Adam Kadmon and Her Son.

[John D. Brey]

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.

The title of this thread, Adam Kadmon and Her Son, is about the emanation of true masculinity. Cain is born, not emanated. All males after Cain, save one, are products of phallic-sex, and thus not products of emanation.

There's only one truly male creature in all of existence (and forever). He emanated as the firstborn son of Adam Kadmon.

Eve's Adam is the first case of gender assignment surgery in human history. He's not true masculinity. His lips are sewn shut in Genesis 2:21 (forming the penile-raphe) manufacturing the first false male flesh. The Torah's lips are thereafter sown shut in avowed silence concerning Adam's labial mutilation.



John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

The title of this thread, Adam Kadmon and Her Son, is about the emanation of true masculinity. Cain is born, not emanated. All males after Cain, save one, are products of phallic-sex, and thus not products of emanation.

There's only one truly male creature in all of existence (and forever). He emanated as the firstborn son of Adam Kadmon.

Eve's Adam is the first case of gender assignment surgery in human history. He's not true masculinity. His lips are sewn shut in Genesis 2:21 (forming the penile-raphe) manufacturing the first false male flesh. The Torah's lips are thereafter sown shut in avowed silence concerning Adam's labial mutilation.



John

I would add that this one true male lies dormant in and is inherited by every human being.
Similarly, the one true female exists deep within every human being, stuck in bondage, awaiting the male.

 

[John D. Brey]

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.

The finally definitive move for the Rabbis was to transfer all Logos and Sophia talk to the Torah alone, thus effectively accomplishing two powerful discursive moves at once: consolidating their own power as the sole religious virtuosi and leaders of `the Jews,’ and protecting one version of monotheistic thinking from the problematic of division within the godhead. For the Rabbis, Torah supersedes Logos, just as for John [the apostle], Logos supersedes Torah. Or, to put it into more fully johaninine terms, if for John the Logos Incarnate in Jesus replaces the Logos revealed in the Book, for the Rabbis the Logos Incarnate in the Book displaces the Logos that subsists anywhere else but in the Book.

Border Lines, Rabbi Daniel Boyarin, Hermann P. and Sophia Taubman Professor of Talmudic Culture, Berkeley.​

The concept being developed in this thread is based on the fact that scientifically, biologically, logically, and philosophically, the female (material) is the first perceived reality even if behind her ----or in her ---- the male (immaterial) is hidden. In this sense the male could be the source for the female, ala Colossians 1:16, even though he's hidden in the genesis of creation, as he's hidden in the Genesis chapter two narrative as told by the Masoretic tradition (where the first human is errantly interpreted to be materially a male).

In this sense, the written Torah, since it's material, visible, tangible, is the female version of the revelation, the first perceived reality of the revelation of God; although hidden in the written text is the Oral, male, generative, element of the written revelation.

Which is where the true crux of this thread comes into play since if ha-adam initially has a female body, and she/he does, then we need to know both that the male is hidden in ha-adam, and how that male is to function, emanate, or make himself known? In Genesis 2:21, the divine surgeon takes something out of ha-adam, and closes up the labial flesh turning ha-adam into Adam, the first male; but a male "manufactured" rather than emanating from the true root of humanity. Ironically, Eve is then cloned from the flesh of the original human making her the facsimile of ha-adam prior to the gender assignment surgery in Genesis 2:21. Eve is living proof of what Adam was prior to the production of the penile-raphe (Genesis 2:21), which any male can examine on his own body to see, scientifically, that he was a female, had an opening down there (see, The Primordial Phallus), before nature sutured her up to make her a him (Genesis 2:21).



John

 

[John D. Brey]

In this sense, the written Torah, since it's material, visible, tangible, is the female version of the revelation, the first perceived reality of the revelation of God; although hidden in the written text is the Oral, male, generative, element of the written revelation.

Which is where the true crux of this thread comes into play since if ha-adam initially has a female body, and she/he does, then we need to know both that the male is hidden in ha-adam, and how that male is to function, emanate, or make himself known? In Genesis 2:21, the divine surgeon takes something out of ha-adam, and closes up the labial flesh turning ha-adam into Adam, the first male; but a male "manufactured" rather than emanating from the true root of humanity. Ironically, Eve is then cloned from the flesh of the original human making her the facsimile of ha-adam prior to the gender assignment surgery in Genesis 2:21. Eve is living proof of what Adam was prior to the production of the penile-raphe (Genesis 2:21), which any male can examine on his own body to see, scientifically, that he was a female, had an opening down there (see, The Primordial Phallus), before nature sutured her up to make her a him (Genesis 2:21).

What the root of a word is is retroactively determined by the interpretive selection of the points that determine the word itself. You can't know what the root word is until you know what the actual word is. And what the actual word is isn't intrinsic to the consonants. Which is part and parcel of the emphasis placed on the malfeasance related to believing the root comes before the Masoretic points, when in truth the Masoretic points retroactively determine if the branch out of the root is produced semantically, or else asexually, straight from the root.

Land, Language, Dialect, and Dereliction.​

The quotation above cuts to the chase by pointing out that when the Masoretes determine word-breaks, and punctuation, on the sacred string of consonants (and they do this using a hoary tradition), they're nevertheless forced to determine the root word (usually three consonants) by applying their interpretive tradition about what the text is saying. The problem is obvious to anyone following the logic: the fruit is supposed to grow from the root, not the root from the fruit. The fruit is the interpretation, which, ironically, and unfortunately, for the Masoretic text, is being used to determine the root of the word when the root of the word should determine the fruit, the interpretation.

The Oral Torah is the meaning, the interpretation, of the written Torah. Which creates a paradox or contradiction since then the Oral Torah is both the root, and the offspring, of the written Torah. Does that sound familiar to anyone: the root, and the offspring? How can something be the root and the offspring at the same time?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The Oral Torah is the meaning, the interpretation, of the written Torah. Which creates a paradox or contradiction since then the Oral Torah is both the root, and the offspring, of the written Torah. Does that sound familiar to anyone: the root, and the offspring? How can something be the root and the offspring at the same time?

It doesn't work to say the Oral Torah is the root, and the written Torah is the offspring, since for one, the written Torah came undeciphered, as an undeciphered string of consonants, which requires a means for determining its meaning (by decipher words and punctuation) such that the written Torah can't be the meaning, the fruit, of the Oral Torah. And neither does it work to say the written Torah is the root, and the Oral Torah the offspring, since it's factual that the Oral Torah is fundamental to generating meaning from the root. Which is tantamount to saying the son (Oral Torah) generates himself in the mother (written Torah) after he's already been born? Which is tantamount to saying the Oral Torah is both the root and the offspring. Which feeds into a more precise exegetical interpretation of Genesis 17:17:

Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed saying in his heart, Shall a hundred year old be born and shall Sarah, barren ninety years, do the bearing? . . . How can a man be born when he's old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? . . . "Marvel not that I said you must be born again" . . . [For] circumcision is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but . . . marks the second, higher birth . . ..

Genesis 17:17; John 3:4-6; The Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23.

Exegeting Genesis 17:17.​

John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Got it.

In this sense the male could be the source for the female, ala Colossians 1:16, even though he's hidden in the genesis of creation, as he's hidden in the Genesis chapter two narrative as told by the Masoretic tradition (where the first human is errantly interpreted to be materially a male).

This is still mysterious to me, so I will step back and see where you go with this..

Edit:
I do feel confident that Genesis 2-3 is NOT about the first human. It is revealing the pattern that led to humanity, probably the same pattern that created the cosmos (the mysterious part for me), and it is revealing the pattern of salvation.

 

[John D. Brey]

In this sense the male could be the source for the female, ala Colossians 1:16, even though he's hidden in the genesis of creation, as he's hidden in the Genesis chapter two narrative as told by the Masoretic tradition (where the first human is errantly interpreted to be materially a male).​

This is still mysterious to me, so I will step back and see where you go with this..

The first place to go with this is back to this:

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. [The ovum of the son manufactures its own blood.]

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 to 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.​

If ha-adam's body is female, then seemingly ha-adam's blood is female blood: female DNA. If ha-adam is pregnant at creation (created already pregnant), and if that ovum is male, then that ovum (apparently part of the material transferred and placed in the cloned body of Eve who becomes Adam's temple), is initially uncontaminated by the seed of ha-adam as it exists after the gender assignment (the creation of the male organ and testes). Should it develop without the veil of the temple of ha-adam (i.e., Eve mucus membrane) being rent, by the shiny new flesh created in Genesis 2:21 (by the suturing of ha-adam's labial flesh to create the penile-raphe), then it will produce the world's first male blood, the world's first male DNA.

What that means is that in order for true male DNA to exist, for there to be an actual male, rather than a manufactured male, i.e., for there to be the true male God created in the womb of ha-adam when ha-adam was created (pregnant), the ovum must begin to divide with the mucus membrane of the bodily temple still intact. . . Adam's temple is desecrated in Genesis 2:21, torn open, and then sealed, perhaps to hide the crime? Leaving only Adam's clone, Eve, with an undesecrated temple, a body sealed and not yet opened or wounded: the hymenal mucus membrane is intact signifying the sanctity of the temple.

But this creates an important scientific problem since the ovum of the typical female is itself female until and unless a Y chromosome enters it from outside the mucus membrane which must be opened by the serpentine flesh in order for the Y chromosome (transforming the ovum to male) to find it's way into the sanctified chamber that Rashi calls the bedchamber of the temple. And yet if the ovum is female prior to its contamination by the Y chromosome, come, so to say, from the serpentine male flesh, then why, how, if it should begin dividing within a sealed membrane/womanly-veil, would it produce a male, and male blood, rather than the female, and female blood, that apparently it already is? In other words, if the premise is that if ha-adam had given birth prior to Genesis 2:21, where the false male organ/flesh was manufactured, then the ovum would have produced a male, the first male, then why, prior to inception and conception through phallic-sex, is the unfertilized ovum female flesh and blood (no Y chromosome)?

In parthenogenesis, an ovum can divide without male flesh and or chromosomes. But it always results in the birth or creation of another female. So how can an ovum, in a quasi-parthenogentic manner (no Y chromosome) transform from female to male? In truth, and factually speaking, that seems impossible. And yet, as the great exegetes of scripture point out, it's precisely when you run into an intractable problem like that, that that problem is guarding a great and valuable truth, a secret (in this case the secret of the yod). This thread was started under the assumption that the solution to that seemingly intractable problem exists in the scripture, and that solving that problem will cause a ripple-affect effecting and correcting grotesquely terrible exegesis and interpretation of scripture from its very genesis to its final revelation.



John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

In parthenogenesis, an ovum can split without male flesh and or chromosomes. But it always results in the birth or creation of another female. So how can an ovum, in a quasi-parthenogentic manner (no Y chromosome) transform from female to male? In truth, and factually speaking, that seems impossible. And yet, as the great exegetes of scripture point out, it's precisely when you run into an intractable problem like that, that that problem is guarding a great and valuable truth, a secret (in this case the secret of the yod). This thread was started under the assumption that the solution to that seemingly intractable problem exists in the scripture, and that solving that problem will cause a ripple-affect effecting and correcting grotesquely terrible exegesis and interpretation of scripture from its very genesis to its final revelation.

This is the missing piece of the puzzle for me. There is some kind of divine intervention.

It’s the same pattern when eating the forbidden fruit: the first Male is partially revealed -> the Female eats the fruit (divine conception) -> the pregnant Female is bound by the garments -> the Female births the Messianic Male and passes the baton to him -> the Messianic Male takes a bite and is traumatically shamed and guilted

^ This is the drama that our human consciousness awakens to. We carry the trauma, shame, and guilt for both the Female’s bite (emanation/divine conception) and the Messianic Male’s bite of the forbidden fruit, which is why there is guilt/shame associated with human sexuality.

*Note: I am differentiating between the first Male and the Messianic Male here purposely because they are not equivalent in my understanding.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

This is the missing piece of the puzzle for me. There is some kind of divine intervention.

It’s the same pattern when eating the forbidden fruit: the first Male is partially revealed -> the Female eats the fruit (divine conception) -> the pregnant Female is bound by the garments -> the Female births the Messianic Male and passes the baton to him -> the Messianic Male takes a bite and is traumatically shamed and guilted

^ This is the drama that our human consciousness awakens to. We carry the trauma, shame, and guilt for both the Female’s bite (emanation/divine conception) and the Messianic Male’s bite of the forbidden fruit, which is why there is guilt/shame associated with human sexuality.

*Note: I am differentiating between the first Male and the Messianic Male here purposely because they are not equivalent in my understanding.

So obviously this is where the idea of the Virgin Mary, conceived via divine intervention, giving birth to Christ is coming from. It is the pattern revealing itself to human consciousness.

 

[John D. Brey]

This is the missing piece of the puzzle for me. There is some kind of divine intervention.

It’s the same pattern when eating the forbidden fruit: the first Male is partially revealed -> the Female eats the fruit (divine conception) -> the pregnant Female is bound by the garments -> the Female births the Messianic Male and passes the baton to him -> the Messianic Male takes a bite and is traumatically shamed and guilted

I'm not sure how closely you're relating this to the orthodox Judeo/Christian understanding of the narrative? For instance, Eve ends up pregnant with Cain, who, at best, is the ante-Christ, if not the anti-Christ. Cain is a ******* conceived by means of the original sin, phallic-sex, which is given in metaphor as eating from the tree of knowledge.

The first good type of the messianic male is probably Isaac, who is conceived in association with his father's ritual emasculation (ritual circumcision) making him virgin conceived and born, ritually speaking.

As convoluted as the theories in this thread may seem, and they no doubt are, they're nevertheless attempting to stay within the normal context of the Jewish and Christian narrative and exegesis. Adam is created first, Eve is manufactured (cloned) from his DNA, and the place where the serpent opens him up to get his DNA is sutured סגר closed to form the world's first gender, male, therein making Eve, who is a perfect facsimile of Adam's original flesh, female (as opposed to Adam's newfangled masculinity).

Technically speaking, Adam has sex with his sister, Eve, who is his pre-bravado, pre-male, clone/sister. Ironically, Abraham marries his sister too. And in Genesis 17:17 goes berserk when God tells him he's going to be born right the second time, i.e., Sarah, his sister, is going to be his mother and wife; therein making him a type of messiah.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

So obviously this is where the idea of the Virgin Mary, conceived via divine intervention, giving birth to Christ is coming from. It is the pattern revealing itself to human consciousness.

In the concept of the Immaculate Conception, Mary is related to ha-adam (a type of ha-adam) prior to Genesis 2:21. She's born pregnant with the firstborn male of creation. But ha-adam aborts everything in Genesis 2:21 when he becomes the father of Cain, rather than the mother of messiah. It's this abortion, paralleled with the world's first gender assignment (male) surgery, that this thread is trying to talk about.



John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

As convoluted as the theories in this thread may seem, and they no doubt are, they're nevertheless attempting to stay within the normal context of the Jewish and Christian narrative and exegesis.

There is a yin and yang happening here. There is the normal, traditional side in which Christ sits to the right of the Father. This is the narrative that says eating from the Tree of Duality is forbidden. The conventional, static form of Christianity in which Christ is associated with order.

In order to move forward, we have to open ourselves up to duality/paradox and move Christ to the other side of the Father. In doing so, we become capable of moving Christ to either side, and then we can move ourselves back and forth to each side. This is the path of transcendence, meaning and wholeness - the narrow path of Christ.

Genesis 2-3 contains both sides of the duality. The right side of the story has been revealed and is dominant, so I focus almost entirely on the other side of the story. The risk of right side dominance is blindness and stasis. The risk of left side dominance is chaos and madness. The path of the Messianic Male, or the path of Christ, is to simultaneously hold paradox, which is another way of saying to transcend.

The traditional Adam and Eve story and the unrevealed Abraham story are contradictory since Abraham breaks the covenant, eats the forbidden fruit, and establishes a new covenant. The Jesus story sits on top of the paradox. When he taught, he hid the left side of the story in parables and metaphor because it was too risky to reveal at the time. In present day, it is too risky for the left side to remain hidden.

 

[John D. Brey]

In parthenogenesis, an ovum can divide without male flesh and or chromosomes. But it always results in the birth or creation of another female. So how can an ovum, in a quasi-parthenogentic manner (no Y chromosome) transform from female to male? In truth, and factually speaking, that seems impossible. And yet, as the great exegetes of scripture point out, it's precisely when you run into an intractable problem like that, that that problem is guarding a great and valuable truth, a secret (in this case the secret of the yod). This thread was started under the assumption that the solution to that seemingly intractable problem exists in the scripture, and that solving that problem will cause a ripple-affect effecting and correcting grotesquely terrible exegesis and interpretation of scripture from its very genesis to its final revelation.

The statement above is wondering out loud about the fact that technically speaking every ovum begins as female flesh (X chromosomal) and only transforms into male flesh if it's given a means to do so, come, so to say, from outside itself (i.e., sex). So if the first human begins as female flesh, as it does, and if it's created already pregnant with the first male, and it is, then there's the scientific problem that the ovum of the first birth has no means (Y chromosome) for transforming the mother's flesh into male flesh unless the ovum was fundamentally different from what ova are (X chromosomal, female)?

Which brings us to Professor David Biale's essay, Does Blood Have Gender in Jewish Culture? If, as Professor Biale's essay notes, circumcision blood is male, while menstrual blood is female (in the Talmud, as elsewhere), then the fact that ritual circumcision is historically, and mythologically, a wedding ritual performed under the chuppah, lends itself to solving the conundrum in this particular thread in a profitable way:

In the ancient world the lord always owned the firstborn (see Exodus 13:2). -----For the pre-Jewish religions, god practiced jus primae noctis every time a man married a woman. The firstborn was his. It was god's offspring, and thus became his "priest." ----All the firstborn were god's priests. His priesthood was made up of his own sons, whom he fathered jus primae noctis. This being the case, the bride's marriage ritual paralleled the grooms. She went into the temple (the house בית of god) and deflowered herself on the divine "sprout" (Hebrew zizs): usually a golden or wooden phallic ornament (Ezek. 16:17) salubriously prepared for her by "anointing" it with "oil" (Heb. semen) so that her "firstborn" son would be born of the "anointing" (the "oil" or "semen") belonging to god. Her firstborn is born of god’s fertility.

The firstborn belongs to god and becomes a priest in the "house of god" since that's where he’s conceived. -----He's merely returning to the place of his conception when he enters the house of god (the temple) as a priest of god his father. He's merely returning to the "anointing," through which he was conceived, when he returns to the house of his father. Bride and groom both deflower themselves (tear the membrane of virginity) as a wedding ritual so that god can obtain his priests ----his firstborn----the first-fruits of his planting (Isa. 60:21).

The bride deflowers herself as a wedding ritual, in the house of god (the temple), while the bridegroom is deflowered by the bride's father-in-law (hatan) so that he becomes a "bridegroom of blood" at the hands of the bride's father. The bride's father wants his grandson to become a priest (which requires him to be born of god) so that symbolically he deflowers his son-in-law (draws blood from his membrum virile, brit milah) guaranteeing that his grandson will be a priest in the house of god (the temple).

Exegeting Circumcision, p.3.​

Throughout Jewish symbolism, and most nakedly so in Jewish kabbalah, the blood of the ritual circumcision, unlike menstrual blood, is sacred, clean, pure, such that if, as the kabbalistic sages (say Rabbi Abraham Abulafia) imply, perhaps implicitly, that blood of circumcision is a surrogate for the semen involved in the first, Gentile, birth, then by means of that mystical surrogacy (blood rather than semen) we have not only the means for attempting to unravel the question concerning how the first human, if female, is slated to birth the first human male, but we also have a giant piece of the puzzle required to unlock the full meaning of Jewish ritual circumcision (brit milah).

Therefore, the physical birth of the child is completed on the seventh day. The eighth day, the octave of birth, as it were, repeats the day of birth, but as a day of higher, spiritual birth for his Jewish mission and his Jewish destiny.

Rabbi Hirsch, Collected Writings III.​

The first birth is by means of semen. On the other hand, the second birth, spiritual birth, Jewish birth, uses the blood obtained from the same organ the semen used as a deliverer to posit a second deliverer and a second delivery; perhaps a second firstborn male, come, so to say, to implicate Cain as a usurper who was conceived out of wedlock, as well as out of the God-dictated birth order designed in the original creation, birthing the cover up hidden in genes and texts, by various veils and falsehoods, in order to obscure the origin (Colossians 1:16), in, and from, the very beginning, and from the true sons of God.



John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

The statement above is wondering out loud about the fact that technically speaking every ovum begins as female flesh (X chromosomal) and only transforms into male flesh if it's given a means to do so, come, so to say, from outside itself (sex). So if the first human begins as female flesh, as it does, and if it's created, already pregnant with the first male, and it is, then there's the scientific problem that the ovum of the first birth has no means (Y chromosome) for transforming the mother's flesh into male flesh unless the ovum was fundamentally different from what ova are (X chromosomal, female)?

Which brings us to Professor David Biale's essay, Does Blood Have Gender in Jewish Culture? If, as Professor Biale's essay notes, circumcision blood is male, while menstrual blood is female (in the Talmud, as elsewhere), then the fact that ritual circumcision is historically, and mythologically, a wedding ritual performed under the chuppah, lends itself to solving the conundrum in this particular thread in a profitable way:

In the ancient world the lord always owned the firstborn (see Exodus 13:2). -----For the pre-Jewish religions, god practiced jus primae noctis every time a man married a woman. The firstborn was his. It was god's offspring, and thus became his "priest." ----All the firstborn were god's priests. His priesthood was made up of his own sons, whom he fathered jus primae noctis. This being the case, the bride's marriage ritual paralleled the grooms. She went into the temple (the house בית of god) and deflowered herself on the divine "sprout" (Hebrew zizs): usually a golden or wooden phallic ornament (Ezek. 16:17) salubriously prepared for her by "anointing" it with "oil" (Heb. semen) so that her "firstborn" son would be born of the "anointing" (the "oil" or "semen") belonging to god. Her firstborn is born of god’s fertility.

The firstborn belongs to god and becomes a priest in the "house of god" since that's where he’s conceived. -----He's merely returning to the place of his conception when he enters the house of god (the temple) as a priest of god his father. He's merely returning to the "anointing," through which he was conceived, when he returns to the house of his father. Bride and groom both deflower themselves (tear the membrane of virginity) as a wedding ritual so that god can obtain his priests ----his firstborn----the first-fruits of his planting (Isa. 60:21).

The bride deflowers herself as a wedding ritual, in the house of god (the temple), while the bridegroom is deflowered by the bride's father-in-law (hatan) so that he becomes a "bridegroom of blood" at the hands of the bride's father. The bride's father wants his grandson to become a priest (which requires him to be born of god) so that symbolically he deflowers his son-in-law (draws blood from his membrum virile, brit milah) guaranteeing that his grandson will be a priest in the house of god (the temple).

Exegeting Circumcision, p.3.​

Throughout Jewish symbolism, and most nakedly so in Jewish kabbalah, the blood of the ritual circumcision, unlike menstrual blood, is sacred, clean, pure, such that, if, as the kabbalistic sages (Rabbi Abraham Abulafia) imply, perhaps implicitly, that the blood of circumcision is a surrogate for the semen involved in the first, Gentile, birth, then by means of that mystical surrogacy we have a means for attempting to unravel the question concerning how the first human, if female, is slated to birth the first human male.



John

It is humbling how symbolically accurate these rituals were considering these people presumably had no rational understanding of the underlying patterns that the rituals were derived from. Ritual and enactment occurs before understanding.

 

[John D. Brey]

It is humbling how symbolically accurate these rituals were considering these people presumably had no rational understanding of the underlying patterns that the rituals were derived from. Ritual and enactment occurs before understanding.

That's a great point.

All the rituals were eschatological such that their meaning was hidden until a future event would reveal that meaning. In the Talmud, and throughout Jewish midrashim, the premier future event is the arrival of Messiah. Which shows the premier faux pas involved in how Messiah was treated in his first advent. He came to reveal the meaning of the decrees (chukkim חקים) and was rejected since the meaning of the decrees, which would authenticate his arrival, were, for reasons perhaps beyond the pay grade of mere mortals, hidden from the very persons who were supposed to recognize his arrival?

Israel can't be culpable for how Messiah was treated since the very rituals and decrees that should have revealed that he'd come, were given to Israel without the means to decipher them till Messiah arrives to reveal their meaning.

Do you see the incredible duress Israel is under? God: "Messiah will reveal the meaning of the rituals and decrees when he comes." ------ Isaiah, "But how will they know when he comes if the meaning of the decrees is part and parcel of their recognition of his arrival and the meaning of the decrees is hidden until his arrival" (Isaiah 6:11).

. . . . Jumping way ahead of anything developed so far (a transgression of fair communion) we could say that the Law is inductive, based on inductive inferences, such that it can never lead to scientific thought, and can thus never lead to the scientific eschaton (Rapture) that ends the aeon begun at the expulsion from the Garden.

In the same sense that the rituals and decrees were supposed to reveal the arrival of Messiah, but were packaged so that he would himself have to reveal his arrival, and their meaning, a contradiction or at least a paradox, so too, the Law has no means, in itself, to justify the qualification of the Lawgiver to give the Law, such that accepting it is based on a contradiction or a paradox (Galatians 3:19-20).

It's almost as though those who accept Christ must step outside of their own reasoning, and even their own physical bodies, as Lazarus stepped out of the grave, in order to follow Christ; a paradox at best, and a contradiction, or a bridge, too far, for the natural born sons of Abraham who reason they were born just fine the first time. For the Christ-ian, their mortal body is the hymenal, fleshly, veil, they must pass through to become a Jew. The natural born Jew wasn't given that memo and therefore can't make heads or tails of Messiah telling them they must be born again. The natural born Jew's dilemma is caught up in the paradox that they must be born again to recognize Messiah, while it's Messiah telling them they must be born again. . . . That's the thorny, crowning, Messianic conundrum, the natural born Jew is made to face.

Pray for Jerusalem. Pray for Israel. Pray for Abraham's natural born children. Forgive them for their attitude toward Messiah for they know not what they do. Their great adversary is ours.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Therefore, the physical birth of the child is completed on the seventh day. The eighth day, the octave of birth, as it were, repeats the day of birth, but as a day of higher, spiritual birth for his Jewish mission and his Jewish destiny.

Rabbi Hirsch, Collected Writings III.​

The first birth is by means of semen. On the other hand, the second birth, spiritual birth, Jewish birth, uses the blood obtained from the same organ the semen used as a deliverer to posit a second deliverer and a second delivery; perhaps a second firstborn male, come, so to say, to implicate Cain as a usurper who was conceived out of wedlock, as well as out of the God-dictated birth order designed in the original creation, birthing the cover up hidden in genes and texts, by various veils and falsehoods, in order to obscure the origin (Colossians 1:16), in, and from, the very beginning, and from the true sons of God.

. . . the primary meaning of blood דם is "image" [". . . for in the image of God he made man." (Gen. 9:6)]. . . But your blood, which belongs to your souls, is Mine, not yours. . . The special meaning of דרש is to demand one's property that was entrusted with someone . . . Man's duty---as implied by his name אדם ---is to be God's representative . . . the Divine soul [resides] within every man. . . God, as it were, breathed into man a spark of His Own essence.

The Hirsch Chumash, Bereshis, 9:6.​

Rabbi Hirsch’s statement above comes into focus concerning the direction of this examination when it's linked with another of his famous statements taken from the same passage: "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." ------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.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

. . . the primary meaning of blood דם is "image" [". . . for in the image of God he made man." (Gen. 9:6)]. . . But your blood, which belongs to your souls, is Mine, not yours. . . The special meaning of דרש is to demand one's property that was entrusted with someone . . . Man's duty---as implied by his name אדם ---is to be God's representative . . . the Divine soul [resides] within every man. . . God, as it were, breathed into man a spark of His Own essence.

The Hirsch Chumash, Bereshis, 9:6.​

Rabbi Hirsch’s statement above comes into focus concerning the direction of this examination when it's linked with another of his famous statements taken from the same passage: "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." ------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, and is merely on loan to each and every man.

He blew into his nostrils the breath of life (Genesis 2:7). The word is inclusive, but He blew into his nostrils the breath of life---into that dust, like a female impregnated by a male, for they join and this dust is filled with all [Kol]. With whom?

The Zohar, Pritzker Edition, Be-Re****, 1:49a.​

Adam's prelapsarian body is female. It's the blood placed in that body that's male. This truth makes the gynandrous nature of the original body a legitimate alterity far more appropriate to Professor Wolfson's sensibilities. The body is carnal; the blood divine. The body is female; the blood male. The body is the temple; the blood the soul, indwelling the temple. The body/temple is manufactured first, from earth; the blood awaits the sacrifice whereby the divine property is acquired in order to bring it into the heart, and bedchamber (Rashi), of the earthen temple.

Which all segues into the blinding light that's the final statement in the profound quotation from the Zohar (above): "With whom?" ------Which parallels the question of why blood is being brought into the "bedchamber" of the temple in the first place? A question that seemingly should've been asked and answered long ago, and perhaps would've been, had anyone ever thought hard enough about Adam Kadmon, the secret of the yod, and its relationship to her son.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

​

Which all segues into the blinding light that's the final statement in the profound quotation from the Zohar (above): "With whom?" ------Which parallels the question of why blood is being brought into the "bedchamber" of the temple in the first place? A question that seemingly should've been asked and answered long ago, and perhaps would've been, had anyone ever thought hard enough about Adam Kadmon, the secret of the yod, and its relationship to her son.

The bride deflowers herself as a wedding ritual, in the house of god (the temple), while the bridegroom is deflowered by the bride's father-in-law (hatan) so that he becomes a "bridegroom of blood" at the hands of the bride's father. The bride's father wants his grandson to become a priest (which requires him to be born of god) so that symbolically he deflowers his son-in-law (draws blood from his membrum virile, brit milah) guaranteeing that his grandson will be a priest in the house of god (the temple).

Exegeting Circumcision.

. . . 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 responsibility to actualize this rectification, however, is given singularly to the people of Israel and distinctively in the land of Israel.

Heidegger and Kabbalah, p. 346.

Abraham and Sarah's token faith is retroactively transformed into reality when a male child is really, rather than ritually, born from a pregnancy that was in reality, rather than ritually, cut free of the flesh of his human father, who, like all other tokenly Jewish men, was born of a male member only symbolically etched with the token of emasculation, the token of Jewish identity. Until the emasculated birth of the first actual Jew, every Jew was only a token Jew, circumcision only token emasculation. And yet since that birth really, rather than ritually, took place, every ritual leading up to it is retroactively transformed from mere ritual into utter reality by means of the actuality of the virgin birth. Abraham and Sarah, Joseph and Mary, are “really” and not just “tokenly,” Jewish . . . after the birth of the covenant in their flesh . . . since the actual covenant in their flesh retroactively transforms all Jewish ritual into reality. It accomplishes this amazing feat by means of an eschatological-retroactivity empowered by Jewish faith in Jewish identity.

A Token Jew.

​

John