53:9: Isaiah Prophesies the Shroud of Turin.

[John D. Brey]

It's the latter of the two shrines that segues into Isaiah's prescient perception of the Shroud of Turin since in the first few centuries CE there was great excitement in various places, most notably Edessa, about a image on cloth that, get this, was "acheiropoietos": it was made, as it were, without hands. Elements of this cloth, this shroud, were so unique, particularly at the time (the first centuries of the current era) that everyone viewing it was aware that whatever the image was, however it was made, it was, as the archives of the time state it: acheiropoietos ---made without hands.

Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the beastly image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.​

​

Daniel 2:34.​

We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands ἀχειροποίητος.​

​

Mark 14:58.​

In his introduction to the Zohar, Professor Arthur Green implies that early on there were aspects of Christian teaching, symbolism, and activities, that orthodox Jews found extremely appealing. Green states that much that's in the Zohar is an attempt to bring some of the power of some of the Christian symbols back into the Jewish fold. When this sacred cloth that was acheiropoietos ---made without hands --- was being passed around and viewed by hundreds and even thousands of persons, some no doubt Jewish, it was quite a spectacle, such that Jews, perhaps having read the only verse in the NT other than Mark 14:58 (quoted above) that uses the Greek phrase acheiropoietos (ἀχειροποίητος), that is to say Colossians 2:11, they came up with their own version of a sacred cloth with an image created by sacred blood.

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands ἀχειροποίητος, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.​

​

Colossians 2:11.​

As fate would have it, or rather as historical accounts point out, Jews came up with their own holy cloth which they often hung on the synagogue door when a ritual circumcision was taking place. In this practice, the cloth used to soak up the blood of the a previous ritual circumcision became a holy relic ----so holy in fact, that it was often used to create the wimple that surrounded the holy Torah scroll of the synagogue. It was also draped over the synagogue door announcing that a circumcision was taking place inside. In an irony of truly biblical dimensions, the the Torah scroll, which is the closest thing to an incarnation of God's word within orthodox Judaism, is wrapped in a sacred shroud ornamented with blood.

Just close by to the Yemenite headdress in this display case about Torah, we find this unassuming little textile object – a Torah binder or wimpel. In Germany it became customary in the second half of the 16th century to prepare a binder for the Torah scroll on the occasion of the birth of a son. This binder was usually made by the child’s mother or grandmother from the cloth used to swaddle the baby boy during the circumcision ceremony. The baby’s name, his father’s name and his date of birth were embroidered or written on the cloth. It would be brought to the synagogue when the boy was three years old – the age at which, according to tradition, he was ready to start learning Torah (or, others say, when he was toilet trained!). The boy with help of father would wrap the binder around the Torah. The binder would be used again to bind the Torah scroll at the boy’s bar mitzvah and other important occasions through his life.​

​

This particular wimple is inscribed in Hebrew “Abraham ben Zev, may he live a good life, born with good fortune on Tuesday the 18th of Sivan, 1747. May he grow to study Torah, to come to the chuppah and excel in good deeds” (the blessing said at the brit milah ceremony). The fantastical figures and zodiac sign are typical of German wimpels. I feel a special connect to this one because it has the zodiac sign of the twins or Geminim which is also my star sign!​

​

As many of you would know, issues of gender in Judaism have always been of great interest to me, and the subject of my academic research. I remember when I first learnt about these wimpels, they struck me as being really significant from a feminist perspective.They represented an opportunity for women’s presence to be inserted, almost surreptitiously, into the ritual space of synagogue, from which they were otherwise excluded. Women’s handiwork, and their love for their children, found a place in the very centre of male-dominated Jewish ritual.​

​

When I was doing some research for this presentation, I came across an article by an American rabbi and scholar Dr Barbara Thiede which elaborates this idea and places it in historical context. She believes that the custom of making these wimpels can be traced back to the time that Ashkenazi rabbis legislated to remove women from the brit milah ceremony in the 13th century. She says: “The Maharam, Rabbi Meier b. Barukh of Rothenburg, ruled that it was improper for a woman to sit among men at a circumcision. In the next century, the Maharil concurred. Confirming male status in the covenant required a celebration of maleness. Women were excluded.​

​

“Ashkenazic Jewish women, however, cleverly reinserted themselves in the ritual and related observances, creating customs and practices that gave them a significant – sometimes even a public – role. They cleaned and cut the cloth used either to bind the infant’s feet or to catch drops of blood, embroidered and decorated a blessing onto the fabric, and presented the wimple to their communities in a public, liturgically embedded ceremony. Cloth from a circumcision was repurposed to serve as a tool for a sacred task: binding and wrapping the Torah scroll.​

​

“Sixteenth-century Jewish women sidestepped their rabbis in an audacious act of spiritual ingenuity. Banned from the rite of brit milah, they used the wimpel to reestablish their presence by introducing a new liturgical practice. . . Women’s artistry, artistry created from the rite of brit milah, was on display for the entire congregation. . . The rabbis could legislate the exclusion of women from Jewish ritual, liturgy, or practice. The women, in turn, could find their way right back in.”​

​

Ten Tantalising Tales #5 Wimple — Jewish Women of Words

They represented an opportunity for women’s presence to be inserted, almost surreptitiously, into the ritual space of synagogue, from which they were otherwise excluded.

jewishwomenofwords.com.au

Just as Jewish women prepared Jesus' flesh for burial, wrapping his body in the shroud (therein producing the wimpel wrapped around the flesh of the so-called living Torah), so too, Jewish women take the bloody shroud wrapped around the flesh בשר of the Jewish male and use it as an ornament to wrap around the Torah scroll such that the blood on the wimple (the Torah binder) is ---ritually speaking ---framed as the blood of the living, bleeding, Torah[scroll]. But why would the Torah scroll bleed as though it represented God's own circumcision (which Rashi claims takes place)? Perhaps to prove that it's the reproductive organ of El Chay (the living God)? But still, in Jewish ritual, blood outside of a body represents the death of the body from whence it's taken? Does the Torah scroll symbolically become an asham אשם, "sin offering" when the bloody cloth shrouds it? Could God offer his own reproductive organ (brit milah) as an offering for divine leprosy? Could God acquire leprosy in the first place such that he required a sin offering to cure it?

The Rabbis said: His [Messiah's] name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our grief, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.​

​

BT Sanhedrin 98b.​

​

Death is the paradoxical agent of Life: a salvific-messianic-act with human love at the center. . . Not only can physical death help atone for sins committed on earth, but a perfect martyrdom has the singular power to repair spiritual realities in the divine realm. . . Only in this state could the soul be released from its earthly prison ---whether to ascend to its source in heaven, or become a shrine for the holy Spirit.​

​

Professor Michael Fishbane, The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism, p. 116 & 126-127 (emphasis mine).​

​

In one of the most difficult verses in the difficult text (Is. 53, 10), YHVH states as a condition of the future life and work of the servant: “if his soul makes a guilt-offering.” Some scholars see in this a “clear and definite” expression of “vicarious expiation.” But the wording does not allow such an interpretation. Asham, “guilt-offering,” means compensation and not expiation. It is the name of the gift which the leper had to bring on the day of his purification (Lev. 4, 11ff). We have no indication as to how we should picture in our minds the future purification of him stricken with the leprosy of the world [see Is. 52:14, JB]; but we are told that he must purify himself before he enters upon his duty of bringing to the nations the order of righteousness, and of linking them together to a people of peoples in his capacity as “covenant.”​

​

Martin Buber, The Prophetic Faith, p. 228.​

John

 

[dybmh]

How did men determine if their bride was chaste when they chose her for holy matrimony assuming that was important to them?

Well, it's a little gross, but it was a determination made after the fact. If the bride claimed to be chaste, and the groom claimed that she wasn't, if she was in fact chaste, evidence was brought to judges from the consummation. On the other hand, if the bride claims to have been chaste, and there is a quarrel about it, if she is lying, she's liable for the death penalty.

And for what it's worth, my language was kind of tricky since I said an animal can be a sin offering if they've never hand sex.

Uh.... um... This is what you said:

​

"In normative Judaism, an animal can be made a "sin offerings" אשם if they're blameless and have never had sex (a requirement for all offerings)"​

I understand if that's not what you meant. But "a requirement for all offerings" means an offering must be both perfect and chaste. That's iff, if and only if, both conditions are satisfied met. ( I crossed out satisfied because those poor beasts would have never known satisfaction. )

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't tell me, No John, having sex is required for an animal that's going to become a sin offering.

God can choose whatever it wants for the sin offering. Perfect, imperfect. Chaste, or not. Only after it has had offspring. Did the deed but no offspring was produced. What. ever. it. wants.

If it needed to NOT be chaste, they would have needed to set up a special little enclosure, and monitor the female, and bring the female to a mature male in the enclosure and witness what transpired. It's not too different from what dog breeders do.

And I suppose, the same thing could be done in reverse if they needed to be chaste. The males and females would always be kept seperate if they were required to be chaste. ( phooey, no diagrams needed )

John

Well, now that this little speed bump is resolved, I can focus better on what you're actually saying.

But no human can be brought to the temple by another human as the sin offering offered to atone for their leprosy. And yet Isaiah 53:9 --- the whole chapter really ---appears to be speaking of a human offered and received as a viable "sin offering" אשם because of the blameless character of a life. It's this outrageous situation (a human offered as a sin offering) that results in this particular "sin offering" אשם becoming a "shrine" במה.

It sounds like you're considering a non-literal interpretation of Isaiah 53. It's not a literal offering? if so I agree. Now I'll try and figure out this whole "shroud" / "shrine" idea that you're bringing.

 

[John D. Brey]

To hypothetical since many claim the same as yours and come up with many conflicting interpretations. Claiming the inspirations is to common to be real.

If ten people claim to have a Spirit-guided meaning from the biblical text, and all of them disagree fundamentally on what that is, it doesn't mean that one of them isn't correct. Nine wrongs don't necessarily make ten wrongs. The trick is knowing which one is genuine such that the others are merely mistaken.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Well, it's a little gross, but it was a determination made after the fact. If the bride claimed to be chaste, and the groom claimed that she wasn't, if she was in fact chaste, evidence was brought to judges from the consummation. On the other hand, if the bride claims to have been chaste, and there is a quarrel about it, if she is lying, she's liable for the death penalty.

Moses gave the recipe for a concoction (kind of a sex-smoothy) to test out the chasteness of a man's bride. The sages note that the manufacture of Moses' Virginity-Tester ® is similar to making the waters of niddah from the virgin corpse of a red heifer.

I hesitate to go into any of this out of respect for the fundamental difference between how Jews and Christian have intercourse with the holy text. For a Christian exegete the red heifer is a virgin sacrifice, a "heifer" being a cow that hasn't given birth. In the text she's never been yoked. For Jews, not having given birth doesn't necessitate believing the cow is a virgin. It merely might not have gotten pregnant from having had sex.

It's like the almah debate. For Jews, a young maiden/girl --almah-- doesn't necessitate that the girl is a virgin, betulah. There's a fundamental distinction between Jewish exegesis and Christian exegesis that no man --so far as I know ---has described as well as Professor Daniel Boyarin (the Talmudic scholar).



John

 

[shunyadragon]

If ten people claim to have a Spirit-guided meaning from the biblical text, and all of them disagree fundamentally on what that is, it doesn't mean that one of them isn't correct. Nine wrongs don't necessarily make ten wrongs. The trick is knowing which one is genuine such that the others are merely mistaken.



John

It is most likely that they are all wrong considering the fallibility of humans to comprehend the subjective experience of the Divine. It isoe like tens of thousands of claims over the millennia.

 

[dybmh]

Moses gave the recipe for a concoction (kind of a sex-smoothy) to test out the chasteness of a man's bride. The sages note that the manufacture of Moses' Virginity-Tester ® is similar to making the waters of niddah from the virgin corpse of a red heifer.

That's not a test for chastity.

I hesitate to go into any of this out of respect for the fundamental difference between how Jews and Christian have intercourse with the holy text. For a Christian exegete the red heifer is a virgin sacrifice, a "heifer" being a cow that hasn't given birth. In the text she's never been yoked. For Jews, not having given birth doesn't necessitate believing the cow is a virgin. It merely might not have gotten pregnant from having had sex.

Ahhhh, Thank you for explaining. Yes, Jews totally do it differently. In Judaism, the female is not the yoked, she's the yoker, and the male is the one who is yoked. Phisiologically that's how it works. Literally. Jews see all of these things as divine providence. Humans were built a certain way, for a reason, and that is a sign of how a Jew is to behave. Since it's the man who is yoked by the woman, it's logical that God intended for the woman to make the rules, the woman sets the schedule. The woman creates life, she's more god-like, she has less rules and less restrictions. The man is less god-like, has many more rules, and needs more corrective actions placed on him.

So, yeah, for us Jews the idea of a yoked female heffer has ZERO relation to chastity. It's a complete context mismatch. During intercourse a female is never "yoked". And never should be, without her consent, and then it's not technically yoking, the yoke is just a toy, and it's all fun and games, till someone loses an eye....

It's like the almah debate. For Jews, a young maiden/girl --almah-- doesn't necessitate that the girl is a virgin, betulah. There's a fundamental distinction between Jewish exegesis and Christian exegesis that no man --so far as I know ---has described as well as Professor Daniel Boyarin (the Talmudic scholar).

 

[John D. Brey]

That's not a test for chastity.

. . . What a perfect challenge for distinguishing the difference between Jewish and Christian exegesis.




John

 

[dybmh]

. . . What a perfect challenge for distinguishing the difference between Jewish and Christian exegesis.
John

She's not a wife without consummation. So, the test ain't for chastity.

 

[John D. Brey]

She's not a wife without consummation. So, the test ain't for chastity.

Is that true? She's not a wife until they have sex?



John

 

[danieldemol]

A shrine is where something is enshrined. The heart and soul of a shrine is the thing enshrined there. The Shroud of Turin is enshrined in a chapel built specifically to house it: it ---the shroud--- is the heart and soul . . . the life blood (really) of the chapel-shrine where it's enshrined.

Shrines typically house a relic of some sort representing divinity. The Shroud of Turin is unique in that the linen cloth houses a relic of divinity right inside its herringbone weave. The face of a divinity is housed on, or in, the linen shroud, such that the linen shroud is itself a shrine where a divinity or a relic of divinity is enshrined.

There's no prohibition I know of that says a linen shroud can't be a shrine if a relic of divinity is housed in it.



John

A shroud is not a house, and "on" is not "in".
If you were on your house you would be on the rooftop, not inside it in my view.

And I doubt you'll ever have an adequate explanation for the past tense.

If the holy spirit is a truthful spirit then we can expect words to mean what they really mean in my opinion.

 

[dybmh]

Is that true? She's not a wife until they have sex?



John

Back then? Yeah, as far as I know. The idea is, again, the man is beholden to the wife. Part of what is being promised to the wife in the marriage contract is the opportunity to have children. So the man has to do that to make the contract binding. It's the last step. The entire contract is spelling out the man's obligations to the wife. The wife isn't even signing anything. The man is making a commitment to her. It still exists in the traditional marriage contract, the wording was probably a little different, but it's still basically there.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/532557/jewish/Ketubah.htm

Now, today? People do things differently. There's many different versions of the marriage contract, and that part may be left out. There is a symbolic yichud ( seclusion ) at the end of the ceremony. But, back then? They may not have had wedding ceremony. Just a contract, and combining of assets, and the the groom brings her home, provides for her material needs and consummates the marriage per his contractual duty. After that, they're married. The man fulfilled his obligation. The woman becomes a wife. The contract is binding.

My wife and I were married by a Reform Rabbi with a Reform marriage contract. (It was before I was religious) I just checked, and there is something in there about starting a family together.

 

[John D. Brey]

And I doubt you'll ever have an adequate explanation for the past tense.

It's a matter of semantics and heremeneutics. A prophetic utterance is like channeling the future. The prophet is telling you what he sees in his mind's eye. He tells it as though it's occurring or as though he's seen it occur. He doesn't always speak as though he's telling of a future event since in his channeling it's as though it's happening or has already happened.

Case in point is John's Revelation. He tells the future from a perspective where he's there watching it. It's a future event, but its happening as he tells it. He speaks of future events as thought they've already occurred or are occurring at the telling. Ditto with Isaiah.

Prophetic perfect tense - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

John

 

[dybmh]

It's a matter of semantics and heremeneutics. A prophetic utterance is like channeling the future. The prophet is telling you what he sees in his mind's eye. He tells it as though it's occurring or as though he's seen it occur. He doesn't always speak as though he's telling of a future event since in his channeling it's as though it's happening or has already happened.

Case in point is John's Revelation. He tells the future from a perspective where he's there watching it. It's a future event, but its happening as he tells it. He speaks of future events as thought they've already occurred or are occurring at the telling. Ditto with Isaiah.



John

I had the same question about the past tense, then someone informed me of this:

Prophetic perfect tense - Wikipedia.

The quote at the top is from Redak.

 

[John D. Brey]

Back then? Yeah, as far as I know. The idea is, again, the man is beholden to the wife. Part of what is being promised to the wife in the marriage contract is the opportunity to have children.

. . . The opportunity to have children, or to have sex? Are you saying a woman becomes a "wife" when she has sex with the husband (what you called "consummating" the marriage) or when she gets pregnant? Was Sarah Abraham's wife before she conceived Isaac?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Now, today? People do things differently. There's many different versions of the marriage contract, and that part may be left out. There is a symbolic yichud ( seclusion ) at the end of the ceremony. But, back then? They may not have had wedding ceremony. Just a contract, and combining of assets, and the the groom brings her home, provides for her material needs and consummates the marriage per his contractual duty. After that, they're married. The man fulfilled his obligation. The woman becomes a wife. The contract is binding.

This is one of the areas I implied Jews and Christians interpret somewhat differently. For a Christian exegete like myself, what we do today doesn't matter too much since it's a watered down bastardization of the archetype. More than that, the biblical archetype is based on truisms and realities that are only ritually represented even in the marriages and relationships in biblical times. Which is to say that the marriage between a man and a woman represents something other than the marriage of the man and the woman. And what that something is, is what must be used to understand the ritualistic "marriage" of the man and the woman, which, that marriage, isn't too important in its ritualistic and temporal reality in comparison with the spiritual reality it signifies and mimics in a symbolic way.

Daniel Boyarin, Susan Handelman, and others, go into detail showing how unlike Christians, Jews don't always tend to think of things like marriage, or even ritual circumcision, as signifiers of a "spiritual" reality they (the ritual or practice) loosely represent. Jews tend to take things as though they're the thing itself. Circumcision isn't a sign signifying some "spiritual" reality it only mimics in a fleshly ritual designed to point toward the "spiritual" reality. For Jews, once that flesh is cut, the deal is done: it's real, the cut is, and some "spiritual" reality the cutting of the flesh only symbolizes be damned.

With this as context, I would claim that sex represents a particular kind of reproduction (sexual reproduction) and that so far as the Bible is concerned there's an umbilical cord between sex and offspring that once its severed gives birth to raising Cain. To say a marriage is consummated by sex rather than sex being wholly about consummating the marriage through offspring implies that sex has a biblical purpose outside producing offspring; as though the Bible is concerned with the animalistic pleasures in themselves rather than those pleasures being linked to producing offspring.

For the Christian, marriage and sex can be a necessary evil (St. Paul says as much) whereas for Jews the thought makes little sense since in a Jewish sense God designed it for good not as a necessary evil. For the Jew marriage and sex are just what they are, just what God designed, as good, so that they can't be something bad that we have to endure for the time being in a devil's world ---which is to say until God's kingdom comes and does away with a wholly temporary, sad, state of affairs.

If I belabored the point, I might go so far as to say Jews make great husbands (in comparison to Christians) since they believe the marriage is about sex, joy, offspring, while on the other hand, a Christian might engage his bride under the auspice that they will help one another endure a harsh ugly demon-haunted world that's easier to get through with a partner who agrees the primary point is endurance not joy, happiness, and sex (1 Corinthians 7:25-37).



John

 

[John D. Brey]

A shroud is not a house, and "on" is not "in".

You clearly didn't watch the Youtube presentation in the first message. The image is embedded in the shroud----it's in the fibers. The shroud houses the image of a purported deity therein making it (the shroud) the epitome of a shrine.



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isaiah 22:23.



John

Quote mining your own holy book. That is a blasphemous act.

 

[John D. Brey]

Quote mining your own holy book. That is a blasphemous act.

. . . My intention is never to bore. And in this case I definitely didn't intent to bore a hole (so to say).



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

. . . My intention is never to bore. And in this case I definitely didn't intent to bore a hole (so to say).



John

As a supposed Christian this is a sin that you should try to avoid.

 

[dybmh]

. . . The opportunity to have children, or to have sex? Are you saying a woman becomes a "wife" when she has sex with the husband (what you called "consummating" the marriage) or when she gets pregnant? Was Sarah Abraham's wife before she conceived Isaac?

The husband is obligated to bring himself to the wife. Please. I'm being very careful with my wording. The woman has NO obligation to the man. He brings himself to her. Literally, using biblical lingo, he comes to her. The conception is divine providence. Conception does not have anything to do with the status of the marriage. Tamar, I think, would be a good example of this. She was a wife and a widow multiple times without bearing children.

This is one of the areas I implied Jews and Christians interpret somewhat differently. For a Christian exegete like myself, what we do today doesn't matter too much since it's a watered down bastardization of the archetype. More than that, the biblical archetype is based on truisms and realities that are only ritually represented even in the marriages and relationships in biblical times. Which is to say that the marriage between a man and a woman represents something other than the marriage of the man and the woman. And what that something is, is what must be used to understand the ritualistic "marriage" of the man and the woman, which, that marriage, isn't too important in its ritualistic and temporal reality in comparison with the spiritual reality it signifies and mimics in a symbolic way.

What's interesting about this is: at first you critisise watering it down, but then, the "marriage" is being watered down by considering it symbolic. Please see my next comments for an example of what I mean.

Daniel Boyarin, Susan Handelman, and others, go into detail showing how unlike Christians, Jews don't always tend to think of things like marriage, or even ritual circumcision, as signifiers of a "spiritual" reality they (the ritual or practice) loosely represent. Jews tend to take things as though they're the thing itself. Circumcision isn't a sign signifying some "spiritual" reality it only mimics in a fleshly ritual designed to point toward the "spiritual" reality. For Jews, once that flesh is cut, the deal is done: it's real, the cut is, and some "spiritual" reality the cutting of the flesh only symbolizes be damned.

Well, that's really more of a comment on Boyarin and Handelman and others, not on "Jews". As I've noticed recently, and spoken of recently, people say things about Jews all the time, but when it's examined, they're not being accurate at all. What they're commenting on is: "this is important to me." But the "this" may or may not be actually what Jews do or don't do. It's just a thing that the person likes or doesn't like. And if you agree with them, then you're commenting on your values, your affinities and your aversions. It actually has nothing to do with Jews.

If you have an aversion to doing the physical deed, of rapidly cutting off your foreskin or the foreskin of others, that's perfectly natural. And no one is asking you to do that. If you desire to do it, without actually doing it, that is watering it down. That's the same with marriage. Let's say I sign a traditional marriage contract. And it comes time to make it official, and I object.

I say "what about a garden instead?"

And she says, "No. You agreed to try and have children with me."​

​

And I say, "Well, in spirit, the plants in the garden are like children. We'll raise them, and take care of them. If they get sick, we'll nurse them back to health. It's a project we work on together. They'll be our children."

And she says, "No. That's watering it down. Plants aren't children. You agreed to more than that. You agreed to try and have children with me"​

​

And then I say, "What about pets? We could have dogs, or cats, or birds, or insects. We could have all of those things. In spirit, that's what I agreed to. A house full of children. The pets will do the same thing for us. The pets will be our children. We'll potty train them, and raise them. We'll take them to school, obediance classes, and schedule play dates with our friends who have pets. They'll love us, and we'll love them. We'll be a family in spirit. We'll be their parents in spirit. We'll be united in purpose and action. It's the spirit of it that matters. In spirit I'm giving you a family like I promised."

And she says, "No. That's watering it down. That's not the same. That's not what you agreed to. You agreed to try and have children. Children with me. With me. DNA, Mr. Man. Hand it over! I wanted your DNA and my DNA to have a party innnnnnnnside of my body. And we were supposed to hatch-out a combination of both of us. Or at least try to. That's what you agreed to. I was promised to be a mother. To give birth. To nurse my children. To teach them our laws and traditions. To perpetuate our shared humanity. That's not plants, bugs, birds, or beasts."​

​

See the difference? Now, the opposite is also a problem. Where the DNA is physically delivered and the spirit of making a family and passing on the shared humanity is not actualized. But, that's also included in the marriage contract. In this case it's much more explicit in my Reform marriage contract than the traditional. But, it's present in both. You just have to know where to look.

For the circumcision, it's an obligation on the parents or on the convert. The spiritual content is directed to the them. So, if you or Boyarin or anyone are looking at the circumcised penis and expecting to... ahem.... size up whether there is something spiritual happening to it, the penis, you're looking in the wrong place. And this mistake, naturally, will lead to the miscomprehension about what the spiritual content is, and the mistake of thinking the physical deed isn't needed. Guess what? No way. There is no way to replicate what happens when a parent physically fulfills this commandment. Nothing. No mental or emotional meditation accomplishes the same thing. There is only 1 way to do it. And that goes double-triple for the convert.

Yes, people have written about the circumcised penis, the foreskin, and what the details of the ritual mean in that context. Generally I agree with what is said about it by Jewish mystics, when it is done in a mature and respectful way.

The same is true for consummating a marriage. Nothing. Nothing can replace that physical act without it watering down if that was what was agreed to prior to the marriage. And there are mystics who talk about that too. Another facinating topic, when it is discussed in a mature way.

What I'm saying is, the spiritual content is there in these actions, often automatically. But I don't think you know where to look nor would you recognize it because you're looking for something else. And when you claim it's missing, what you're actually saying is, "this spiritual aspect is important to me." And, you're probably right that these spiritual aspects ARE important. You're just looking for them in the wrong place. Judaism is a HUGE religion inspite of its small numbers of adherents. It includes almost anything spiritually that you can imagine, except for multiple gods. But we do have angels, and demons. So that's basically the same thing.

( a note to any readers who are not familiar. John and I have been debating circumcision on and off for at least a year, probably longer )

With this as context, I would claim that sex represents a particular kind of reproduction (sexual reproduction) and that so far as the Bible is concerned there's an umbilical cord between sex and offspring that once its severed gives birth to raising Cain. To say a marriage is consummated by sex rather than sex being wholly about consummating the marriage through offspring implies that sex has a biblical purpose outside producing offspring; as though the Bible is concerned with the animalistic pleasures in themselves rather than those pleasures being linked to producing offspring.

There are multiple things going on. There's a physical obligation of the husband to the wife, and there's a spiritual union. The offspring are God's domain.

For the Christian, marriage and sex can be a necessary evil (St. Paul says as much) whereas for Jews the thought makes little sense since in a Jewish sense God designed it for good not as a necessary evil. For the Jew marriage and sex are just what they are, just what God designed, as good, so that they can't be something bad that we have to endure for the time being in a devil's world ---which is to say until God's kingdom comes and does away with a wholly temporary, sad, state of affairs.

The classically, sterotypical Jewish approach is, almost everything can be converted into good. There are necessary evils, but they are rare. Marriage isn't one of them. Christianity needs a supreme devil to justify their supreme Christ. Judaism doesn't need a supreme Christ. We have God.

If I belabored the point, I might go so far as to say Jews make great husbands (in comparison to Christians) since they believe the marriage is about sex, joy, offspring, while on the other hand, a Christian might engage his bride under the auspice that they will help one another endure a harsh ugly demon-haunted world that's easier to get through with a partner who agrees the primary point is endurance not joy, happiness, and sex (1 Corinthians 7:25-37).

When we make good husbands, it's for several reasons. But please don't expand what I said into something it isn't. I didn't say it was all about sex. I said the man was obligated to have sex, at least 1 time, to make the contract complete and binding.

And that's why the Sotah is not a chastity test. She is a wife. That means... they did it at least one time.