which, death, is the adulteration of everlasting life.

The "mohel" un-adulterates sex by reversing the adulteration found in the nature of the phallus whereby rather than mixing wine/blood with water, he expectorates blood/sex into a glass of wine, symbolizing a return to the elixir of everlasting life, living blood, rather than the mixing of blood with water that creates semen (represented by a mixture of blood and urine).



John

 

[dybmh]

Warning to readers: This poster has in the past on this website misrepresented Jewish authors and Rabbis as well as Judaism in general and Jewish mysticism in particular. The most common manner of these misrepresentations are perpetrated via cherry picking and quote mining. Second to that, the OP will post fraudulent translations of Hebrew and Aramaic. When these errors have been pointed out, in the past they have been ignored. The same distortions are re-posted eventually. I've been reading John's posts on and off for over 5 years. I've seen no improvement over that time in spite of many varied attempts to encourage him to correct his methods.

If there is a quote, in the posts on this thread which do not provide an easy method for reading the entire passage, I think, it would be good to be highly skeptical that the snippet provided was not plucked out of context, or rewritten omitting key details which would invalidate the thesis. The OP's approach, in my mind, is almost like what one would see in the form of an old fashioned ransom note, where the kidnappers cut out letters from a magazine and placed them together forming the words they needed for their purpose.

Caveat emptor,

 

[John D. Brey]

Dear forewarned, forelorned, and foreskined reader:

While typically I ignore drive-by fruitings like the one tossed out the car window by our dear friend @dybmh, in this particular case the drive-by provides what a popular meme refers to as a "teachable moment." In the process of refuting some of the claims made by Sir Daniel Hirsch (aka dybmh), a bevy of information valuable to the spirit of this thread, information that would normally need to be already possessed by a thoughtful reader, will be brought into the light of day.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Why not dissect the first paragraph in the thread:

In this context, transforming "blood" (death) into a symbol of everlasting life (John 6:53), is less a naked transformation, and more a reformation, since truth be told, "blood" is the original symbol and source of everlasting life. Prior to the original sin where it gets adulterated, watered down, through the creation (Genesis 2:21) and original use of the phallus in the original sin, blood is the symbol and source of everlasting life. Until the first adulteration of "blood" where it gets mixed with water, creating semen, "blood" represents everlasting life. When it's adulterated by mixing it with water, to create semen, it suddenly represents the adulteration of everlasting life, which is everlasting life watered down with eventual death.

The primary claim in the paragraph above is that "blood" originally symbolizes everlasting life, and then, after the original sin, it comes, so to say, to symbolize "death." When it's unadulterated from the original adultery, i.e., the original sin (phallic sex),"blood" is said to once again represent everlasting life. Everlasting life is part and parcel of immortality such that it's important that Judaism and Christianity both consider the soul immortal. Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch claims "blood" represents "soul," blood represents immortality (and thus everlasting life):

Similarly, the soul is present and active in the blood, and the activity of the soul is manifest in the blood; all activities of the blood are actually the activities of the soul . . . the blood effects כפרה [atonement] not in its own right, but by virtue of the soul, which it represents.​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Bereshis 9:5 (bracket mine).​

In the same commentary, Rabbi Hirsch says human blood is actually the breath of God; it belongs to God, and God can demand its return at his good time. This breath of God, is the soul-life breathed into the first human at creation. The mortal body is formed, and then the blood, the breath of God's everlasting life (immortality), is breathed into the body so that the biological life of the body is enlivened with the immortal soul-life of God:

The animal soul ---together with the body ---is formed from the earth. By contrast, the source of man's soul is not the source of his earthly frame; rather, God, as it were, breathed into man a spark of His own essence.​

​

Ibid.​

The animal's blood is created like his body from the earth. But man's blood, man's soul, is immortal, since it comes from God:

But your blood, which belongs to your souls, is Mine, not yours. I will demand (אדרש) it, because it belongs to Me and is at My disposal, and I require a recknoning for every drop of your blood. . . The special meaning of דרש is to demand one's property that was entrusted with someone or that was found by someone; to require an accounting for one's property and to demand its return. . . From the depths of his own self-knowledge he should recongize the divine soul within every man. . . Our duty is to see in every person the soul and spirit breathed into him by God.​

​

Ibid.​

In a full rendering of Rabbi Hirsch's thought (merely cherry picked above), Rabbi Hirsch is clear that man's blood represents the everlasting life of God. So how come "blood" symbolizes death in the Tanakh? Whenever blood is found outside of a body it symbolizes death not everlasting life. That is, in every case except when it's the blood of the phallus drawn at ritual circumcision, where, then, the blood, outside a human body, suddenly, miraculously, becomes unadulterated: it once again represents God's everlasting life.



John

 

[GoodAttention]

how come "blood" symbolizes death in the Tanakh? Whenever blood is found outside of a body it symbolizes death not everlasting life. That is, in every case except when it's the blood of the phallus drawn at ritual circumcision, where, then, the blood, outside a human body, suddenly, miraculously, becomes unadulterated: it once again represents God's everlasting life.



John

I don’t think the Jewish gentleman performing the circumcizion who draws the blood drawn into his mouth via suction is aware of this.

 

[John D. Brey]

I don’t think the Jewish gentleman performing the circumcizion who draws the blood drawn into his mouth via suction is aware of this.

Here's a couple quotations I've carefully cherry picked for you.

Several new practices placed special emphasis on bloodshed. After performing metsitsah, sucking blood from the circumcised penis, the mohel would spit some blood into the cup of wine from which he would place drops on the child's lips. He wiped blood form his hands and mouth on a cloth, which was laid across the entrance to the synagogue. Some blood would be dripped into a cup and emptied before the Torah ark.

Leonard B. Glick, Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America, p. 63.

One medieval Ashkenazic custom that made blood public and visible was the habit of taking the cloth with which the mohel (the ritual circumciser) had wiped his hands of the blood and hanging it in the door of the synagogue in which the circumcision had been performed. The source that describes this custom specifies that the practice replicates the salvific smearing of the blood on the doorposts of the Jews in Egypt as protection against the Angel of Death. Yet the practice was enacted in the context of a Christianity that also publicly displayed icons of the blood of Christ. . . The justification for this rabbinic custom of metzitzah was generally medical: it was believed that sucking the blood would prevent infection. However, it is hard to avoid the suspicion that something more ritualistic was at stake. These Jewish practices might be called the mirror image of the Eucharist. In both cases, blood appears to be consumed, although in fact it is not.

David Biale, Blood and Belief: The Circulation of a Symbol between Jews and Christians, p. 98-99.

In the continuation of Abulafia's discussion in Gan Na'ul, either a cooptation of Christian motifs or the articulation of some remarkably parallel themes is apparent. The passage recalls the Christian perception of the sacred nature of Jesus' blood, which originates in the Gospels' contention that Jesus' blood possessed a sanctifying nature. The point of contact between this theme and that discussed earlier, concerning the blood placed on the posts and lintels of the doors of Israelite homes during the Exodus story, bears mentioning. Jesus is identified as the paschal sacrifice in the New Testament. As the lamb, his is the blood on the doors of the Israelite homes. For Abulafia, the structure of the posts and lintels of those doors signified circumcision. Implicitly, in that earlier case, the blood of circumcision was imbued with the same aura of sacrality, by Abulafia, that Christians ascribe to Jesus' blood.

Robert J. Sagerman, The Serpent Kills or the Serpent Gives Life: The Kabbalist Abraham Abulafia's Response to Christianity, p. 318.​

John

 

[GoodAttention]

The fundamental difference here is every action post circumcizion is to prevent any blood from landing on the ground.

This contrasts with Jesus blood, which ran without obstruction after he was pierced, onto the earth.

 

[christos]

Dear forewarned, forelorned, and foreskined reader:

While typically I ignore drive-by fruitings like the one tossed out the car window by our dear friend @dybmh, in this particular case the drive-by provides what a popular meme refers to as a "teachable moment." In the process of refuting some of the claims made by Sir Daniel Hirsch (aka dybmh), a bevy of information valuable to the spirit of this thread, information that would normally need to be already possessed by a thoughtful reader, will be brought into the light of day.



John

Phew

I’ll ignore this then as I’ve been snipped

 

[John D. Brey]

Phew

I’ll ignore this then as I’ve been snipped

Heart and all?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The fundamental difference here is every action post circumcizion is to prevent any blood from landing on the ground.

Is that a hunch? Because I suspect I've studied circumcision more intently than anyone your likely to meet, and I don't recall anything about not letting the blood land on the ground as part of the ritual or the symbolism?

This contrasts with Jesus blood, which ran without obstruction after he was pierced, onto the earth.

The quotations note, correctly, that the contrast is between the blood of circumcision, the blood of the lamb on Passover, and the blood of Jesus. The connection is simple if we understand the syzygy that unifies "blood" as the symbol of both everlasting life and also death. How can blood symbolize both? The same way the phallus symbolizes both. Uncut, it delivers life adulterated with death (through senescence). Cut and bled (circumcised) it's fluid, blood, represents the destiny of the righteous Jew, unadulterated life, everlasting life, the life of God.

What's that got to do with Jesus and Passover? Yoma 2a:

“And it will atone for him and for his house” (Leviticus 16:6); the Sages interpreted the term: His house, that is his wife.​

​

Yoma 2a, 2.​

Domestic and cult houses symbolize cosmic motherhood. . . The interior of the house is a belly (iai) or womb (Mead 1949, 211), which conjures not simply a female body but specifically a mother.​

​

Professor Eric Kline Silverman, Masculinity Motherhood and Mockery, p. 66.​

​

In the same text Professor Silverman explains that the doorposts מזוזות of the house represent the "vaginas of house mothers" so that we see why the Talmud equates the blood on the doorpost of the Jewish house-mother with circumcision blood. The blood on the labial doorposts of the Jewish home on Passover represents the fact that the angel of death, the phallus, won't enter this belly/womb to spread its death-sentence (Genesis 1:22).

Where the phallus symbolizes the angel of death, e.g., the serpent in the Garden, the blood of this biological serpent (brit milah) represents the death of death itself, so that if that blood is placed on the entrance to the vagina that's normally the place death enters to spread death when it engenders life (seminal conception), then anyone coming out of the "vagina of the house mother" without the angel of death first opening the veil of that doorway to engender a life mixed with death, symbolizes someone born with the life of God, everlasting life, which is to say life not adulterated with death, that's come, so to say, from the fleshly fathering-organ.

This is why the quotations speak of metzizah as a parallel to the Eucharist?

Jesus is born of a virgin. Symbolically speaking his mother's labial doorposts מזוזות were marked with the blood of the organ that would have fathered him were he not virgin conceived. He comes out of a house-mother whose labial doorposts where guarded by the blood of circumcision (ritual emasculation: no fathering-organ) such that Jesus had to open the womb פטר רחם from the inside out, in contradistinction to everyone else who has the womb opened for them by the angel of death, the biological serpent, whose poisoned jowels engenders them with the adulteration that's the evil smelling drop (Avot 3:1) making them eventually senescence and die.

Drinking Jesus' blood, i.e., the Eucharist, is drinking the blood of everlasting life (John 6:53) since, being conceived the old-fashioned way, the way the first human's firstborn was to be conceived prior to the abortion that led to the birth of Cain, means Jesus' blood is the elixir of everlasting life; blood that hasn't been contaminated, adulterated, by the adultery that is the original sin: phallic-sex.

Similarly, the blood of circumcision, i.e., the blood of the phallus, represents the elixir of everlasting life since it symbolizes the death of the phallus, which is the death of death itself, meaning any blood come from a house-mother's firstborn who's conceived after the death of death itself (i.e., bleeding the phallus to death) is the blood of everlasting life. If you drink it you'll literally live forever (John 6:53-54).



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Similarly, the blood of circumcision, i.e., the blood of the phallus, represents the elixir of everlasting life since it symbolizes the death of the phallus, which is the death of death itself, meaning any blood come from a house-mother's firstborn who's conceived after the death of death itself (i.e., bleeding the phallus to death) is the blood of everlasting life. If you drink it you'll literally live forever (John 6:53-54).

This doesn't completely unadulterate the mohel. Which is to say metzizah isn't a direct parallel to the Eucharist yet. The reason metzitzah isn't a direct parallel to the Eucharist (yet) is that the blood of the Eucharist represents the blood of one conceived through the blood of circumcision (e.g., through a virgin conception). In a Christian context only that blood, and not the blood of circumcision, is the elixir of everlasting life.

Nevertheless, the great Jewish sages of a kabbalistic bent get that. And they correct it in a manner so that metzitzah is indeed a direct parallel to the Eucharist. They do this through the conceptualism arrived at through the sefirotic tree as the body of Adam Kadmon.

On that tree of life, which represents a divine anthropos, the anthropomorphic body of God himself, we have "yesod" which, amazingly, represents two things simultaneously: God's phallus (the reproductive organ on the anthropomorphic God) and also the "Righteous One" that symbolizes God's Isaac, God's firstborn son.

The manner in which metzitzah is made a direct parallel of the Eucharist in kabbalistic thought is by making "yesod" represent both the organ that father's the firstborn, and also the firstborn too. Chrisitianized, we could say that the son of God and the father of that son are the same "flesh" so long as we realize that that flesh is the flesh of the father that father's the son, the phallus, and it's also the son too, ala the kabbalistic teaching concerning "yesod."

Where "yesod" unifies the flesh of the father's fathering-organ, the phallus, and the flesh of the son (the Righteous One of God), metzitzah becomes a perfect parallel for the Eucharist since the mohel is drinking the blood of the son when he's drinking blood of the organ that father's the son (since in kabbalistic circles that flesh ---yesod---represents both simultaneously). We could even say that this truth is the "secret" סוד of circumcision, which circumcision is symbolized by the letter yod י, so that "ye-sod" (י–סוד) is the secret of circumcision and thus the gateway into the meaning of metzizah as the unadulterating of the mohel. The mohel become the unadulterated receipient of the blood spoken of in John 6:53-54.



John

 

[GoodAttention]

Is that a hunch? Because I suspect I've studied circumcision more intently than anyone your likely to meet, and I don't recall anything about not letting the blood land on the ground as part of the ritual or the symbolism?

Not a hunch. There is a general theme in the scriptures that blood shouldn’t be spilled. The first mention of blood is Abel’s crying out to God from the ground.

I posed the question to a Jewish friend why suck the blood and that’s what he said. Blood mustn’t be spilled on the ground.

 

[John D. Brey]

I posed the question to a Jewish friend why suck the blood and that’s what he said. Blood mustn’t be spilled on the ground.

Did you ask him if there might be a better way to keep the blood from spilling on the ground than sucking it with the mouth? You know, like wrapping it in a towel or immediately bandaging it or something like that.

Fwiw, Rabbi Hirsch points out that Jewish rituals are never, ever, about mundane things like stopping the bleeding, or keeping the blood from spilling on the ground. They always have a theological or spiritual connotation. Metzitzah is the third primary symbol in a ritual circumcision. It's not just a bandaging of the wound, or a means of stopping the the bleeding. It's the final, crucially important symbol, in the three primary symbols in a ritual circumcision: milah---cutting the foreskin; per'iah----tearing the membrane; metzitzah---taking the blood of circumcision into the mouth.



John

 

[GoodAttention]

Did you ask him if there might be a better way to keep the blood from spilling on the ground than sucking it with the mouth? You know, like wrapping it in a towel or immediately bandaging it or something like that.

It is to perfect the “not spilling” of blood, going from the incision into the mouth whilst the hands are occupied.

Almost as if it was bloodless!

Fwiw, Rabbi Hirsch points out that Jewish rituals are never, ever, about mundane things like stopping the bleeding, or keeping the blood from spilling on the ground. They always have a theological or spiritual connotation. Metzitzah is the third primary symbol in a ritual circumcision. It's not just a bandaging of the wound, or a means of stopping the the bleeding. It's the final, crucially important symbol, in the three primary symbols in a ritual circumcision: milah---cutting the foreskin; per'iah----tearing the membrane; metzitzah---taking the blood of circumcision into the mouth.



John

The last act is what keeps the ritual sacred and not tainted by having blood spilling onto the ground.

 

[Kathryn]

So. Much. Sexual. Innuendo.

 

[John D. Brey]

So. Much. Sexual. Innuendo.

. . . What was that Kamala said: You didn't fall out of a coconut tree you know.




John

 

[Kathryn]

. . . What was that Kamala said: You didn't fall out of a coconut tree you know.




John

Hey, I am past the age of caring one way or the other about sexual innuendos but just pointing it out.

 

[christos]

It is to perfect the “not spilling” of blood, going from the incision into the mouth whilst the hands are occupied.

Almost as if it was bloodless!


The last act is what keeps the ritual sacred and not tainted by having blood spilling onto the ground.

I’m going to brutally honest here
And I love the Jewish people and I genuinely mean no offence to anyone

But I’ve always found the sucking baby blood out, to be weird
I totally understand IT ISNT SEXUAL, but from the outside I’m sure you understand it can seem a bit… odd… to someone who isn’t Jewish

To take your child to an elderly rabbi, to be cut and sucked

I’ve always thought why not just have someone with a rag and make sure it doesn’t spill on the ground, if that’s a part of the ritual

Why suck it out for?
Is it not archaic and outdated?
Why not use a pipette or something?

Also is this not verging on a form of blood magic or superstition?

I’m just being brutally honest of my opinion on this one


But then there’s weird practices world wide, I mean in some regions of India they throw babies off of buildings into a bed sheet

Heck, catholics believe they’re literally eating Jesus and drinking his blood, a form of transmutation

 

[John D. Brey]

Hey, I am past the age of caring one way or the other about sexual innuendos but just pointing it out.

I took the statement on your avatar as a sexual innuendo.



John

 

[Kathryn]

I took the statement on your avatar as a sexual innuendo.



John

Wow, it's really on your mind.