• 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!

טוטפת

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I can’t stand the beats I’m asking for the cheque The girl with crimson nails Has Jesus 'round her neck Swinging to the music Swinging to the music Whoooaaa Whoooaaa Whoooaaa Whoooaaa. . . .

U2 Vertigo.
This thread is really a continuance of the Exegeting the Tefillin thread. It's just that the concept of the "totapot" is so huge in relationship to the true meaning of the tefillin that it deserves its own thread.

Exodus 13:9 says the mark on the yad will be a "memorial" (zikkaron), between the eyes. . . But in Exodus 13:16, the "memorial" (zikkaron) is re-named "frontlets" (totapot), between the eyes? ----In almost a parallel passage the text goes from "memorial" to "frontlets (totapot) with hardly a clue about why the words changed?

Nevertheless, Jewish exegesis found in Mekhilta: De-Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai tells us something extremely important. The "memorial" is for the individual alone. He's to see it himself. While the totapot (frontlets) are a public ornamentation related to what's a private memorial in Ex. 13:9.

This is consistent with the exegesis in the tefillin thread that suggests the first passage ---and thus the "memorial" between the eyes ---is the mark of circumcision being explained by the father. The father explains the mark to his son; he tells its purpose and meaning, at which time the son retires to a private chamber where the mark is placed "between his eyes" ----which is to say he looks at it for the first time appreciating what it is and represents.

As we're taught in Mekhilta (which is extensive exegesis on the book of Exodus), the first text (Ex. 13:9) speaks not of a public ornament given the son at his bar mitzvah, but rather a private viewing of the mark entering the son into the covenant. The father's education of his son precedes his son's placing the mark "between his eyes" for the first time in knowledge of its meaning.

That which is memorialized is not something different from what's made into an ornament called "totapot." -----The totapot (which probably isn't actually a Hebrew plural) is an ornament that memorializes in a manner appropriate for a public audience, what was private for the son of the commandment, the bar mitvah.

If anyone reading the foregoing has even the slightest clue what's just been said, they should be interested, to say the least, in what possible ornament could turn the bar mitvah's private viewing into an appropriate public display to be worn as glorious ornamentation?


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I can’t stand the beats I’m asking for the cheque The girl with crimson nails Has Jesus 'round her neck Swinging to the music Swinging to the music Whoooaaa Whoooaaa Whoooaaa Whoooaaa. . . .

U2 Vertigo.​
This thread is really a continuance of the Exegeting the Tefillin thread. It's just that the concept of the "totapot" is so huge in relationship to the true meaning of the tefillin that it deserves its own thread.

Exodus 13:9 says the mark on the yad will be a "memorial" (zikkaron), between the eyes. . . But in Exodus 13:16, the "memorial" (zikkaron) is re-named "frontlets" (totapot), between the eyes? ----In almost a parallel passage the text goes from "memorial" to "frontlets (totapot) with hardly a clue about why the words changed?

Nevertheless, Jewish exegesis found in Mekhilta: De-Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai tells us something extremely important. The "memorial" is for the individual alone. He's to see it himself. While the totapot (frontlets) are a public ornamentation related to what's a private memorial in Ex. 13:9.

This is consistent with the exegesis in the tefillin thread that suggests the first passage ---and thus the "memorial" between the eyes ---is the mark of circumcision being explained by the father. The father explains the mark to his son; he tells its purpose and meaning, at which time the son retires to a private chamber where the mark is placed "between his eyes" ----which is to say he looks at it for the first time appreciating what it is and represents.

As we're taught in Mekhilta (which is extensive exegesis on the book of Exodus), the first text (Ex. 13:9) speaks not of a public ornament given the son at his bar mitzvah, but rather a private viewing of the mark entering the son into the covenant. The father's education of his son precedes his son's placing the mark "between his eyes" for the first time in knowledge of its meaning.

That which is memorialized is not something different from what's made into an ornament called "totapot." -----The totapot (which probably isn't actually a Hebrew plural) is an ornament that memorializes in a manner appropriate for a public audience, what was private for the son of the commandment, the bar mitvah.

If anyone reading the foregoing has even the slightest clue what's just been said, they should be interested, to say the least, in what possible ornament could turn the bar mitvah's private viewing into an appropriate public display to be worn as glorious ornamentation?


John
As everyone should know, the shel yad isn't really on the "hand," but rather the upper arm. And the placement is very important to what I hope to get to eventually. ----- Etymologically speaking, Hebrew "yad" (yod-dalet) speaks of the "hand" or the "phallus." The word is used for the "phallus" at Isaiah 57:8:

Behind the doors [dalet] also and the posts [mezuzah] hast thou set up thy remembrance [zikkaron]: For thou hast discovered thyself [got naked] to another than me, and art gone up; Thou hast enlarged thy bed, and made thee a covenant with them; Thou lovedst their bed where thou sawest it [their yad].
The passage is speaking of God's adulterous bride leaving the covenant of circumcision to get naked and offer herself to the yad of the uncircumcision.

The bride is unfaithful to the covenant of circumcision so she leaves her circumcised groom, makes herself "naked" (gimmel-lamed-heh) behind the mezuzah (doorpost) where she spies the uncircumcised yad she prefers to her groom's circumcision.

Someone who takes false translations and questionable interpretations too seriously will doubt that this exegesis is sound until they read the corrected translation of the next verse: "And thou went to Molech with the fruit of thy womb . . .." ----------Naturally. -----It belongs to him: it's his firstborn. He's the god of death, and that's what his firstborn inherits.

The bride who memorializes (zikkaron) the uncircumcised yad, rather than the yad marked for extermination, which marks it for memorialization (zikkaron) by the bar mitzvah, offers up her firstborn to Molech, since the firstborn is naturally his:

Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto thee: O Israel, if thou wilt hearken unto me; 9 There shall no strange god be in thee; Neither shalt thou worship any strange god. 10 I am the LORD thy God, Which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

Psalm 81:8-10.
No stranger may eat the Passover. Only the circumcision can fill their mouth with the flesh associated with circumcision. Molech is the flesh gone after circumcision. He's a stranger-god who doesn't belong in any Israelite bride nor beyond the doorposts of the bride on Passover eve.

Israel's firstborn shouldn't belong to Molech. ------Molech is the Gentile god who practices jus primae noctis in every case of marital congress. Every firstborn belongs to him if he (Molech) opens the womb at conception.

Molech is the yad that opens the door (mezuzah) at conception while the Jewish firstborn possesses the yad that opens the door only if Molech didn't have a hand in (during) his conception. Circumcision makes Molech an abject stranger (a stranger rejected) in the conception-event that produces the Jewish firstborn.

As noted in the thread on the sotah water, Ramban claims strict exegesis of the verses involved insinuate that the righteous bride being subjected to the sotah ordeal tells God that she hasn't even committed adultery against God with her husband.

Every serious Jewish exegete then gets seriously concerned when in bizarre fashion, the text of the sotah passage next implies that if the woman has indeed stayed faithful to God as though he were her groom, then she's made pregnant not by her husband, but by the Torah scroll dissolved in the red holy water she's made to drink.

It's as if, having remained a virgin up to the ordeal, God says to the righteous woman subjected to the sotah ordeal, "Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it," after which she gives birth to the circumcision. Her mouth was opened and her legs closed. She and she alone is God's faithful bride.


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
As everyone should know, the shel yad isn't really on the "hand," but rather the upper arm. And the placement is very important to what I hope to get to eventually. ----- Etymologically speaking, Hebrew "yad" (yod-dalet) speaks of the "hand" or the "phallus." The word is used for the "phallus" at Isaiah 57:8:

Behind the doors [dalet] also and the posts [mezuzah] hast thou set up thy remembrance [zikkaron]: For thou hast discovered thyself [got naked] to another than me, and art gone up; Thou hast enlarged thy bed, and made thee a covenant with them; Thou lovedst their bed where thou sawest it [their yad].
The passage is speaking of God's adulterous bride leaving the covenant of circumcision to get naked and offer herself to the yad of the uncircumcision.

The bride is unfaithful to the covenant of circumcision so she leaves her circumcised groom, makes herself "naked" (gimmel-lamed-heh) behind the mezuzah (doorpost) where she spies the uncircumcised yad she prefers to her groom's circumcision.

Someone who takes false translations and questionable interpretations too seriously will doubt that this exegesis is sound until they read the corrected translation of the next verse: "And thou went to Molech with the fruit of thy womb . . .." ----------Naturally. -----It belongs to him: it's his firstborn. He's the god of death, and that's what his firstborn inherits.

The bride who memorializes (zikkaron) the uncircumcised yad, rather than the yad marked for extermination, which marks it for memorialization (zikkaron) by the bar mitzvah, offers up her firstborn to Molech, since the firstborn is naturally his:

Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto thee: O Israel, if thou wilt hearken unto me; 9 There shall no strange god be in thee; Neither shalt thou worship any strange god. 10 I am the LORD thy God, Which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

Psalm 81:8-10.
No stranger may eat the Passover. Only the circumcision can fill their mouth with the flesh associated with circumcision. Molech is the flesh gone after circumcision. He's a stranger-god who doesn't belong in any Israelite bride nor beyond the doorposts of the bride on Passover eve.

Israel's firstborn shouldn't belong to Molech. ------Molech is the Gentile god who practices jus primae noctis in every case of marital congress. Every firstborn belongs to him if he (Molech) opens the womb at conception.

Molech is the yad that opens the door (mezuzah) at conception while the Jewish firstborn possesses the yad that opens the door only if Molech didn't have a hand in (during) his conception. Circumcision makes Molech an abject stranger (a stranger rejected) in the conception-event that produces the Jewish firstborn.

As noted in the thread on the sotah water, Ramban claims strict exegesis of the verses involved insinuate that the righteous bride being subjected to the sotah ordeal tells God that she hasn't even committed adultery against God with her husband.

Every serious Jewish exegete then gets seriously concerned when in bizarre fashion, the text of the sotah passage next implies that if the woman has indeed stayed faithful to God as though he were her groom, then she's made pregnant not by her husband, but by the Torah scroll dissolved in the red holy water she's made to drink.

It's as if, having remained a virgin up to the ordeal, God says to the righteous woman subjected to the sotah ordeal, "Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it," after which she gives birth to the circumcision. Her mouth was opened and her legs closed. She and she alone is God's faithful bride.


John

The shel yad unmistakably represents the "sign" of circumcision explained to the son before he first dons the tefilin on bar mitzvah. His father explains what was required of him (the father) in order to leave Egypt, and that the son is marked similarly, so that the son retires to a private place to place the mark of his entrance into the covenant "between his eyes."

But then in Exodus 13:16 what was formerly a private "memorial" (zikkaron), becomes a public "ornament" (totapot). ----Unfortunately the etymology of the word is extremely sketchy. It's difficult to find anything to sink ones teeth into. The root is allegedly "topop" (tet-peh-peh).

Luther implies "topop" (found at Isaiah 3:16)," implies an ornament associated with prostitutes (which is what the passage in Isaiah is talking about). He says the ornament is worn to entice men. It's something akin to the U2 song that starts off this thread. Describing where the topop are found Luther says: fie treten einher und fchwanzen ("they come together and falter") they "bounce" around in a manner that's extremely enticing to men.

Thus the root of "totapot" is the hapax legomenon "topop" used to speak of a prostitute's breasts "bouncing" around (coming together and faltering) in a manner that causes profound passion.

The last part of the word isn't much better. It speaks of a woman's private parts (peh-tav) thereby giving exegetical support to the interpretation of the earlier part of the word.

The fact that peh-tav is also used for the "forehead" plays into the strange supposition that when the "sign" is placed "between the eyes" (an undeniable metaphor for being in the light of sight), the Jewish interpreters suggest that it means on the "forehead" ----even though any Jew who knows better knows the shel rosh is placed up on the forehead nowhere near "between the eyes." -----If it's placed between the eyes it's worn wrong.

Totapot is an ornament found between the breasts. And since the sages are unanimous that the "mark," or "sign," of circumcision (what was required of the father to leave Egypt), i.e., the "sign" memorialized by the bar mitzvah, is the letter yod, spelled yad, we have the rather incredible inference that when you turn the yod, placed privately between the eyes of the bar mitzvah, into a public ornament, the totapot, you do so by placing the yod, the "sign," on a chain, dangling between the breast (shad) so that when you see this yod dangling between the "bouncing" shad of a woman you're looking at shad--yod, which in Hebrew is "Shaddai," which is what's spelled out on the shel rosh that's "between the eyes" only if you have eyes on the front and the back of your head.

U2's song Vertigo is Lutheresqe in that Luther speaks of the prostitute wearing crimson shoes on her feet while Bono speaks of crimson "nails" when he speaks of the totapot bouncing around on the dance floor. The irony is profound since Bono, like Luther, like the prophet Isaiah, is speaking of the greatest Passion any man has ever known, and it's dangling, swinging, made niddah, through association with the wicked woman of shame.

And the beauty of His ornament is what he made for their pride [Ex 13:16], but they made their despicable images of their abominations; therefore I made it [the ornament] niddah to them. And I shall give it into the hands of uncircumcised strangers for a prey and to the wicked of the earth for plunder, and they will profane it.

Ezekiel 7:19-21.
I can’t stand the beat I’m asking for the cheque The girl with crimson nails Has Jesus 'round her neck Swinging to the music Swinging to the music Whoooaaa Whoooaaa Whoooaaa Whoooaaa. . . .

U2 Vertigo.

John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
The shel yad unmistakably represents the "sign" of circumcision explained to the son before he first dons the tefilin on bar mitzvah. His father explains what was required of him (the father) in order to leave Egypt, and that the son is marked similarly, so that the son retires to a private place to place the mark of his entrance into the covenant "between his eyes."

But then in Exodus 13:16 what was formerly a private "memorial" (zikkaron), becomes a public "ornament" (totapot). ----Unfortunately the etymology of the word is extremely sketchy. It's difficult to find anything to sink ones teeth into. The root is allegedly "topop" (tet-peh-peh).

Luther implies "topop" (found at Isaiah 3:16)," implies an ornament associated with prostitutes (which is what the passage in Isaiah is talking about). He says the ornament is worn to entice men. It's something akin to the U2 song that starts off this thread. Describing where the topop are found Luther says: fie treten einher und fchwanzen ("they come together and falter") they "bounce" around in a manner that's extremely enticing to men.

Thus the root of "totapot" is the hapax legomenon "topop" used to speak of a prostitute's breasts "bouncing" around (coming together and faltering) in a manner that causes profound passion.

The last part of the word isn't much better. It speaks of a woman's private parts (peh-tav) thereby giving exegetical support to the interpretation of the earlier part of the word.

The fact that peh-tav is also used for the "forehead" plays into the strange supposition that when the "sign" is placed "between the eyes" (an undeniable metaphor for being in the light of sight), the Jewish interpreters suggest that it means on the "forehead" ----even though any Jew who knows better knows the shel rosh is placed up on the forehead nowhere near "between the eyes." -----If it's place between the eyes its worn wrong.

Totapot is an ornament found between the breasts. And since the sages are unanimous that the "mark," or "sign," of circumcision (what was required of the father to leave Egypt), i.e., the "sign" memorialized by the bar mitzvah, is the letter yod, spelled yad, we have the rather incredible inference that when you turn the yod, placed privately between the eyes of the bar mitzvah, into a public ornament, the totapot, you do so by placing the yod, the "sign," on a chain, dangling between the breast (shad) so that when you see this yod dangling between the "bouncing" shad of a woman you're looking at shad--yod, which in Hebrew is "Shaddai," which is what's spelled out on the shel rosh that's "between the eyes" only if you have eyes on the front and the back of your head.

U2's song Vertigo is Lutheresqe in that Luther speaks of the prostitute wearing crimson shoes on her feet while Bono speaks of crimson "nails" when he speaks of the totapot bouncing around on the dance floor. The irony is profound since Bono, like Luther, like the prophet Isaiah, is speaking of the greatest Passion any man has ever known, and it's dangling, swinging, made niddah, through association with the wicked woman of shame.

And the beauty of His ornament is what he made for their pride [Ex 13:16], but they made their despicable images of their abominations [ugly black boxes place on the forehead]; therefore I made it [the ornament] niddah to them. And I shall give him/it into the hands of uncircumcised strangers for a prey and to the wicked of the earth for plunder, and they will profane it/him.

Ezekiel 7:19-21.
I can’t stand the beat I’m asking for the cheque The girl with crimson nails Has Jesus 'round her neck Swinging to the music Swinging to the music Whoooaaa Whoooaaa Whoooaaa Whoooaaa. . . .

U2 Vertigo.

John

Let's take an example from the concepts being discussed in this and the tefillin thread:

And the beauty of His ornament is what he made for their pride [Ex 13:16], but they made their despicable images of their abominations; therefore I made it [the ornament] niddah to them. And I shall give it into the hands of strangers for a prey and to the wicked of the earth for plunder, and they will profane it.

Ezekiel 7:19-21.
This passage is speaking of sacerdotal jewelry such as ornamented the kohen gadol. Commenting on these verse Rashi paraphrases Redak who explained that the priest and the people wore jewelry representing the glory of the temple, i.e. the high priest was ornamented as though his body were an anthropomorphism of the temple (his priestly clothing and jewelry mimics the temple ornamentation) such that the common Jew too wore certain sacerdotal ornaments representing the same things as the ornaments worn by the high priest (i.e., the glory of the temple).

According to Rabbi Hirsch these ornaments are the tefillin, which are also the totapot. -----Rabbi Hirsch claims the shel rosh (head tefillin) is the totapot. He goes so far as to says the shel rosh is the Ark of the Covenant in miniature. The tefillin/totapot-donning Jew ornaments his body with the glory of the temple, the miniature Ark of the Covenant, which Rabbi Hirsch relates to the shel rosh (the head tefillin) . . . the totapot.

And since Rabbi Hirsch claims even the mere phonetic similarity between words is exegetical fertile ground, we have an interesting example in Ezekiel 7:19-21 where the ornament, or jewelry, given for Israel's glory (the tefillin/totapot), are transformed by Israel into an "abomination."

The "totapot" (tet-vav-tet-peh-tav) become an "abomination."

The word "totapot" is a transliteration of the Hebrew word, while the word "abomination," isn't a transliteration of the Hebrew word it replaces. That word, the Hebrew word for "abomination," transliterated, is "toabot" (tav-vav-ayin-beit-tav). ----Phonetically speaking, the totapot are said to be transformed into the toabot ("abomination"), seemingly justifying to some degree Rabbi Hirsch's claim.

The word "toabot" (tav-vav-ayin-beit-tav) lends itself to this thread (though it must be returned) since tav-ayin-beit is the root, which implies going astray, while the last two consonants, beit-tav, speak of a "daughter," such that the word, in its essence, speaks of a daughter who has gone astray. A prostitute, or unclean woman (niddah).

The "glory" (tiferet) of the temple, which Isaiah 61:10 claims will be worn as an ornament between the breasts of the virgin bride, is instead placed between the breast of the woman of shame. The glory of Israel is made niddah as it bounces around between unclean breasts that come together and falter "between the eyes" of men who are made unclean by viewing the "abomination" that was once, and should be still, the glory of Israel.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Lets take an example from the concepts being discussed in this and the tefillin thread:

And the beauty of His ornament is what he made for their pride [Ex 13:16], but they made their despicable images of their abominations; therefore I made it [the ornament] niddah to them. And I shall give it into the hands of strangers for a prey and to the wicked of the earth for plunder, and they will profane it.

Ezekiel 7:19-21.
This passage is speaking of sacerdotal jewelry such as ornamented the kohen gadol. Commenting on these verse Rashi paraphrases Redak who explained that the priest and the people wore jewelry representing the glory of the temple, i.e. the high priest was ornamented as though his body were an anthropomorphism of the temple (his priestly clothing and jewelry mimics the temple ornamentation) such that the common Jew too wore certain sacerdotal ornaments representing the same things as the ornaments worn by the high priest (i.e., the glory of the temple).

According to Rabbi Hirsch these ornaments are the tefillin, which are also the totapot. -----Rabbi Hirsch claims the shel rosh (head tefillin) is the totapot. He goes so far as to says the shel rosh is the Ark of the Covenant in miniature. The tefillin/totapot-donning Jew ornaments his body with the glory of the temple, the miniature Ark of the Covenant, which Rabbi Hirsch relates to the shel rosh (the head tefillin) . . . the totapot.

And since Rabbi Hirsch claims even the mere phonetic similarity between words is exegetical fertile ground, we have an interesting example in Ezekiel 7:19-21 where the ornament, or jewelry, given for Israel's glory (the tefillin/totapot), are transformed by Israel into an "abomination."

The "totapot" (tet-vav-tet-peh-tav) become an "abomination."

The word "totapot" is a transliteration of the Hebrew word, while the word "abomination," isn't a transliteration of the Hebrew word it replaces. That word, the Hebrew word for "abomination," transliterated, is "toabot" (tav-vav-ayin-beit-tav). ----Phonetically speaking, the totapot are said to be transformed into the toabot ("abomination"), seemingly justifying to some degree Rabbi Hirsch's claim.

The word "toabot" (tav-vav-ayin-beit-tav) lends itself to this thread (though it must be returned) since tav-ayin-beit is the root, which implies going astray, while the last two consonants, beit-tav, speak of a "daughter," such that the word, in its essence, speaks of a daughter who has gone astray. A prostitute, or unclean woman (niddah).

The "glory" (tiferet) of the temple, which Isaiah 61:10 claims will be worn as an ornament between the breasts of the virgin bride, is instead placed between the breast of the woman of shame. The glory of Israel is made niddah as it bounces around between unclean breasts that come together and falter "between the eyes" of men who are made unclean by viewing the "abomination" that was once, and should be still, the glory of Israel.



John

. . . Although everything said so far is logically sound and true to the spirit of Exodus chapter 13, even a sympathetic reader could be forgiven for thinking to themselves, "But what ornament could possibly capture the essence of what the bar mitvah sees when he looks privately at the sign of his entry into the covenant?"

And without paraphrasing the rabbis for the umpteenth time implying that circumcision (revealed at bar mitzvah) somehow returns the Jew to the prelapse status of Adam in the Garden, or else once again quoting the Talmud, Sanhedrin 38b, implying that Adam's great sin was epispasm, covering up the previously circumcised flesh, we can say in all joy and amazement that the revelation uncovered in uncovering the totapot reveals not only the nature of the prelapse body in the Garden, and the nature of the epispasmic cover-up, but also those who will eternally be held accountable for protecting the cover-up, versus those who will sing and shout for joy when the cover-up is finally uncovered (Psalm 132:13-18):

For the LORD hath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for his habitation. 14 This is my rest for ever: Here will I dwell; for I have desired it. 15 I will abundantly bless her provision: I will satisfy her poor with bread. 16 I will also clothe her priests with salvation: And her saints shall shout aloud for joy. 17 There will I make the horn of David to bud: I have ordained a lamp for mine anointed. 18 His enemies will I clothe with shame: But upon himself shall his crown flourish.

כִּֽי־בָחַ֣ר יְהוָ֣ה בְּצִיּ֑וֹן אִ֝וָּ֗הּ לְמוֹשָׁ֥ב לוֹֽ׃ 14 זֹאת־מְנוּחָתִ֥י עֲדֵי־עַ֑ד פֹּֽה־אֵ֝שֵׁ֗ב כִּ֣י אִוִּתִֽיהָ׃ 15 צֵ֭ידָהּ בָּרֵ֣ךְ אֲבָרֵ֑ךְ אֶ֝בְיוֹנֶ֗יהָ אַשְׂבִּ֥יעַֽ לָֽחֶם׃ 16 וְֽ֭כֹהֲנֶיהָ אַלְבִּ֣ישׁ יֶ֑שַׁע וַ֝חֲסִידֶ֗יהָ רַנֵּ֥ן יְרַנֵּֽנוּ׃ 17 שָׁ֤ם אַצְמִ֣יחַ קֶ֣רֶן לְדָוִ֑ד עָרַ֥כְתִּי נֵ֝֗ר לִמְשִׁיחִֽי׃ 18 א֭וֹיְבָיו אַלְבִּ֣ישׁ בֹּ֑שֶׁת וְ֝עָלָ֗יו יָצִ֥יץ נִזְרֹֽו׃


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
. . . Although everything said so far is logically sound and true to the spirit of Exodus chapter 13, even a sympathetic reader could be forgiven for thinking to themselves, "But what ornament could possibly capture the essence of what the bar mitvah sees when he looks privately at the sign of his entry into the covenant?"

And without paraphrasing the rabbis for the umpteenth time implying that circumcision (revealed at bar mitzvah) somehow returns the Jew to the prelapse status of Adam in the Garden, or else once again quoting the Talmud, Sanhedrin 38b, implying that Adam's great sin was epispasm, covering up the previously circumcised flesh, we can say in all joy and amazement that the revelation uncovered in uncovering the totapot reveals not only the nature of the prelapse body in the Garden, and the nature of the epispasmic cover-up, but also those who will eternally be held accountable for protecting the cover-up, versus those who will sing and shout for joy when the cover-up is finally uncovered (Psalm 132:13-18):

For the LORD hath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for his habitation. 14 This is my rest for ever: Here will I dwell; for I have desired it. 15 I will abundantly bless her provision: I will satisfy her poor with bread. 16 I will also clothe her priests with salvation: And her saints shall shout aloud for joy. 17 There will I make the horn of David to bud: I have ordained a lamp for mine anointed. 18 His enemies will I clothe with shame: But upon himself shall his crown flourish.

כִּֽי־בָחַ֣ר יְהוָ֣ה בְּצִיּ֑וֹן אִ֝וָּ֗הּ לְמוֹשָׁ֥ב לוֹֽ׃ 14 זֹאת־מְנוּחָתִ֥י עֲדֵי־עַ֑ד פֹּֽה־אֵ֝שֵׁ֗ב כִּ֣י אִוִּתִֽיהָ׃ 15 צֵ֭ידָהּ בָּרֵ֣ךְ אֲבָרֵ֑ךְ אֶ֝בְיוֹנֶ֗יהָ אַשְׂבִּ֥יעַֽ לָֽחֶם׃ 16 וְֽ֭כֹהֲנֶיהָ אַלְבִּ֣ישׁ יֶ֑שַׁע וַ֝חֲסִידֶ֗יהָ רַנֵּ֥ן יְרַנֵּֽנוּ׃ 17 שָׁ֤ם אַצְמִ֣יחַ קֶ֣רֶן לְדָוִ֑ד עָרַ֥כְתִּי נֵ֝֗ר לִמְשִׁיחִֽי׃ 18 א֭וֹיְבָיו אַלְבִּ֣ישׁ בֹּ֑שֶׁת וְ֝עָלָ֗יו יָצִ֥יץ נִזְרֹֽו׃


John


. . . The primary distinction between a sacred (hieroglyphic) script versus a demotic (profane script) is the distinction between a script retaining graphic elements associated with the spirit of the script, versus a script that doesn't. -----In a general sense, a hieroglyphic script is made up of holy (hieros) pictures (glyphs).

The "holiness" of hieroglyphic script is related to the fact that when it speaks of divinity, you can see the divine "between your eyes." -----The holy script is a picture of the divine (e.g. the the mark the bar mitzvah places "between his eyes").

A demotic script loses the unity of picture and meaning so that a demotic script allows the reader to conjure up his or her own idea (picture) in their mind. There's no pictographic element retained in the script. It's stripped of the pictographic glyphic element. It gives great leeway to the reader to interpret according to his or her own spirit, since the pictographic spirit of the author has been sacrificed (so to say):

Demotic writing developed around 600 BC. It was derived from Hieratic writing, but developed into a highly cursive form so that the pictographic element of some symbols was lost. Although many single symbols were still used to write whole words or concepts, the symbol did not necessarily visually resemble the concept it represented. As Demotic writing gained popularity, it began to replace Hieratic writing in the administrative context, though Hieratic continued to be used in religious texts. Demotic writing was used until roughly 400 AD, when all three scripts began to fall from use in favour of the Coptic alphabet.

The Relationship between Hieroglphic, Hieratic, and Demotic (Emphasis mine).

In the totapot narrative, Exodus chapter 13:9-16, the text speaks first of a mark (glyph) being memorialized "between the eyes" of the bar mitzvah (13:9). The bar mitzvah looks right at the actual fleshly sign/glyph immediately after the father tells him what he (the bar mitzvah alone) is looking at: i.e., the mark directly associated with leaving Egypt (what was required of the father to eat the Passover and leave Egypt).

But then in Exodus 13:16 this hieratic fleshly mark, the mark of circumcision, is made into a public ornament (totapot) that's still a hieroglyph of the actual mark of circumcision. And we don't even have to guess about what this totapot/ornament "between the eyes" looks like since scripture interprets scripture.

We have a second Passover narrative in Ezekiel chapter 9 with all the same players. Angels of death are going to pass through the land, just like the original Passover, and destroy anyone who doesn't wear the mark required to survive this Passover, i.e., the mark associated with the first Passover.

A "cross" (ktav ivri tav) is placed on the forehead of the fathers who are going to be spared the second Passover. The same mark that was uncovered at the first Passover, but was only for private viewing, is revealed at the second Passover (Ezek. 9).

What possible hieroglyph could capture what the bar mitzvah looks at in privacy after his father initiates him into the covenant by explaining the mark of initiation he received on the eighth day but whose meaning was withheld til bar mitzvah (the 13th year)?

The mark explained to the bar mitzvah retains its status as a holy glyph even at the second Passover (Ezek. 9) ---- Which is to say it doesn't become merely a demotic mark (the shel rosh), allowing anyone to interpret it as they wish (thereby covering up the "sacred" in most of the interpretations).

I will cloth its priests with salvation, and its devoted ones shall ever shout for joy. There I shall cause David's horn to sprout; there I have set in order a lamp for My anointed. His enemies I will cloth with shame, but upon him a priestly coronation will spring up and blossom

Psalms 132:17-18.
The Hirsch Tehillim uses four or five pages to associate Psalm 132 with not only Isaiah chapter 61, but with the sacred ornament that's Israel's priestly jewelry, the tefillin. Rabbi Hirsch associates the clothing of Messiah's priests with the sacred clothing spoken of in Isaiah chapter 61, which Rabbi Hirsch associates with the tefillin.

With that said, we can see, in Psalms 132, precisely the danger of the demotic standing in for the sacred since in the English translation of the Hebrew, the word for the "shame" (that will be worn by Messiah's enemies) is covered up precisely as Messiah's enemies use demotic allusions to cover-up the primary revelation associated with the Tanakh.

The Hebrew word for the "shame" associated with Messiah's enemies is (beit-shin-tav) בשת. This mightn't seem particularly remarkable until we realize that the word speaking of being clothed in "shame," i.e., Messiah's enemies being clothed in "shame" (so that they can be spotted by Messiah's priests), is constructed of the very cover-up associated with Messiah's enemies.

In other words, the premise of this thread is that Messiah's enemies misinterpret Exodus chapter 13 to cover-up the revelation that's found there. -----They represent the totapot with the shel rosh, the head tefillin, when surely they know that the black box that's the shel rosh is called the "beit" ב? And surely they know a "shin" ש is emblazoned on the outside of the "beit," such that if the "mark" that's supposed to be "between the eyes," (as revealed in the second Passover account) is a tav, as Ezekiel chapter 9 claims it is, then the beit and the shin literally cover up the "mark" associated with Passover in Ezekiel chapter 9.

This cover-up is such that the very words we see when we see the hieroglphic meaning of the shel rosh, i.e., the head tefillin, reveals not just the "shame" of trying to hide the revelation of Messiah, but precisely how he's hidden, and who hides him.

If we take the beit (the bayit) the shin (emblazon on both sides of the bayit) and the tav (which we know from Ezekiel chapter 9 is the true mark of totapot), we see that these three letters spell the word (beit-shin-tav) בשת, which is the very word Psalms 132 claims represents the "shame" that will cloth Messiah's enemies. And the beit ב and the shin ש are specifically used to cover-up the tav ת that's hidden beneath the shel rosh, the head tefillin (on the forehead).

According to Psalm 132, Messiah's enemies will cover up the true mark of Passover, which is the true mark of circumcision (the tav on the forehead), by clothing themselves with a beit and a shin that covers up the tav on the forehead. The shel rosh covers the tav that's all that would be on the forehead without the covering provided by the bayit ב and the shin ש.

When they do this, they're literally wearing (clothing themselves) with "shame" (bayit-shin-tav). The batim and the shin that make up the shel rosh cover the tav revealed in Ezekiel chapter 9, thereby revealing Messiah's enemies as those people who cloth themselves with "shame," which, when we discard with demotic cover-ups, can easily be seen to be the shel rosh:

Indeed, the symbolic dimension of Hebrew, as it appears in the sacred texts, disappears for the benefit of a purely utilitarian use of language. To be sure, in our desacralized world it is no longer a matter of consciously manipulating the magical virtualities of language in order to derive from it some personal gain. But when an entire society hijacks the language of its religious tradition to purely material ends, when it makes it into a mere instrument in the service of its immediate interests, it returns, without knowing it, to the attitude of the sorcerers of old. A "crude imitation" of the sacred text's language, modern Hebrew has emptied out the ancient words of their symbolic and religious signification in order to reduce them to mere indices of material reality.

Stephane Moses, Professor Emeritus at Hebrew University Jerusalem, quoted in Derrida's Acts of Religion.
Anyone who drains the hierogyphic element of sacred Hebrew for ethnicity publicizing purposes clothes themselves in shame and become enemies of Messiah; enemies of his revelation; enemies who claim he hasn't come, and may never come. Why should he. His enemies have things fully under-control when they present themselves as him, undercover, when they cover him, under their demotic denunciation that's their proud cover-up of the sacred.


John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
. . .


The Hebrew word for the "shame" associated with Messiah's enemies is (beit-shin-tav) בשת. This mightn't seem particularly remarkable until we realize that the word speaking of being clothed in "shame," i.e., Messiah's enemies being clothed in "shame" (so that they can be spotted by Messiah's priests), is constructed of the very cover-up associated with Messiah's enemies.

In other words, the premise of this thread is that Messiah's enemies misinterpret Exodus chapter 13 to cover-up the revelation that's found there. -----They represent the totapot with the shel rosh, the head tefillin, when surely they know that the black box that's the shel rosh is called the "beit" ב? And surely they know a "shin" ש is emblazoned on the outside of the "beit," such that if the "mark" that's supposed to be "between the eyes," (as revealed in the second Passover account) is a tav, as Ezekiel chapter 9 claims it is, then the beit and the shin literally cover up the "mark" associated with Passover in Ezekiel chapter 9.

This cover-up is such that the very words we see when we see the hieroglphic meaning of the shel rosh, i.e., the head tefillin, reveals not just the "shame" of trying to hide the revelation of Messiah, but precisely how he's hidden, and who hides him.

If we take the beit (the bayit) the shin (emblazon on both sides of the bayit) and the tav (which we know from Ezekiel chapter 9 is the true mark of totapot), we see that these three letters spell the word (beit-shin-tav) בשת, which is the very word Psalms 132 claims represents the "shame" that will cloth Messiah's enemies. And the beit ב and the shin ש are specifically used to cover-up the tav ת that's hidden beneath the shel rosh, the head tefillin (on the forehead).

According to Psalm 132, Messiah's enemies will cover up the true mark of Passover, which is the true mark of circumcision (the tav on the forehead), by clothing themselves with a beit and a shin that covers up the tav on the forehead. The shel rosh covers the tav that's all that would be on the forehead without the covering provided by the bayit ב and the shin ש.

When they do this, they're literally wearing (clothing themselves) with "shame" (bayit-shin-tav). The batim and the shin that make up the shel rosh cover the tav revealed in Ezekiel chapter 9, thereby revealing Messiah's enemies as those people who cloth themselves with "shame," which, when we discard with demotic cover-ups, can easily be seen to be the shel rosh:

Indeed, the symbolic dimension of Hebrew, as it appears in the sacred texts, disappears for the benefit of a purely utilitarian use of language. To be sure, in our desacralized world it is no longer a matter of consciously manipulating the magical virtualities of language in order to derive from it some personal gain. But when an entire society hijacks the language of its religious tradition to purely material ends, when it makes it into a mere instrument in the service of its immediate interests, it returns, without knowing it, to the attitude of the sorcerers of old. A "crude imitation" of the sacred text's language, modern Hebrew has emptied out the ancient words of their symbolic and religious signification in order to reduce them to mere indices of material reality.

Stephane Moses, Professor Emeritus at Hebrew University Jerusalem, quoted in Derrida's Acts of Religion.
Anyone who drains the hierogyphic element of sacred Hebrew for ethnicity publicizing purposes clothes themselves in shame and become enemies of Messiah; enemies of his revelation; enemies who claim he hasn't come, and may never come. Why should he. His enemies have things fully under-control when they present themselves as him, undercover, when they cover him, under their demotic denunciation that's their proud cover-up of the sacred.


John


Exodus 13:9 and 16 are directly related to the wearing of the tefillin. The first time the Jewish male dons the tefillin is on bar mitzvah. Exodus 12:42-48 establishes the "ordinance of the Passover" that will be observed by all the sons of Israel throughout all generations. The first mitzvah the sons of Israel perform on their 13th birthday is donning the tefillin, while the first thing the "ordinance of the Passover" establishes is that to eat the Passover you must be circumcised.

Circumcision is the requirement to eat the Passover. And eating the Passover is associated with having the Torah in your mouth (Exodus 13:9).

On the son's bar mitzvah the father explains that for the son to eat the Passover with adult Jews he must be circumcised. The son says "what's that" (13:14), so the father explains that to eat the prototype Passover lamb, the father was required to be circumcised. So the son says "Then circumcise me that I might eat the Passover as an adult Jew" ---to which the father explains that he's already circumcised. At which time the son goes and privately looks at the scar for the first time.

I can state from experience that I was probably around the age of bar mitzvah when I learned that that particular part of the organ wasn't natural. I'd previously just assumed that's how they came. I had no idea it was a scar. And as I've pointed out in the past, when I realized that it was a scar, I was a bit off put to say the least.

On his bar mitzvah, the Jewish boy is supposed to do just what I did when I realized that I was circumcised. I retired to a private place to examine what I never really saw since I assumed it was natural (such that there was nothing to look for, or at). -----As Sartre poignantly pointed out, you must be looking for something to actually see it.

On his bar mitzvah, the Jewish boy is told by his father that he's circumcised, and thus is already ready to eat the Passover as an adult, at which time the son want's to reexamine what he never really paid much attention to since he assumed it was the factory model.

Careful exegesis is conclusive that verse 16 of Exodus chapter 13 speaks of a public ornament associated with verse 9: an ornament worn publicly that signifies what is "between the eyes" of the bar mitzvah on his thirteenth birthday.

The tefillin represent that ornament. So their relationship to Exodus 13:9 is utterly important.

This is an extraordinary thesis on Abulafia's part, for he implicitly declares that the complete covenant, that is, the True Cross, belongs not to Christians but to Jews. . . Given Abulafia's sense of the cruciform nature of the divine name, impressed upon the body in circumcision, we can see that Abulafia's conception of the significance of circumcision echoes Chrisitian modalities . . . with respect to the . . . physical True Cross.

Robert J. Sagerman, The Serpent Kills or the Serpent Gives Life, p. 296-297.
Rabbi Abulafia came to the same conclusions found in the essay Brit Milah Di Da:

The zoharist’s claim that God’s “sign” was hidden/covered by the foreskin so that only after circumcision could it be seen. ----- So I knew that since no one has claimed to have found a cross "inscribed" on the organ of the Covenant, the cross would not be readily apparent to anyone not obsessive enough to actually be searching for it in opposition to their own lyin eyes.

An important revelation in this vein occurred while reading a Rudolf Bultmann discussion concerning the fact that Christians believe the sealing ministry of the Holy Spirit has already occurred, whereas Jews are still waiting for the pouring out of the Spirit. In that discussion Bultmann stated:

If Erich Dinkler is correct in saying that the sign of the cross was an eschatological sphragis already in Judaism, then it is easy to assume that the sealing was a real act whereby the person sealed was marked with the sign of the cross.
As I read this . . . a strange thought entered my mind. I went to the computer and typed “circumcision frenulum.” ---- The first site that came up had images of several circumcised organs showing the various ways that the foreskin is cut. I copied the second photo on the page, pasted it into Photoshop, and inverted the picture to a negative (ala the Shroud of Turin). To my amazement . . . there in front of me was a glowing crucifix (a Latin cross) in no wise below the standards one would expect should it be seen hanging in the Vatican.
To say, as Rabbi Abulafia said, that a Cross is found beneath the flesh that covers up the sign of God is to imply, with Sanhedrin 38b, that Adam's great crime in the Garden was epispasm: covering up the sign of God's Presence, the True Cross.

Which is all just a short prelude to the real topic of the thread, the tefillin gallivanting as the totapot when we can see by the very nature of the shel rosh that the head tefillin is precisely what Sanhedrin 38b accuses Adam of practicing: epispasm.

If Rabbi Abulafia is correct, and if the logic in the essay Brit Milah Di Da is correct, that a cross is uncovered at the covenant cutting, then it's very fitting that in the second Passover account a ktav ivri tav, a cross, is placed on the forehead as though it were the true shel rosh.

In Ezekiel chapter 9, a tav is placed on the forehead to save Jews from the impending Passover of the death angels who are going to kill anyone not wearing the mark of salvation from the angel of death. In Exodus 13:9, the sign is circumcision, while Exodus 13:16 is less forthcoming about what the totapot, the ornament associated with circumcision is.

Ezekiel chapter 9 inadvertently reveals precisely what the totapot is since Ezekiel chapter nine is explicit about what is placed "between the eyes" on the forehead, of those who will be spared the impending death of the Passing over of the angel of death.

If Abulafia is correct, and Brit Milah Di Da is correct, about the sign of circumcision being a "cross" (the ktav ivri tav) then all the foregoing segues perfectly into Psalms 132 (which Rabbi Hirsch makes speak of the tefillin) which says that the enemies of Messiah (God's "anointed") will be clothed not with Yeshua (Salvation, the sign of the cross) but with, get this, beit-shin-tav! "Shame."

The shel rosh (head bayit) is undeniably a "beit." The beit is ornamented with a shin, such that if this beit-shin is placed right smack over the ktav ivri tav found in Ezekiel 9 (as the totapot) then the shel rosh (head tefillin) covers up the mark of circumcision precisely as Sanhedrin 38b claims Adam's original sin was covering up the circumcised body, implying that those who don the shel rosh, to ornament their body, are placing a cover-up over the true totapot, the cross, and for their trouble are spelling out the word "shame" (beit-shin-tav) implying that in truth they're opposed to the True Cross, such that for them it's niddah, unclean, pagan, a mark of unbelief rather than Salvation.

Psalms 132:16-18 speaks of two ornaments. One is Salvation (the cross) worn by Messiah's true priests. The other ornament is called "Shame" and is spelled "beit-shin-tav." ----- It's one or the other. You wear a cross, Salvation, or you wear a beit, with a shin, to cover the cross uncovered in Ezekiel chapter 9.


John
 
Top