Adam Kadmon and Her Son.

[John D. Brey]

The sefirotic tree is emblematic of Adam Kadmon, the first, or outwardly first (primordial קדמון) human. The tree is unapologetic about the fact that it hides a great and fruitful secret in the garden of human fruitfulness, i.e., the center of the human body, which is where we find "yesod" יסד, the "secret" סד, of the yod י, which is the great and fruitful secret required to properly pick fruit from the Tree of Life.


John

 

[Altfish]

OK, you've lost me....

Adam has a surname?
Adam is female?

 

[John D. Brey]

OK, you've lost me....

Adam has a surname?
Adam is female?

In the spirit of Matthew 11:25, I would say to you that "Kadmon" is less a surname, and more of a designation: Ha-adam the First. Kinda like Henry the Eighth. "Kadmon" is used in the sense of first, original, or primordial.

Similarly, "adam" is both a proper name, and also itself a title: human. Prior to Genesis 2:21, אדם "adam" refers merely to the human. After Genesis 2:21 it becomes the proper name of the first newfangled kind of human: a human "male." Prior to Genesis 2:21 the human is not a male. It's a living organism with a body like the one we currently consider female. And yet prior to the existence of a male, the original body isn't female in a dualistic gendered sense since at that point it's just a human body.

The first human was created already pregnant. That's part and parcel of the fruitful secret dangling on the sefirotic tree so that brave souls might pick it and eat it. Another part of the parcel of truth encased in the skin of that fruit is related to the title of the son of the first human: adam shalem echad אדם שלם אחד, since, unlike the first adam, whose title transfers to her his [sic] name, Adam, the son of ha-adam, acquires a new name distinct from his title as adam shalem echad: the singular[ly] perfect human being.



John

 

[Altfish]

The first human was created already pregnant.

Really, in which verse of Genesis is that stated?

 

[John D. Brey]

Really, in which verse of Genesis is that stated?

Are you under the impression that any verse of scripture states any thing prior to being interpreted? If you're not under that misimpression then would it be fair for me to interpret what you just stated as a question concerning which interpretation of which scripture we can examine to consider the premise that the first human was created pregnant?

Forgive me for belaboring the point. But as they say, interpretation is in the eye-of-the-beholder. And I don't want to be beholden to the mote in anyone's eye until I've had a chance to remove it as I did from my own lying eyes (Isaiah 11:3).



John

 

[Altfish]

Are you under the impression that any verse of scripture states any thing prior to being interpreted? If you're not under that misimpression then would it be fair for me to interpret what you just stated as a question concerning which interpretation of which scripture we can examine to consider the premise that the first human was created pregnant?

Forgive me for belaboring the point. But as they say, interpretation is in the eye-of-the-beholder. And I don't want to be beholden to the mote in anyone's eye until I've had a chance to remove it as I did from my own lying eyes (Isaiah 11:3).
John

You seem to be moving the goalposts. I've never heard anyone say that Eve was created pregnant

 

[John D. Brey]

You seem to be moving the goalposts. I've never heard anyone say that Eve was created pregnant

Do you know anyone who claims to have eaten from the fruit of the tree of life?

This thread is conceived under the assumption that that fruit has been dangling there for thousands and thousands of years with few takers. Part and parcel of the birth of the thread is the idea that having eaten from the fruit of the tree of life enlightens the eater to the great and fruitful secret the secretive Jewish sages of the kabbalah refer to as the "secret of the yod": Yesod.

Have you ever glimpsed an image of the sefirotic tree?

We now come to the problem of the sexual symbolism which, throughout the Kabbalah, is inseparable from the image of the Tsaddik. In terms of the mirroring of the structure of the 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 Godhead, p. 106.
​

John

 

[Altfish]

Do you know anyone who claims to have eaten from the fruit of the tree of life?

This thread is conceived under the assumption that that fruit has been dangling there for thousands and thousands of years with few takers. Part and parcel of the birth of the thread is the idea that having eaten from the fruit of the tree of life enlightens the eater to the great and fruitful secret the secretive Jewish sages of the kabbalah refer to as the "secret of the yod": Yesod.

Have you ever glimpsed an image of the sefirotic tree?

We now come to the problem of the sexual symbolism which, throughout the Kabbalah, is inseparable from the image of the Tsaddik. In terms of the mirroring of the structure of the 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 Godhead, p. 106.
John​

​

So, you're making it up as you go along?

 

[Audie]

​

So, you're making it up as you go along?

You fell for it
then you figured it out.
Go forth, and sin no more.

 

[John D. Brey]

​

So, you're making it up as you go along?

I think you might be misinterpreting, and thus confusing, the fruit of the tree of life, with a cumquat?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

This thread is conceived under the assumption that that fruit has been dangling there for thousands and thousands of years with few takers. Part and parcel of the birth of the thread is the idea that having eaten from the fruit of the tree of life enlightens the eater to the great and fruitful secret the secretive Jewish sages of the kabbalah refer to as the "secret of the yod": Yesod.

We now come to the problem of the sexual symbolism which, throughout the Kabbalah, is inseparable from the image of the Tsaddik. In terms of the mirroring of the structure of the Adam Kadmon in the human body, the ninth Sefirah [yesod] 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 Godhead, p. 106.
​

The ninth sefirah --- yesod --- is known as the secret of the yod since the Hebrew word "yesod" is a yod followed by a samech and a dalet, the latter two letters spelling the Hebrew word for "secret": yesod is thus the secret of the yod. This makes Professor Scholem's statement above less remarkable since in kabbalah, if not Judaism more generally, the letter yod is directly associated with circumcision such that it's the letter most indicative, so to say, of the sign of the covenant found in the center of the garden of fruitfulness.

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.​

Since ritual circumcision ritualizes emasculation by taking a blade to the flesh signifying "male," the secret of circumcision, the secret of the yod, gains is hyper-secrecy by blinding onlookers by means of the light of the world of extreme obviousness: the first human was a female androgyne, which corrected, would be a gynandros. The first human had no male flesh unless it was carried in the womb of creation; which would be the womb of the first human, in which case it was hidden, and invisible, to the world, at that point.

But that's all old hatan. It's been covered till it's coming out ears and other orifices. The demonic problem of this examination revolves around a biological and thus logical anomaly the crux of which is the fact that there's no blood transfer from mother to fetus. The fetus' blood type is often different than the mothers, proving that there's no transfer of blood from mother to son.

But if there's no transfer of blood from mother to son in the womb then the first born male of creation has two huge problems so solve once he comes out of the womb since should he be born prior to Genesis 2:21 he has no means of creating his own blood, since he has no father; and since he has no way to create a blood unique from the mothers, he must be born a facsimile, or clone, or parthenogenetic image of the mother: he must be born female like the mother.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

But that's all old hatan. It's been covered till it's coming out ears and other orifices. The demonic problem of this examination revolves around a biological and thus logical anomaly the crux of which is the fact that there's no blood transfer from mother to fetus. The fetus' blood type is often different than the mothers, proving that there's no transfer of blood from mother to son.

But if there's no transfer of blood from mother to son in the womb then the first born male of creation has two huge problems so solve once he comes out of the womb since should he be born prior to Genesis 2:21 he has no means of creating his own blood, since he has no father; and since he has no way to create a blood unique from the mothers, he must be born a facsimile, or clone, or parthenogenetic image of the mother: he must be born female like the mother.

This odd state of affairs has a symbiotic relationship to an important quotation of Professor Elliot R. Wolfson from his recent book, Heidegger and Kabbalah, p. 346:

Despite the politically correct mandate to avoid generalizations and thereby dodge the scourge of being essentialized as an essentialist, it is legitimate to conclude that the traditional kabbalistic literature consistently generalizes about the unique role assigned to Israel and its paradigmatic status of being Adam in the fullest and most perfect sense . . . in the striking language of Eliashiv, the rectification of the absolute oneness (tiqqun ha-ahdut ha-gamur) in the eschaton will be characterized by the unification of all the particulars (ishim ha-peratim) into one stature (qomah) and the entire world will assume the shape of the countenance (parsuf) of one complete human (adam shalem ehad).​

The statement above, coupled with the quotation from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan about circumcision returning the Jew to the status of the first human prior to Genesis 2:21, implies, in a roundabout way, that by returning Israel, or the Israelite Jew, to the status of the original human, a female created pregnant with a male, Israel, after circumcision, is a picture, or type, of the original human created already pregnant with the "one complete human being (adam shalem ehad)."

Nevertheless, this does nothing to solve the conundrum that this "one complete human being" has no means of creating his own blood and thus his own body since not having a father renders him the first male, unique, without giving us a scientific means for how he could have come to be? Scientifically speaking he would have to be a she like his mother.

The Masoretes solve, or cover up, the problem in the most inane way imaginable by making the first human being a bodily male when we know from science that this is not how it happened nor is there a way it could have happened that way since in every concept imaginable, the female is, and represents, the first, the material, the visible, while masculine implies immaterial, epiphenomenon (a secondary phenomena of nature) rendering the Masoretic text of Genesis chapter 2 flawed beyond hope of repair.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The Masoretes solve, or cover up, the problem in the most inane way imaginable by making the first human being a bodily male when we know from science that this is not how it happened nor is there a way it could have happened that way since in every concept imaginable, the female is, and represents, the first, the material, the visible, while masculine implies immaterial, epiphenomenon (a secondary phenomena of nature) rendering the Masoretic text of Genesis chapter 2 flawed beyond hope of repair.

To interject an important footnote to the statement above, when we say that the "masculine" is an epiphenomenon (a secondary phenomena of nature), though we're speaking utterly factually, and are scientifically correct, this is not necessarily to say that the male, or rather the masculine, is really a secondary phenomenon of nature, but only that scientifically, factually, historically, the male, the masculine, is, at least, invisible in the beginning, such that, in Professor Wolfson's parlance, one might say the origin, if it were masculine, is hidden in the beginning (see Bere****y Beginning).

Unfortunately the Masoretes invert the truth of the masculine being hidden in the beginning and make the feminine hidden in the beginning. According to the Masoretes, the feminine is hidden inside the material body of the masculine, which is an a/scientific textual demonism worthy of the serpentine mythology that's developed around it. This first-false-step, this premier faux pax, is so outrageous that a historian of theological history might even be tempted to lay the devil of anti-semitism at the feet of this textual flight, this sleight of the scribal wrist, that's created the flawed theological fancy coiled around the very crux of truth.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Unfortunately the Masoretes invert the truth of the masculine being hidden in the beginning and make the feminine hidden in the beginning. According to the Masoretes, the feminine is hidden inside the material body of the masculine, which is an a/scientific textual demonism worthy of the serpentine mythology that's developed around it. This first-false-step, this premier faux pax, is so outrageous that a historian of theological history might even be tempted to lay the devil of anti-semitism at the feet of this textual flight, this sleight of the scribal wrist, that's created the flawed theological fancy coiled around the very crux of truth.

Freed from the slip of the scribe's wrist, the paramount theological question situates itself where it should be situated: how could a woman be born, or created, pregnant? And a harder adjunct: where does the first true male (assuming true masculinity was postponed when a fake masculinity was manufactured in Genesis 2:21) get his blood if outside him all blood is female?

By freeing the Torah text from the orlah of the Masoretic inversion of gender dynamics we get to peer deep into the spirit of the scroll and thus engage the true theological questions of our day rather than tip toeing through the two lips sutured together in Genesis 2:21.



John

 

[WhoIsBeast 750]

Freed from the slip of the scribe's wrist, the paramount theological question situates itself where it should be situated: how could a woman be born, or created, pregnant? And a harder adjunct: where does the first true male (assuming true masculinity was postponed when a fake masculinity was manufactured in Genesis 2:21) get his blood if outside him all blood is female?

By freeing the Torah text from the orlah of the Masoretic inversion of gender dynamics we get to peer deep into the spirit of the scroll and thus engage the true theological questions of our day rather than tip toeing through the two lips sutured together in Genesis 2:21.



John

I will mislead you
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. It will crush your head, and you will crush his heel. "
Genesis 3:16 16 And he said unto the woman, Thou shalt greatly multiply thy affliction and sorrow of pregnancy;
Revelation 12: 1 And there appeared a great sign in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head.
Revelation 12: 2 And the woman was with child, and cried in pain, because her hour was come.
there is talk of a sign in heaven

 

[John D. Brey]

I will mislead you
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. It will crush your head, and you will crush his heel. "
Genesis 3:16 16 And he said unto the woman, Thou shalt greatly multiply thy affliction and sorrow of pregnancy;
Revelation 12: 1 And there appeared a great sign in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head.
Revelation 12: 2 And the woman was with child, and cried in pain, because her hour was come.
there is talk of a sign in heaven

The point of this thread is to make his signs as significant on earth as they are in heaven. <s> You'd have to help me out a bit putting the verses you've quoted in context with what's being said in this thread?




John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

To interject an important footnote to the statement above, when we say that the "masculine" is an epiphenomenon (a secondary phenomena of nature), though we're speaking utterly factually, and are scientifically correct, this is not necessarily to say that the male, or rather the masculine, is really a secondary phenomenon of nature, but only that scientifically, factually, historically, the male, the masculine, is, at least, invisible in the beginning, such that, in Professor Wolfson's parlance, one might say the origin, if it were masculine, is hidden in the beginning (see Bere****y Beginning).

Unfortunately the Masoretes invert the truth of the masculine being hidden in the beginning and make the feminine hidden in the beginning. According to the Masoretes, the feminine is hidden inside the material body of the masculine, which is an a/scientific textual demonism worthy of the serpentine mythology that's developed around it. This first-false-step, this premier faux pax, is so outrageous that a historian of theological history might even be tempted to lay the devil of anti-semitism at the feet of this textual flight, this sleight of the scribal wrist, that's created the flawed theological fancy coiled around the very crux of truth.



John

As you know, we are in agreement that the masculine is hidden rather than the feminine. Is there evidence and consensus that this cover up by the Masoretes really happened? If so, what do you think the motivation for this was?

 

[John D. Brey]

As you know, we are in agreement that the masculine is hidden rather than the feminine. Is there evidence and consensus that this cover up by the Masoretes really happened? If so, what do you think the motivation for this was?

We discussed this in depth once before in the thread, Land, Language, Dialect, and Dereliction. (And numerous other threads as well.) In a nutshell, the truth is that the Pentateuch was received without punctuation and even without word breaks or sentence breaks. This makes the string of Hebrew consonants a cipher requiring a key in order to distinguish word breaks and sentence breaks, so that it can be interpreted and read. Without that key, the text can be read multiple ways if you're willing to guess at word breaks, sentence breaks, and vowel pointing.

In the early centuries of the current era, many brilliant Christian exegetes began learning the Hebrew language so they could discern for themselves what was hidden and revealed in the Hebrew text of the Torah. Voila, they began to find multiple places where the text supported a Christian reading far more easily than the Jewish interpretation and tradition.

So what did Judaism do? The Masoretes developed a means to punctuate the traditional Jewish interpretation/reading of the text, which they then, in opposition to the commandments of God, placed on the text itself (though not on the synagogue scroll) thereby making it look to uneducated goyim that there was only one way to read the Hebrew Pentateuch: the Jewish way.

Let me give you an example. Without word breaks the English text of the first sentence in the penultimate paragraph above looks like:

Intheearlycenturiesofthecurrenteramanybrilliantchristianexegetesbeganlearningthehebrewlanguagesotheycoulddiscernforthemselveswhatwashiddenandrevealedinthehebrewtextofthetorah.​

And yet there are probably not too many ways the text can be read differently than originally written. But the Hebrew Pentateuch was more like this:

nthrlycntrsfthcrrntrmnybrllntchrstnxegtsbgnlrnngthhbrwlnggsthyclddscrnfrthmslvswhtwshddnndrvldnthhbrwtxtfthtrh.​

This is the same sentence with the vowels removed. The original Torah text was a Hebrew string of consonants with no word breaks, no sentence breaks, and no vowels. If you add the vowels, and then the word breaks, the first sentence evolves as such:

nthrlycntrsfthcrrntrmnybrllntchrstnxegtsbgnlrnngthhbrwlnggsthyclddscrnfrthmslvswhtwshddnndrvldnthhbrwtxtfthtrh.

Intheearlycenturiesofthecurrenteramanybrilliantchristianexegetesbeganlearningthehebrewlanguagesotheycoulddiscernforthemselveswhatwashiddenandrevealedinthehebrewtextofthetorah.

In the early centuries of the current era, many brilliant Christian exegetes began learning the Hebrew language so they could discern for themselves what was hidden and revealed in the Hebrew text of the Torah.​

To get from the first sentence to the last requires knowledge concerning the meaning of the sentence that doesn't exist in sentence itself (at best it's hidden). Where does that knowledge, information, come from? Jews say it comes from the "Oral Torah." But what's that? Since it's forbidden to be written down, where is it archived? We dealt with this in the thread, Every Rabbi is Jesus.

Cut to the chase. If the Oral Torah is masculine, and the written Torah is feminine (and if you think of materiality as feminine, and immaterial/invisible, as masculine, we can easily make that case), then the Oral (immaterial) Torah is actually hidden in the written (material) Torah. --------See the problem? ----According to the Masoretic interpretation of Genesis 2, the female is hidden in the masculine, such that the written Torah would have to be hidden in the Oral Torah, such that the written, the material, would have to be pulled from the rib, or womb, of the Oral Torah, in which case, the Oral Torah, like the Masoretic version of the first human, would be material, and not really oral, breath, spirit, after all.

According to the Masoretic gender-dynamics, the Oral Torah isn't hidden in the written Torah (as would be the case in the gender-dynamics being proffered in this thread) the written Torah (being feminine) would have to come out of an already materialized (like the body of ha-adam) Oral Torah, in which case the distinction between male and female, material and immaterial, first, and second, is turned upside down and inside out. Which is the source for the statement you addressed:

Unfortunately the Masoretes invert the truth of the masculine being hidden in the beginning and make the feminine hidden in the beginning. According to the Masoretes, the feminine is hidden inside the material body of the masculine, which is an a/scientific textual demonism worthy of the serpentine mythology that's developed around it. This first-false-step, this premier faux pax, is so outrageous that a historian of theological history might even be tempted to lay the devil of anti-semitism at the feet of this textual flight, this sleight of the scribal wrist, that's created the flawed theological fancy coiled around the very crux of truth.​

John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

We discussed this in depth once before in the thread, Land, Language, Dialect, and Dereliction. (And numerous other threads as well.) In a nutshell, the truth is that the Pentateuch was received without punctuation and even without word breaks or sentence breaks. This makes the string of Hebrew consonants a cipher requiring a key in order to distinguish word breaks and sentence breaks, so that it can be interpreted and read. Without that key, the text can be read multiple ways if you're willing to guess at word breaks, sentence breaks, and vowel pointing.

In the early centuries of the current era, many brilliant Christian exegetes began learning the Hebrew language so they could discern for themselves what was hidden and revealed in the Hebrew text of the Torah. Voila, they began to find multiple places where the text supported a Christian reading far more easily than the Jewish interpretation and tradition.

So what did Judaism do? The Masoretes developed a means to punctuate the traditional Jewish interpretation/reading of the text, which they then, in opposition to the commandments of God, placed on the text itself (though not on the synagogue scroll) thereby making it look to uneducated goyim that there was only one way to read the Hebrew Pentateuch: the Jewish way.

Let me give you an example. Without word breaks the English text of the first sentence in the penultimate paragraph above looks like:

Intheearlycenturiesofthecurrenteramanybrilliantchristianexegetesbeganlearningthehebrewlanguagesotheycoulddiscernforthemselveswhatwashiddenandrevealedinthehebrewtextofthetorah.​

And yet there are probably not too many ways the text can be read differently than originally written. But the Hebrew Pentateuch was more like this:

nthrlycntrsfthcrrntrmnybrllntchrstnxegtsbgnlrnngthhbrwlnggsthyclddscrnfrthmslvswhtwshddnndrvldnthhbrwtxtfthtrh.​

This is the same sentence with the vowels removed. The original Torah text was a Hebrew string of consonants with no word breaks, no sentence breaks, and no vowels. If you add the vowels, and then the word breaks, the first sentence evolves as such:

nthrlycntrsfthcrrntrmnybrllntchrstnxegtsbgnlrnngthhbrwlnggsthyclddscrnfrthmslvswhtwshddnndrvldnthhbrwtxtfthtrh.

Intheearlycenturiesofthecurrenteramanybrilliantchristianexegetesbeganlearningthehebrewlanguagesotheycoulddiscernforthemselveswhatwashiddenandrevealedinthehebrewtextofthetorah.

In the early centuries of the current era, many brilliant Christian exegetes began learning the Hebrew language so they could discern for themselves what was hidden and revealed in the Hebrew text of the Torah.​

To get from the first sentence to the last requires knowledge concerning the meaning of the sentence that doesn't exist in sentence itself (at best it's hidden). Where does that knowledge, information, come from? Jews say it comes from the "Oral Torah." But what's that? Since it's forbidden to be written down, where is it archived? We dealt with this in the thread, Every Rabbi is Jesus.

Cut to the chase. If the Oral Torah is masculine, and the written Torah is feminine (and if you think of materiality as feminine, and immaterial/invisible, as masculine, we can easily make that case), then the Oral (immaterial) Torah is actually hidden in the written (material) Torah. --------See the problem? ----According to the Masoretic interpretation of Genesis 2, the female is hidden in the masculine, such that the written Torah would have to be hidden in the Oral Torah, such that the written, the material, would have to be pulled from the rib, or womb, of the Oral Torah, in which case, the Oral Torah, like the Masoretic version of the first human, would be material, and not really oral, breath, spirit, after all.

According to the Masoretic gender-dynamics, the Oral Torah isn't hidden in the written Torah (as would be the case in the gender-dynamics being proffered in this thread) the written Torah (being feminine) would have to come out of an already materialized (like the body of ha-adam) Oral Torah, in which case the distinction between male and female, material and immaterial, first, and second, is turned upside down and inside out. Which is the source for the statement you addressed:

Unfortunately the Masoretes invert the truth of the masculine being hidden in the beginning and make the feminine hidden in the beginning. According to the Masoretes, the feminine is hidden inside the material body of the masculine, which is an a/scientific textual demonism worthy of the serpentine mythology that's developed around it. This first-false-step, this premier faux pax, is so outrageous that a historian of theological history might even be tempted to lay the devil of anti-semitism at the feet of this textual flight, this sleight of the scribal wrist, that's created the flawed theological fancy coiled around the very crux of truth.​

John

Fascinating. We will get this sorted out.

Eve taking a bite from the forbidden fruit and handing it off to Adam is an analogy for how the female emanated the first male in a sort of handing off of the baton in order to finish the race.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Tell me what you think about this idea:

Going from the oral to the written is a type of limiting. It discourages the opening up of interpretation, and as a result, de-emphasizes the logos which is the tool for interpretation.

In contrast, going from the written to oral is pro logos, and makes more space for revelation via the Holy Spirit.