• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Scions of Faith."

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
The Zohar, Be-Re****, 1:33a, discusses a unique people of God whom the sages refer to as "benei meheimanuta." ----In Professor Daniel Matt's translation and interpretation of the Zohar (Pritzker Edition Vol. 1, p. 204-205), Professor Matt translates "benei meheimanuta" into English as "scions of faith."

In the thread on Isaiah 53:2 [condensed into an essay here] it was pointed out that in Hebrew "scion" is a "branch" or "shoot" growing out of the original root-stock of a tree. The term "scion" implies something other than the original tree and its branches. The scion can be a foreign branch "grafted" onto the root-stock (after the original tree and branches are removed), or it can be an identical facsimile of the root-stock growing out of the root-stock after a new branch has been grafted in.

The passage in the Zohar grows out of Genesis 1:9-11:

. . . Let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth. . And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding the fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself . . ..
To this verse the Zohar responds:

What is fruit tree? The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, who generates fruit. Bearing fruit---the Righteous One. Of its kind---for every human being endowed with a holy spirit, fruit of that tree is signed with an insignia of its kind.
The zoharic sages play on two kinds of trees. One "generates" fruit, the other "bears," or yields fruit of its kind whose seed is in it. The sages are aware that in the Hebrew text the Tree of Life is male, while the Tree of Knowledge is female. Furthermore, according to Genesis chapter 2, the seed of the Tree of Life is plural (x and y chromosomes), while the seed of the Tree of Knowledge is singular (x only). Male and female are already in the seed of the Tree of Life, its plurality, while only the female seed is in the Tree of Knowledge (its singularity). It requires the male seed to "generate" life.

The implication is that the root-stock of the original Tree in Genesis 1:11 is male/female (x and y chromosomes) while the Tree of Knowledge is a new genus of tree grafted onto the root-stock of the original Tree.

Genesis 1:11 doesn't distinguish between the two trees except to point out that the Tree growing out of "dry land" is a "he," a masculine, such that the KJV correctly interprets the Hebrew to say this particular Tree "yields fruit after his kind, whose fruit is in itself." The "itself" is masculine in the Hebrew so that it should read that the Tree yields his fruit that is already "in him."

The sages are aware that the "fruit tree" in Genesis 1:11 is the root-stock of all fruit that will ever come from the earth. Their phrase "scions of faith" plays on the fact that although the Tree of Knowledge is a new tree whose existence is related to the new gender in Genesis chapter 2, it's grafted onto the root-stock of the original fruit tree such that by speaking of "scions of faith" (branches born of the original root-stock through faith) the sages are ferreting out the garden metaphors in Genesis chapter one in order to unveil the mysteries of the creation of Adam and Eve, their sin, and their redemption, found in Genesis chapters 2-5.


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
The Zohar, Be-Re****, 1:33a, discusses a unique people of God whom the sages refer to as "benei meheimanuta." ----In Professor Daniel Matt's translation and interpretation of the Zohar (Pritzker Edition Vol. 1, p. 204-205), Professor Matt translates "benei meheimanuta" into English as "scions of faith."

In the thread on Isaiah 53:2 [condensed into an essay here] it was pointed out that in Hebrew "scion" is a "branch" or "shoot" growing out of the original root-stock of a tree. The term "scion" implies something other than the original tree and its branches. The scion can be a foreign branch "grafted" onto the root-stock (after the original tree and branches are removed), or it can be an identical facsimile of the root-stock growing out of the root-stock after a new branch has been grafted in.

The passage in the Zohar grows out of Genesis 1:9-11:

. . . Let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth. . And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding the fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself . . ..
To this verse the Zohar responds:

What is fruit tree? The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, who generates fruit. Bearing fruit---the Righteous One. Of its kind---for every human being endowed with a holy spirit, fruit of that tree is signed with an insignia of its kind.
The zoharic sages play on two kinds of trees. One "generates" fruit, the other "bears," or yields fruit of its kind whose seed is in it. The sages are aware that in the Hebrew text the Tree of Life is male, while the Tree of Knowledge is female. Furthermore, according to Genesis chapter 2, the seed of the Tree of Life is plural (x and y chromosomes), while the seed of the Tree of Knowledge is singular (x only). Male and female are already in the seed of the Tree of Life, its plurality, while only the female seed is in the Tree of Knowledge (its singularity). It requires the male seed to "generate" life.

The implication is that the root-stock of the original Tree in Genesis 1:11 is male/female (x and y chromosomes) while the Tree of Knowledge is a new genus of tree grafted onto the root-stock of the original Tree.

Genesis 1:11 doesn't distinguish between the two trees except to point out that the Tree growing out of "dry land" is a "he," a masculine, such that the KJV correctly interprets the Hebrew to say this particular Tree "yields fruit after his kind, whose fruit is in itself." The "itself" is masculine in the Hebrew so that it should read that the Tree yields his fruit that is already "in him."

The sages are aware that the "fruit tree" in Genesis 1:11 is the root-stock of all fruit that will ever come from the earth. Their phrase "scions of faith" plays on the fact that although the Tree of Knowledge is a new tree whose existence is related to the new gender in Genesis chapter 2, it's grafted onto the root-stock of the original fruit tree such that by speaking of "scions of faith" (branches born of the original root-stock through faith) the sages are ferreting out the garden metaphors in Genesis chapter one in order to unveil the mysteries of the creation of Adam and Eve, their sin, and their redemption, found in Genesis chapters 2-5.


John

. . . Not wanting to get ahead of the game, I can't help but wonder out loud about the equivocation of the male/female seed already being in the original tree, versus a non-androgynous seed bearing plant (or organ) that's grafted onto the original root-stock.

The thread on the Omnipotent Stem Cell plays on the idea that the unfertilized female ovum is the cell original to the human race. It's DNA is uncontaminated by the Fall, and sin nature, which, the latter, is transmitted exclusively through the male-seed.

The thread on Female Circumcision points out that oogenesis cuts off half of the unfertilized ovum, prunes the branches born of the Tree of Knowledge from the original root-stock, such that if that original rootstock, post oogenesis unfertilized ovum, actually sprouts a scion, a branch formed through asexual means, then that branch fits everything Isaiah prophesies about a particular branch growing out of the dust of the earth, dry ground.

Point being that if the unfertilized ovum is the original cell of the human race, then according to Genesis chapter 1 it's male, which would mean the testes and semen are actually female.

The Talmud equates the creation of the the testes and phallus with the creation of the woman such that the foregoing would suggest that what we consider the "female" ovum is actually the male part of Adam's body around which the female is "built." The sages wonder out loud about why the text claims Eve is "built" rather that "created" or "fashioned," as is the case with other creative acts?

At the same time Eve is built around the male ovum, the "female" testes and phallus are grafted onto the original root-stock of the human race, Adam's body, such that all fruit that arises from the male seed thereafter (the male ovum in Eve's body) will be fruit not from the original root-stock of Adam, the male ovum in the female body, but from the Tree of Knowledge grafted onto Adam's body in the guise of it being masculine gender.

Professor Elliot R.Wolfson has gone so far as to propose an "androgynous phallus," while many of the sages in the Talmud and Jewish midrashim have consider the foreskin, if not the entire phallus, female flesh.



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
. . . Not wanting to get ahead of the game, I can't help but wonder out loud about the equivocation of the male/female seed already being in the original tree, versus a non-androgynous seed bearing plant (or organ) that's grafted onto the original root-stock.

The thread on the Omnipotent Stem Cell plays on the idea that the unfertilized female ovum is the cell original to the human race. It's DNA is uncontaminated by the Fall, and sin nature, which, the latter, is transmitted exclusively through the male-seed.

The thread on Female Circumcision points out that oogenesis cuts off half of the unfertilized ovum, prunes the branches born of the Tree of Knowledge from the original root-stock, such that if that original rootstock, post oogenesis unfertilized ovum, actually sprouts a scion, a branch formed through asexual means, then that branch fits everything Isaiah prophesies about a particular branch growing out of the dust of the earth, dry ground.

Point being that if the unfertilized ovum is the original cell of the human race, then according to Genesis chapter 1 it's male, which would mean the testes and semen are actually female.

The Talmud equates the creation of the the testes and phallus with the creation of the woman such that the foregoing would suggest that what we consider the "female" ovum is actually the male part of Adam's body around which the female is "built." The sages wonder out loud about why the text claims Eve is "built" rather that "created" or "fashioned," as is the case with other creative acts?

At the same time Eve is built around the male ovum, the "female" testes and phallus are grafted onto the original root-stock of the human race, Adam's body, such that all fruit that arises from the male seed thereafter (the male ovum in Eve's body) will be fruit not from the original root-stock of Adam, the male ovum in the female body, but from the Tree of Knowledge grafted onto Adam's body in the guise of it being masculine gender.

Professor Elliot R.Wolfson has gone so far as to propose an "androgynous phallus," while many of the sages in the Talmud and Jewish midrashim have consider the foreskin, if not the entire phallus, female flesh.

. . . The sages of the Zohar are clearly seeing what I see. . . "Do you see what I see . . .?"

If a new fruit tree is grafted onto the roots of the original root-stock then that tree will provide the fruit of the tree grafted onto the original root-stock. . . But, and this is what throws the sage's excitement into the stratosphere, if the tree grafted onto the original root-stock is cut down to the stump, and a new sprout grows, that new sprout will not produce the fruit related to the tree formerly grafted onto the original root-stock, but will produce the fruit associated with the original root-stock.

Adam's pre-Genesis 2:21 body is the original root-stock of the human race. A new fruit tree is clearly grafted onto Adam's body when the phallus is created (San. 38b; Midrash Rabbah, Bere****h, XVII, 6.) in association with Eve's body being "built" around some cell taken from Adam's original body (Gen. 2:21).

When Abraham ritually removes the fruit-tree grafted onto Adam's original root-stock he gives us the greatest clue to the Bible the world has ever known by making his body a ritual representation of the body of Adam prior to Genesis 2:21 where the new fruit tree is grafted onto Adam's body: "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. 39, 47).

An ancillary piece of the puzzle is given in the sense that if Adam's body is the original root-stock of the human race, and it is, then presumably that body was capable of growing its own tree-branch, and its own fruit.

If that's the case, and it is, then we have cause to suspect that the cell taken from Adam's body, and around which Eve's body is "built" is a bud from the original root-stock, the ovum of Adam's original body, such that were that bud to grow as a "scion," i.e., without the germination of the new fruit tree (the testes and the phallus), that cell would produce the original fruit designed to be grown out of pre-lapse Adam.

. . . This is precisely where the sages of the Zohar are going in the passage quoted in the asexual seeder of this thread. They imply everything just said, and more, and they do it from a completely Jewish perspective.


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
. . . The sages of the Zohar are clearly seeing what I see. . . "Do you see what I see . . .?"

If a new fruit tree is grafted onto the roots of the original root-stock then that tree will provide the fruit of the tree grafted onto the original root-stock. . . But, and this is what throws the sage's excitement into the stratosphere, if the tree grafted onto the original root-stock is cut down to the stump, and a new sprout grows, that new sprout will not produce the fruit related to the tree formerly grafted onto the original root-stock, but will produce the fruit associated with the original root-stock.

Adam's pre-Genesis 2:21 body is the original root-stock of the human race. A new fruit tree is clearly grafted onto Adam's body when the phallus is created (San. 38b; Midrash Rabbah, Bere****h, XVII, 6.) in association with Eve's body being "built" around some cell taken from Adam's original body (Gen. 2:21).

When Abraham ritually removes the fruit-tree grafted onto Adam's original root-stock he gives us the greatest clue to the Bible the world has ever known by making his body a ritual representation of the body of Adam prior to Genesis 2:21 where the new fruit tree is grafted onto Adam's body: "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. 39, 47).

An ancillary piece of the puzzle is given in the sense that if Adam's body is the original root-stock of the human race, and it is, then presumably that body was capable of growing its own tree-branch, and its own fruit.

If that's the case, and it is, then we have cause to suspect that the cell taken from Adam's body, and around which Eve's body is "built" is a bud from the original root-stock, the ovum of Adam's original body, such that were that bud to grow as a "scion," i.e., without the germination of the new fruit tree (the testes and the phallus), that cell would produce the original fruit designed to be grown out of pre-lapse Adam.

. . . This is precisely where the sages of the Zohar are going in the passage quoted in the asexual seeder of this thread. They imply everything just said, and more, and they do it from a completely Jewish perspective.

. . . Something extremely profound is going on in the sage's heads. They're implying that if a new fruit tree is grafted onto Adam's body, then everyone born after that grafting is related to the new fruit tree, beginning with that paragon of God's perfection ----the firstborn of the creation of the new tree: Cain.

They reason that anytime a fruit tree is grafted onto the root-stock only the fruit of the tree grafted on is produced. But, as is noted in the essay on Isaiah 53:2, if a serious stress is introduced to the new tree, say it's pruned right down to the stump (and circumcision is related to "pruning" in Jewish thought) then the original root-stock can send a "scion" or "branch" out of the original root, such that in this case the original root-stock can produce the first-fruits of the original root.

The sages of the Zohar realize that that's exactly what Abraham's circumcision is all about. Rabbi Kaplan realizes that Abraham's circumcision returns his offspring to the status of the original root-stock of the human race such that Abraham's first spiritual offspring is the true firstborn of creation, the true first-fruits of creation, rather than the imposter and imposture who we know as the murderous Cain.

Israel represents the offspring of Adam had not the sin taken place:

If not for Adam's sin, all mankind would have had the status of Israel. . . 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. 39, 47.


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
. . . Something extremely profound is going on in the sage's heads. They're implying that if a new fruit tree is grafted onto Adam's body, then everyone born after that grafting is related to the new fruit tree, beginning with that paragon of God's perfection ----the firstborn of the creation of the new tree: Cain.

They reason that anytime a fruit tree is grafted onto the root-stock only the fruit of the tree grafted on is produced. But, as is noted in the essay on Isaiah 53:2, if a serious stress is introduced to the new tree, say it's pruned right down to the stump (and circumcision is related to "pruning" in Jewish thought) then the original root-stock can send a "scion" or "branch" out of the original root, such that in this case the original root-stock can produce the first-fruits of the original root.

The sages of the Zohar realize that that's exactly what Abraham's circumcision is all about. Rabbi Kaplan realizes that Abraham's circumcision returns his offspring to the status of the original root-stock of the human race such that Abraham's first spiritual offspring is the true firstborn of creation, the true first-fruits of creation, rather than the imposter and imposture who we know as the murderous Cain.

Israel represents the offspring of Adam had not the sin taken place:

If not for Adam's sin, all mankind would have had the status of Israel. . . 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. 39, 47.


John

. . . The spirit of what would naturally follow the above was stated in conversation about Masaccio's Trinity in another thread.

Masaccio's Trinity isn't unique in portraying skeletal remains below the depiction of the crucifixion. In point of fact, it's a fairly well-worn archetypal element of many crucifixion scenes:

On some crucifixes a skull and crossbones are shown below the corpus, referring to Golgotha (Calvary), the site at which Jesus was crucified, which the Gospels say means in Hebrew "the place of the skull."[8] Medieval tradition held that it was the burial-place of Adam and Eve, and that the cross of Christ was raised directly over Adam's skull, so many crucifixes manufactured in Catholic countries still show the skull and crossbones below the corpus.

Wikipedia, Crucifix. [Emphasis mine.]
Depicting Adam's skeletal remains beneath the cross ties the cross to Isaiah's concept of a Branch growing out of dry ground, i.e., a "scion" or vegetative-sprout growing out of the root of the earth rather than the fruit of the earth. This particular idea is explained by Rabbi Samson Hirsch's exegesis of Genesis 1:11 where he notes the unique independence of the "fruit tree" from the reproductive power of the earth:

[The tree עץ] . . . achieves a high degree of independence and freedom from the earth. Vessels and channels, compacted together, form the main body of the tree---the trunk. Everything works for one aim: to form fruit, to be an עץ פרי [fruit tree]. It emerges from the earth only once; thereafter, the tree produces fruit (עושה פרי). Thus, a tree is to its fruit as the earth is to the lower forms of plant life. The latter are called האדמה פרי --- the earth must always produce them afresh, whereas the fruit of trees is called פרי העץ.
Consciously, or subconsciously, Rabbi Hirsch is relating the similarity between the the Hebrew word "ground" אדםה and the Hebrew word for the "Tree of Life" אדם. -----In other words Rabbi Hirsch is explaining the uniqueness of "Adam" [אדם] hidden in agricultural metaphors. All other creatures are products of the earth, the ground, the earth is their "root," while Adam is like a fruit tree whose seed is in it, rather than in the earth. Adam is a microcosm of the Earth. He, achieves a high degree of independence and freedom from the earth.

All other forms of lower life are produced by the earth afresh while the fruit tree is independent of the earth: it has its seed already in it. ----As the earth is the "root" of all lower forms of life, Adam is the root of all soul life. His body is the "ground" אדם–ה out of which all living souls will arise.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
. . . The spirit of what would naturally follow the above was stated in conversation about Masaccio's Trinity in another thread.

Masaccio's Trinity isn't unique in portraying skeletal remains below the depiction of the crucifixion. In point of fact, it's a fairly well-worn archetypal element of many crucifixion scenes:

On some crucifixes a skull and crossbones are shown below the corpus, referring to Golgotha (Calvary), the site at which Jesus was crucified, which the Gospels say means in Hebrew "the place of the skull."[8] Medieval tradition held that it was the burial-place of Adam and Eve, and that the cross of Christ was raised directly over Adam's skull, so many crucifixes manufactured in Catholic countries still show the skull and crossbones below the corpus.

Wikipedia, Crucifix. [Emphasis mine.]
Depicting Adam's skeletal remains beneath the cross ties the cross to Isaiah's concept of a Branch growing out of dry ground, i.e., a "scion" or vegetative-sprout growing out of the root of the earth rather than the fruit of the earth. This particular idea is explained by Rabbi Samson Hirsch's exegesis of Genesis 1:11 where he notes the unique independence of the "fruit tree" from the reproductive power of the earth:

[The tree עץ] . . . achieves a high degree of independence and freedom from the earth. Vessels and channels, compacted together, form the main body of the tree---the trunk. Everything works for one aim: to form fruit, to be an עץ פרי [fruit tree]. It emerges from the earth only once; thereafter, the tree produces fruit (עושה פרי). Thus, a tree is to its fruit as the earth is to the lower forms of plant life. The latter are called האדמה פרי --- the earth must always produce them afresh, whereas the fruit of trees is called פרי העץ.
Consciously, or subconsciously, Rabbi Hirsch is relating the similarity between the the Hebrew word "ground" אדםה and the Hebrew word for the "Tree of Life" אדם. -----In other words Rabbi Hirsch is explaining the uniqueness of "Adam" [אדם] hidden in agricultural metaphors. All other creatures are products of the earth, the ground, the earth is their "root," while Adam is like a fruit tree whose seed is in it, rather than in the earth. Adam is a microcosm of the Earth. He, achieves a high degree of independence and freedom from the earth.

All other forms of lower life are produced by the earth afresh while the fruit tree is independent of the earth: it has its seed already in it. ----As the earth is the "root" of all lower forms of life, Adam is the root of all soul life. His body is the "ground" אדם–ה out of which all living souls will arise.



John


. . . The Jewish sages are playing with some pretty cool concepts. There are plants that come out of the earth as though the earth is the root and the plant is the product ("fruit) of the earth. But then there are fruit bearing plants which are like the earth itself, i.e., the root or source of the fruit that grows out of the tree as other plants grow out of the earth.

The Zohar plays on the idea of a "fruit tree" that's itself the fruit. This fruit tree, which they equate with the Tree of Life, is both root and fruit. You can eat the tree itself as you would eat the fruit of a tree that produces fruit through sexual means.

Thus, a tree is to its fruit as the earth is to the lower forms of plant life. The latter are called האדמה פרי --- the earth must always produce them afresh, whereas the fruit of trees is called פרי העץ.
Rabbi Hirsch is pointing out that in Genesis chapter one the fruit tree is the first sexual organism. It's the genesis of organisms that have a high degree of independence from the earth. The first plants produce through vegetative reproductive mechanism rather than sexual reproductive mechanisms.

On these same verses Rashi notes that strict Hebrew exegesis implies there is a fruit tree that doesn't produce fruit (but is itself the fruit) since the text adds the redundancy fruit tree "yielding fruit" when the Hebrew doesn't include such redundancy as an error. The footnote to Rashi's statement says:

"Trees of Fruit" does not mean fruit-bearing trees, for the verse goes on to say explicitly "yielding fruit." (Mesiach Ilmin).
What's just as important to the spirit of this thread is that the Hebrew doesn't even say fruit "trees." It says fruit "tree" in the singular. There's one fruit tree, the Tree of Life, that doesn't yield fruit. It is the fruit and the root: the root and offspring (fruit).



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
. . . The Jewish sages are playing with some pretty cool concepts. There are plants that come out of the earth as though the earth is the root and the plant is the product ("fruit) of the earth. But then there are fruit bearing plants which are like the earth itself, i.e., the root or source of the fruit that grows out of the tree as other plants grow out of the earth.

The Zohar plays on the idea of a "fruit tree" that's itself the fruit. This fruit tree, which they equate with the Tree of Life, is both root and fruit. You can eat the tree itself as you would eat the fruit of a tree that produces fruit through sexual means.

Thus, a tree is to its fruit as the earth is to the lower forms of plant life. The latter are called ????? ??? --- the earth must always produce them afresh, whereas the fruit of trees is called ??? ???.
Rabbi Hirsch is pointing out that in Genesis chapter one the fruit tree is the first sexual organism. It's the genesis of organisms that have a high degree of independence from the earth. The first plants produce through vegetative reproductive mechanism rather than sexual reproductive mechanisms.

On these same verses Rashi notes that strict Hebrew exegesis implies there is a fruit tree that doesn't produce fruit (but is itself the fruit) since the text adds the redundancy fruit tree "yielding fruit" when the Hebrew doesn't include such redundancy as an error. The footnote to Rashi's statement says:

"Trees of Fruit" does not mean fruit-bearing trees, for the verse goes on to say explicitly "yielding fruit." (Mesiach Ilmin).
What's just as important to the spirit of this thread is that the Hebrew doesn't even say fruit "trees." It says fruit "tree" in the singular. There's one fruit tree, the Tree of Life, that doesn't yield fruit. It is the fruit and the root: the root and offspring (fruit).



John

On Genesis 1:11 Rashi exegetes the Hebrew to say, "trees of fruit yielding fruit . . .." Rashi believes the correct Hebrew interpretation is that the trees are themselves fruit, trees made of fruit, that also yield secondary fruit. -----Only the most exacting Hebrew exegete is likely to interpret so literally. And here it's extremely important.

Proving that Rashi thinks of the "trees of fruit" as a tree made of fruit, that also yields fruit, we have Rashi saying: ". . . the flavor of the tree shall be like the flavor of the fruit." ------According to Rashi the earth sinned with Adam by not making the tree taste the same as the fruit it yields:

Rashi to 1:11 above said that the earth was later punished along with man for not producing trees whose wood had the same taste as its fruit, as God had commanded it [note to Rashi Genesis 3:17].
What's going on here? Tree of fruit . . . secondarily yielding other fruit. Sinning by not having the tree and the yielded fruit taste the same? . . . What gives? -----We need Rabbi Hirsch to come to the rescue. We need Rabbi Hirsch to help us understand what makes Rashi interpret in this seemingly disjointed way.


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
On Genesis 1:11 Rashi exegetes the Hebrew to say, "trees of fruit yielding fruit . . .." Rashi believes the correct Hebrew interpretation is that the trees are themselves fruit, trees made of fruit, that also yield secondary fruit. -----Only the most exacting Hebrew exegete is likely to interpret so literally. And here it's extremely important.

Proving that Rashi thinks of the "trees of fruit" as a tree made of fruit, that also yields fruit, we have Rashi saying: ". . . the flavor of the tree shall be like the flavor of the fruit." ------According to Rashi the earth sinned with Adam by not making the tree taste the same as the fruit it yields:

Rashi to 1:11 above said that the earth was later punished along with man for not producing trees whose wood had the same taste as its fruit, as God had commanded it [note to Rashi Genesis 3:17].
What's going on here? Tree of fruit . . . secondarily yielding other fruit. Sinning by not having the tree and the yielded fruit taste the same? . . . What gives? -----We need Rabbi Hirsch to come to the rescue. We need Rabbi Hirsch to help us understand what makes Rashi interpret in this seemingly disjointed way.


John


All plant substances and energies operate within specific and fixed limits; the form of each plant crystallizes into a specific and predetermined form. This great law, which is made manifest to us in the plant world, governs everything----from the cedar to the hyssop; it rules in minute fibers and seedlings, even as in giant trees that reach toward the skies. All-pervading and all-embracing, this law allows each individual plant species to develop only within the limits set for it. . . "According to its species!"

Hirsch Chumash at Genesis 1:11.
Rabbi Hirsch spends six pages on the concept in the cross-hairs of Genesis 1:11. The statement above points out the fact that every organism must stay within the boundaries of its own species. This emphasis segues with Rashi's claim that the original sin of the man, Adam, was related to the fact that the tree made of fruit tasted different than the fruit produced as a secondary product of the tree. Implicit in his exegesis and interpretation is the idea that the tree made of fruit is producing a species of fruit different than the fruit the tree is made of: the law of remaining within one's own species is broken in the first sin of the man, whose sin is being reflected in the tree of fruit.

These mitzvos warn us to keep this law also in regards our ownspecies, to impose the law God has given us also upon our own drives and energies. . . He has made us human beings in the midst of all other living things and He made us Jews in the midst of mankind; and He has set down for both man and Jew the law governing the development of their lives.
According to the rationales Rabbi Hirsch is employing, Jews are a species of humankind who must follow the same law that denies any other species from leaving the boundaries of its own kind. The drives and energies that tempt a Jew to marry a non-Jew, to have sex with a non-Jew, to mix species, must be rejected.

The purity of man in the human species and the purity of the Jew in the family of Israel depends on the observance of these restrictions. The higher the species rises, the more circumscribed does its sexual life become, the narrower are the limits set on marital choices. . . Any disregard of the laws of the species brings disaster on the species; sexual lawlessness destroys individuals and nations, whereas observance of the restrictions on sexual life is fundamental for the enoblement of the human species.
All of these statements and concepts are being discussed by Rabbi Hirsch in the immediate context of Genesis 1:11 where Rashi speaks of the tree of fruit not tasting like the fruit of the tree. Any sexual assault on the law of remaining faithful to the original specie as designed and defined by God brings disaster on the species and destroys individuals and nations.

Adam was created without gender. Adam was created a Jew. A Jew being a non-gendered mammal. Adam was both the root of the human tree and the fruit of the human tree: the root and offspring all in one.

That is until the original sin that Rabbi Hirsch claims destroys individuals and nations: the cross-breeding of trees in order to change the fruit at the expense of the sanctity of the tree:

. . . Unlawful crossing of species is not required to improve the fruit. After all, man has yet to produce from hybrid seed a tree that improves the original fruit tree. We must ask ourselves, then, whether the "improvement of the fruit" merely degenerates the species of trees.
Everything being said by Rashi and Rabbi Hirsch ties Genesis 1:11 to Genesis 2:21 where the Jew, Adam, who has no gender, no genitalia, who is created perfect, has fruit taken from his body to cross-breed with mammalian humanity in order to build the first woman and in order to graft a new branch onto Adam's previously circumcised (non-phallic) body.

All the evil of cross-breeding, all the evil of manipulating speciation as designed by God, takes place in Genesis 2:21, which is the harbinger and the archetype of the original sin and leads to the conception of Cain as the destructive murderer upon whose firstborn status all humanity will acquire his evil-inclination that didn't exist in Adam as the tree of fruit whose body and whose fruit tasted the same. Cain is the personification of the evil-inclination born of Adam's "desire" to cross-breed with the animals. When a suitable mate wasn't found, cross-breeding and grafting of one kind onto the root of another took place for the first time leading to the original sin.


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
All plant substances and energies operate within specific and fixed limits; the form of each plant crystallizes into a specific and predetermined form. This great law, which is made manifest to us in the plant world, governs everything----from the cedar to the hyssop; it rules in minute fibers and seedlings, even as in giant trees that reach toward the skies. All-pervading and all-embracing, this law allows each individual plant species to develop only within the limits set for it. . . "According to its species!"

Hirsch Chumash at Genesis 1:11.
Rabbi Hirsch spends six pages on the concept in the cross-hairs of Genesis 1:11. The statement above points out the fact that every organism must stay within the boundaries of its own species. This emphasis segues with Rashi's claim that the original sin of the man, Adam, was related to the fact that the tree made of fruit tasted different than the fruit produced as a secondary product of the tree. Implicit in his exegesis and interpretation is the idea that the tree made of fruit is producing a species of fruit different than the fruit the tree is made of: the law of remaining within one's own species is broken in the first sin of the man, whose sin is being reflected in the tree of fruit.

These mitzvos warn us to keep this law also in regards our ownspecies, to impose the law God has given us also upon our own drives and energies. . . He has made us human beings in the midst of all other living things and He made us Jews in the midst of mankind; and He has set down for both man and Jew the law governing the development of their lives.
According to the rationales Rabbi Hirsch is employing, Jews are a species of humankind who must follow the same law that denies any other species from leaving the boundaries of its own kind. The drives and energies that tempt a Jew to marry a non-Jew, to have sex with a non-Jew, to mix species, must be rejected.

The purity of man in the human species and the purity of the Jew in the family of Israel depends on the observance of these restrictions. The higher the species rises, the more circumscribed does its sexual life become, the narrower are the limits set on marital choices. . . Any disregard of the laws of the species brings disaster on the species; sexual lawlessness destroys individuals and nations, whereas observance of the restrictions on sexual life is fundamental for the enoblement of the human species.
All of these statements and concepts are being discussed by Rabbi Hirsch in the immediate context of Genesis 1:11 where Rashi speaks of the tree of fruit not tasting like the fruit of the tree. Any sexual assault on the law of remaining faithful to the original specie as designed and defined by God brings disaster on the species and destroys individuals and nations.

Adam was created without gender. Adam was created a Jew. A Jew being a non-gendered mammal. Adam was both the root of the human tree and the fruit of the human tree: the root and offspring all in one.

That is until the original sin that Rabbi Hirsch claims destroys individuals and nations: the cross-breeding of trees in order to change the fruit at the expense of the sanctity of the tree:

. . . Unlawful crossing of species is not required to improve the fruit. After all, man has yet to produce from hybrid seed a tree that improves the original fruit tree. We must ask ourselves, then, whether the "improvement of the fruit" merely degenerates the species of trees.
Everything being said by Rashi and Rabbi Hirsch ties Genesis 1:11 to Genesis 2:21 where the Jew, Adam, who has no gender, no genitalia, who is created perfect, has fruit taken from his body to cross-breed with mammalian humanity in order to build the first woman and in order to graft a new branch onto Adam's previously circumcised (non-phallic) body.

All the evil of cross-breeding, all the evil of manipulating speciation as designed by God, takes place in Genesis 2:21, which is the harbinger and the archetype of the original sin and leads to the conception of Cain as the destructive murderer upon whose firstborn status all humanity will acquire his evil-inclination that didn't exist in Adam as the tree of fruit whose body and whose fruit tasted the same. Cain is the personification of the evil-inclination born of Adam's "desire" to cross-breed with the animals. When a suitable mate wasn't found, cross-breeding and grafting of one kind onto the root of another took place for the first time leading to the original sin.


John

As pointed out earlier in the thread, Rashi and Rabbi Hirsch are perfectly aware that Genesis chapter one and two use agricultural metaphors to speak of the nature of the original sin of Adam. Adam's body is both the root (earth) and the fruit, scion, growing out of the earth. As the earth puts forth vegetative (asexual) fruit (plants) Adam's body was designed to put forth shoots or branches, scions, that would be identical clones (as all scions are) to Adam's own flesh.

Clearly the text relates an episode of cross-breading whereby Adam's asexual body, an asexual root, like the earth, is redesigned to produce fruit that's not a clone, doesn't taste identical, to Adam's body.

We need neither a world-class biologist nor an expert horticulturist to realize precisely what Rashi and Rabbi Hirsch can't bring themselves to say out loud, but which they can't not whisper if they're going to exegete the word of God faithfully.

Adam was originally, as were all plants, asexual. Only through cross-breading, and redesign, did asexual plants become sexualized organisms. It was precisely this sexual redesigning that caused what in every case is a clone of the mother plant (a "scion" that's genetically identical to the mother organism) to become genetically distinct, different, to taste different, than the original root.

Rashi and Rabbi Hirsch pussyfoot around the sexual organs of the earth and Adam precisely because they don't want to energize the distinctions this particular thread has yet to fully circumscribe: the difference between that genus of humanity born of cross-breading (fallen hybrids) who are in opposition to, and oppose, those who are literally cross-bread: born of the bread produced on the cross, which, cross, grows out of the original root, and skeleton, of Adam's body apart from sexual conception and gestation.



John
 
Top