• 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!

Ontology, Meontology, Tautology.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Dude. . .This whole theory is kaput. . . Niddah blood is "דמים"

There are only two bloods that aren't niddah, the blood of a sacrifice on the altar, and the blood of circumcision (which is itself a ritual sacrifice). And there's a reason for this: they (these two bloods) represent "male" blood rather than "female" blood. Female blood is niddah, unclean, for the most fundamental and obvious of reasons: blood is supposed to represent the soul, which is invisible, and thus masculine, in relationship to the physical, visible, body. Body and soul form the unitary binary (visible/physical versus invisible/soulish) through which all human thought arises. If blood is female, then the duality, the binary unity that's the source of all thought is destroyed. If blood is female, like body (i.e., physicality), then you have no body/soul style duality.

Which segues perfectly into ritual circumcision since it ritually removes the physical, bodily, "masculinity" that's niddah for the opposite reason that female blood is niddah. "Male" flesh destroys the biblical binary of male/female precisely as "female" blood destroys that binary. You can't have female blood, or male flesh, and not destroy the very god-given binary unity (a unity that protects difference) that makes thought, and particularly thought that recognizes the ultimate binary, physical/visible creation versus invisible/non-physical God, function.

So you see, the dude really does abide. :D




John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
There are only two bloods that aren't niddah, the blood of a sacrifice on the altar, and the blood of circumcision (which is itself a ritual sacrifice). And there's a reason for this: they (these two bloods) represent "male" blood rather than "female" blood. Female blood is niddah, unclean, for the most fundamental and obvious of reasons: blood is supposed to represent the soul, which is invisible, and thus masculine, in relationship to the physical, visible, body. Body and soul form the unitary binary (visible/physical versus invisible/soulish) through which all human thought arises. If blood is female, then the duality, the binary unity that's the source of all thought is destroyed. If blood is female, like body (i.e., physicality), then you have no body/soul style duality.

Which segues perfectly into ritual circumcision since it ritually removes the physical, bodily, "masculinity" that's niddah for the opposite reason that female blood is niddah. "Male" flesh destroys the biblical binary of male/female precisely as "female" blood destroys that binary. You can't have female blood, or male flesh, and not destroy the very god-given binary unity (a unity that protects difference) that makes thought, and particularly thought that recognizes the ultimate binary, physical/visible creation versus invisible/non-physical God, function.

So you see, the dude really does abide. :D


Someone might say, "But John, your interlocutor pointed out that in the scripture female blood (which is niddah) is spelled דמים and not דמות: it's spelled with a masculine suffix ים rather than a feminine suffix ות"? "Shouldn't female blood be spelled with a feminine suffix if it's niddah in the sense you explain in the opening message"? "Why is it spelled דמים as if it's male blood"?

All "blood" in scripture has a masculine suffix ים since scripture recognizes the binary duality of body versus soul, such that the title of this thread comes into play when we realize that although "blood" symbolizes the non-physical and invisible, it is, nevertheless, both physical and visible.

Precisely because of this prevalence of metaphorical statement, and widespread use of figures of speech drawn from the human image, it becomes all the more necessary to emphasize that they are allegorical truths and not actual descriptions of reality. For there was a certain danger that the word pictures, or imagistic depictions, of scared symbols in the Bible -- and even more so in Kabbalah -- could lead to a crude material apprehension of the divine essence and higher reality. Hence the prohibition against all depiction of holiness through physical plastic means. Accompanying it, and perhaps stemming from this extreme revulsion to plastic semblance of the Divine, Jewish tradition also maintains a certain suspicion of man's tendency to design, elaborate, and portray himself.

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, The Thirteen Petalled Rose, p. 84-85.​

Rabbi Steinsaltz statement quoted above (and in another thread) segues into the very heart, soul, and blood, of this thread, since in the statement above, Rabbi Steinsaltz leaves the greatest problem in Judeo/Christian theologizing just hanging there to look at as though the invisible and the visible, though they shant ever transgress their boundaries, can be spoken about without transgressing their boundaries. In other words, when Rabbi Steinsaltz notes the great danger of confusing the invisible-divine, with its visible (physical/plastic) analogues, he assumes, that with care, carefully that is, this problematic boundary can still be negotiated. In other places he notes the problem of confusing the metaphysical, with the physical. And although he concedes they have a relationship, the greatest danger lies in the lie that they have a one-to-one, or a parallel relationship.

But if they don't have a one-to-one, or a parallel relationship, then what is the nature of their relationship? That is what Rabbi Steinsaltz, with much of modern Judaism, leaves unanswered, thereby creating a real and genuine theological problem well understood by Professor Elliot R. Wolfson:

The undercurrent of this book is the recognition of the codependency of religion and idolatry. Contrary to what is commonly held to be the theological import of monotheism and the greatest contribution of ancient Israel and later Judaism to the history of religion, the turning toward God is not a turning away from Idol images.

Giving Beyond the Gift, Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Judge Abraham Lieberman Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University.​



John
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
There are only two bloods that aren't niddah, the blood of a sacrifice on the altar, and the blood of circumcision (which is itself a ritual sacrifice). And there's a reason for this: they (these two bloods) represent "male" blood rather than "female" blood.
100% FALSE!

Example:

When a woman urinated and excreted blood together with the urine, she is pure. [This applies] whether she was standing or sitting while urinating. Even if she has physical sensations and her body shudders, she need not suspect [that the blood originated in the uterus]. Instead, the sensation is associated with her urination [and] urine does not originate in the uterus. Instead, this blood [stems from] a wound in the colon or in the kidney.

Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 5:17
Not all blood from a woman is niddah!
blood is niddah, unclean, for the most fundamental and obvious of reasons: blood is supposed to represent the soul, which is invisible, and thus masculine, in relationship to the physical, visible, body.
the Jewish soul is feminine. So no.
Body and soul form the unitary binary (visible/physical versus invisible/soulish) through which all human thought arises. If blood is female, then the duality, the binary unity that's the source of all thought is destroyed. If blood is female, like body (i.e., physicality), then you have no body/soul style duality.
So, all blood is masculine regardless of which gender produces it. Hence "דם" and "דמים" NOT "דמות". Your theory is still kaput.
Which segues perfectly into ritual circumcision since it ritually removes the physical, bodily, "masculinity" that's niddah for the opposite reason that female blood is niddah.
Garbage in >>> Garbage out. If you're wrong about female blood, you're wrong about circumcision too. See how that works.
"Male" flesh destroys the biblical binary of male/female precisely as "female" blood destroys that binary. You can't have female blood, or male flesh, and not destroy the very god-given binary unity (a unity that protects difference) that makes thought, and particularly thought that recognizes the ultimate binary, physical/visible creation versus invisible/non-physical God, function.
Since female blood is not impure, this is all moot.



 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Someone might say, "But John, your interlocutor pointed out that in the scripture female blood (which is niddah) is spelled דמים and not דמות: it's spelled with a masculine suffix ים rather than a feminine suffix ות"? "Shouldn't female blood be spelled with a feminine suffix if it's niddah in the sense you explain in the opening message"? "Why is it spelled דמים as if it's male blood"?
Because it's totally different word with a different meaning. "דמות" is NOT blood of any kind.

Klein Dictionary, דְּמוּת 1

All "blood" in scripture has a masculine suffix ים since scripture recognizes the binary duality of body versus soul, such that the title of this thread comes into play when we realize that although "blood" symbolizes the non-physical and invisible, it is, nevertheless, both physical and visible.
Blood is blood. Soul is soul. Rabbi Hirsch cautioned against this. Niddah blood is a specific case. It is impure because of the assumed presence of a human embryo in the menstrual blood.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
But if they don't have a one-to-one, or a parallel

relationship, then what is the nature of their relationship? That is what Rabbi Steinsaltz, with much of modern Judaism, leaves unanswered, thereby creating a real and genuine theological problem
It's not a problem. It *was* a problem.
The undercurrent of this book is the recognition of the codependency of religion and idolatry. Contrary to what is commonly held to be the theological import of monotheism and the greatest contribution of ancient Israel and later Judaism to the history of religion, the turning toward God is not a turning away from Idol images.

Giving Beyond the Gift, Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Judge Abraham Lieberman Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University.
Yeah, this comes from someone who sees a king in a crown and imagines that the king's head is a phallus and the crown is a vagina. He's a joke.

From the preface of Circle in the Square: by Wolfson:

Screenshot_20221212_122819.jpg


And here on page 8, Wolfson presumes that dancing is sexual.

Screenshot_20221212_123133.jpg


Here's an obvious mistranslation which he permits so that the text sounds more phallic:

Screenshot_20221212_124305.jpg


It doesn't say "Holy Phallus". That's a lie. it actually says "Holy Covenant". That would indicate the act of circumcision, not the phallus itself. But, Wolfson is not concerned with accuracy just spectacle.

I'll also point out that he repeatedly goes back to one specific source Joseph of Hamadan for the most lurid depictions, but quotes 2nd hand through a dissertation, and clearly he is not correcting translation errors. So there really isn't a pattern; he exagerates.
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
100% FALSE!

Then there's no point in discussing it.

Not all blood from a woman is niddah!

Is some blood in a woman, or outside of her, invisible soul (and the rest just plain ole physical blood)? Or are we falling into the Steinsaltz noted error of confusing metaphor with reality, and metaphysics with physics?

Throughout scripture when all but divine blood is discussed, the word is masculine דמים. Why is female blood דמים when she's a female? Why wouldn't her blood be feminine דמות?

Her blood isn't feminine because in the larger, metaphysical, metaphorical sense, all blood represents invisible soul, which is masculine, while the rest of her body is female.

When scripture speaks of something akin to divine blood, or the blood of God's angelic kabod, or Shekinah, or dwelling, it doesn't use דמים. It uses "likeness" דמות.

the Jewish soul is feminine.

Then if Jewish soul is feminine, it's in the "likeness" דמות of God's blood or soul. If the Jewish soul is feminine, it's part of the creation noted in Genesis 1:26. That passage doesn't discuss the Christian soul which isn't created in the "likeness" דמות of Gevurah.

Garbage in >>> Garbage out. If you're wrong about female blood, you're wrong about circumcision too.

Then there's no point discussing it.



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Blood is blood. Soul is soul. Rabbi Hirsch cautioned against this. Niddah blood is a specific case. It is impure because of the assumed presence of a human embryo in the menstrual blood.

Soul is invisible and meontological. So it's represented by "blood." To say "soul is soul" assumes you've seen soul, or have it in a mason jar somewhere?


John
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Is some blood in a woman, or outside of her, invisible soul (and the rest just plain ole physical blood)? Or are we falling into the Steinsaltz noted error of confusing metaphor with reality, and metaphysics with physics?
It is the imagined corpse in the menstrual blood that makes a woman inpure. Any Jewish person who comes in contact with a corpse is impure. The fact that it's in blood, is the only reason this is an issue. It has nothing to do with soul or blood. It has to do with the impurity resulting from contact with a dead body.
Throughout scripture when all but divine blood is discussed, the word is masculine דמים. Why is female blood דמים when she's a female?
It's a totally fair question. The blood is what powers the muscles in the body. It's seen as the source of physical strength. Masculine stereotype is strong, outgoing, the conquerer. Blood was deemed to be the source of those characteristics.
Why wouldn't her blood be feminine דמות?
Because all people have the same blood regardless of physical gender. All people can be strong, outgoing, conquerers.
Her blood isn't feminine because in the larger, metaphysical, metaphorical sense, all blood represents invisible soul, which is masculine, while the rest of her body is female.
Soul is feminine. Blood is masculine. Regardless of the vessel. Does that help?
When scripture speaks of something akin to divine blood, or the blood of God's angelic kabod, or Shekinah, or dwelling, it doesn't use דמים. It uses "likeness" דמות.

וילך המלך אחז לקראת תגלת פלאסר מלך־אשור דומשק וירא את־המזבח אשר בדמשק וישלח המלך אחז אל־אוריה הכהן את־דמות המזבח ואת־תבניתו לכל־מעשהו׃

And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, and saw an altar that was at Damascus; and king Ahaz sent to Uriah the priest the model of the altar, and its pattern, according to all its workmanship.
No blood here.

קול המון בהרים דמות עם־רב קול שאון ממלכות גוים נאספים יהוה צבאות מפקד צבא מלחמה׃

The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like that of a great crowd; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together; the Lord of hosts prepares his war troops.
It's noise "in the pattern of" a great crowd. Not blood.


ודמות פניהם פני אדם ופני אריה אל־הימין לארבעתם ופני־שור מהשמאול לארבעתן ופני־נשר לארבעתן׃

As for the likeness of their faces, the four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side; and the four had the face of an ox on the left side; the four also had the face of an eagle.
It's describing how their faces looked, not the blood of their faces.

וממעל לרקיע אשר על־ראשם כמראה אבן־ספיר דמות כסא ועל דמות הכסא דמות כמראה אדם עליו מלמעלה׃

And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like lapis lazuli; and upon the likeness of the throne was a likeness like the appearance of a man upon it.
It wasn't the blood of a throne.

Hopefully this is enough examples to confirm that it's a rough approximation of the real thing. A dummy. A puppet.

Bring some examples where the verse uses "דמות" and it is not a dummy of the original. Show where it is *actually* blood. The representation / symbol / poetic allusion to blood would not bring actual impurity regardess of whether it was menstrual blood or not.
Then if Jewish soul is feminine, it's in the "likeness" דמות of God's blood or soul.
You did fine until the equivilence to blood. That's based solely on the similarity of the two words in hebrew. Rabbi Hirsch says:

Screenshot_20221212_172118.jpg


"... a solemn warning to all Noachides: they are obligated to differentiate between the blood and the soul ... Blood is not the soul."

Blood is blood. Soul is soul. Blood is not soul. Soul is not blood. Speaking about the likeness of our soul to the likeness of whatever it is that corresponds to a soul in God, is not blood.

If the Jewish soul is feminine, it's part of the creation noted in Genesis 1:26. That passage doesn't discuss the Christian soul which isn't created in the "likeness" דמות of Gevurah.
Everyone has a nefesh ( feminine ), everyone has a ruach ( feminine ). So they're feminine. I don't think there's anything written about a "Christian soul". Perhaps there's something in talmud; but, that's not part of the story; nor is it word of God scripture.

In Gen 1:26, why must there be a soul? Polar opposites were created in a pair and blessed with dominion over all creatures great and small. If you like the magnet metaphor, what is the soul of a magnet? It exists so it must have one. It would be a very very basic soul nothing like a human being. Does it make sense to say it has a nefesh? No. There's a spiritual component, for sure, but not a soul.
Soul is invisible and meontological. So it's represented by "blood." To say "soul is soul" assumes you've seen soul, or have it in a mason jar somewhere?
Soul is a concept like truth, justice, teamwork. None of these go in a mason jar. Blood can go in a mason jar. So there's a significant difference between soul and blood.

Again, the representation of impurity, the symbol of something impure, the idea of something impure, does not transmit impurity.
Neither he, nor I, are on your level yet. Show us some brotherly patience.
Mistranslating "Sod brit hakodesh" as "secret of the holy phallus" is enough to discredit him as a source. If I know the difference, he should know the difference.
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
It is the imagined corpse in the menstrual blood that makes a woman inpure. Any Jewish person who comes in contact with a corpse is impure. The fact that it's in blood, is the only reason this is an issue. It has nothing to do with soul or blood. It has to do with the impurity resulting from contact with a dead body.

Interesting. But not sure what "imagined corpse in the menstrual blood" means?

John D. Brey said:
Why wouldn't her blood be feminine דמות?​

Because all people have the same blood regardless of physical gender.

All cells, including blood, have chromosomes. Male blood has x and y chromosomes, and female blood has just x. So female blood can be determined by the absence of y chromosomes.

The gender of a fetus can be determined by searching for traces of Y chromosome in the mother's blood stream after pregnancy. If there's any trace, the child will be a male since there's normally no trace of y chromosome in the mother's blood.

Furthermore, a mother is unclean for twice as long with a female than a male implying a difference in the blood of the female fetus versus the blood of the male fetus.

Soul is feminine. Blood is masculine. Regardless of the vessel. Does that help?

THE BREATH OF (NISHMATH) LIFE. It has five names: nefesh, neshamah, hayyah, ruah, yehidah. Nefesh is the blood: For the blood is the nefesh---E.V. "life" (Deut. xii, 23). . . Neshamah is the breath; as people say, His breathing is good. Hayyah (lit. "living") : because all the limbs are mortal, whereas this is immortal in the body. Yehidah (unique) : because all the limbs are duplicated, whereas this is unique in the body.

Midrash Rabbah, Bere****h, xiv, 9.​

Rabbi Hirsch says, "on the altar blood represents the soul."

The blood, then, is the physical representative of the soul. Through the blood, the soul rules the body. . . The animal soul---together with the body--- is formed from the earth. By contrast, the source of man's soul is not the source of his earthly frame; rather, God, as it were, breathed into man a spark of His Own essence. . . But your blood, which belongs to your souls, is Mine.

The Hirsch Chumash, Bereshis 9:6.​



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Mistranslating "Sod brit hakodesh" as "secret of the holy phallus" is enough to discredit him as a source. If I know the difference, he should know the difference.

In normal Aramaic and Hebrew, the specific verbal conjugations determines which meaning of the root applies, but the Zohar ignores or flouts rules of grammar ----confusing the conjugations, playing with multiple meanings, often leaving the reader stumped and wondering.

Daniel Matt, Intro to the Pritzker Edition Zohar.

We now come to the problem of the sexual symbolism which throughout the Kabbalah, is inseparable from the image of the Tsaddik. In terms of mirroring the structure of Adam Kadmon in the human body, the ninth Sefirah not only corresponds to the phallus; it is also, by reason of this allocation, the site of the circumcision, the sign of the Covenant.

Gershom Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the God-head, p. 106.​



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Soul is a concept like truth, justice, teamwork. None of these go in a mason jar. Blood can go in a mason jar. So there's a significant difference between soul and blood.

This is precisely the distinction Rabbi Steinsaltz is discussing when he speaks of the danger of thinking that because a soul doesn't have a genuine physicality it's not real, or that because it's real, it must have a genuine physicality.

According to Rabbi Hirsch, blood is the physical analogue for soul. That doesn't mean blood really is soul. But it really does represent soul in scripture. How it does that is part of the main topic I had hoped to discuss in this thread.



John
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Interesting. But not sure what "imagined corpse in the menstrual blood" means?
Now, as medically advanced people, we know that the mentrual blood doesn't contain an itty-bitty embryo aka a corpse. Primitive people didn't know that. All they knew was if intercourse was successful, the periodic flow would cease, and a baby-human-body developed. At some point an assumption was made that the menstrual blood contained a very small undeveloped body, a corpse.

Now, modern times, the practice of considering menstrual blood as a source for impurity is based on the same principle, but, it's known that there isn't a real itty-bitty corpse in the blood. The corspe is , for lack of better word, imagined to be there. The egg and the blood and the potentiality for human life are considered a source for impurity in the same way that a corpse would, but, it's understood that there isn't a real body in the blood. Not anymore. That's why I said "imagined".

FWIW, semen also is a source of impurity. So, it's not all focused on the women. But for that one, I don't know the reasoning.
THE BREATH OF (NISHMATH) LIFE. It has five names: nefesh, neshamah, hayyah, ruah, yehidah. Nefesh is the blood: For the blood is the nefesh---E.V. "life" (Deut. xii, 23). . . Neshamah is the breath; as people say, His breathing is good. Hayyah (lit. "living") : because all the limbs are mortal, whereas this is immortal in the body. Yehidah (unique) : because all the limbs are duplicated, whereas this is unique in the body.

Midrash Rabbah, Bere****h, xiv, 9.
Good! Details matter though. It's not making an equivilence. It is simply *naming* the components of the breath of life.

Here's what it says in the Hebrew at the beginning of the passage you quoted.

... חֲמִשָּׁה שֵׁמוֹת נִקְרְאוּ לָהּ: נֶפֶשׁ, רוּחַ, נְשָׁמָה, יְחִידָה, חַיָּה

Five names we call it: Nefesh, Ruach, Neshama, Yechida, Chaya...
So we know that soul is not literally blood. It's just represented by blood. That's just it's name. The sefaria translation left out the word "call", so, it's a little less obvious that it's not literal.

But! Let's pretend that Genesis Rabbah does make a direct equivilence between soul and blood. That would mean 1 Rabbi makes a direct equivilence based on 1 verse ( maybe 2 ). Rabbi Hirsch, whom you respect, explicitly disagrees. So that makes it 1 to 1, a tie.

Here's another source, the Rambam. Notice that he brings many verses. He also is careful to designate that these are names, not literal equivilences. In the english below, they use the word "denotes". In the Hebrew, it's "גם כן שם" - "also yes named". Further, he differentiates between human nefesh and divine nefesh. So now it's 2 to 1 in favor of a non-literal understanding of the connection between soul and blood. And that's ignoring the literal words of Genesis Rabbah which actually agrees with Rambam. These are only names, not literal equivilence.

THE Hebrew nefesh (soul) is a homonymous noun, signifying the vitality which is common to all living, sentient beings. E.g. “wherein there is a living soul” (nefesh) (Gen. 1:30). It denotes also blood,” as in “Thou shalt not eat the blood (nefesh) with the meat” (Deut. 12:23). Another signification of the term is “reason,” that is, the distinguishing characteristic of man, as in “As the Lord liveth that made us this soul” (Jer. 38:16). It denotes also the part of man that remains after his death (nefesh, soul) comp. “But the soul (nefesh) of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life (1 Sam. 25:29). Lastly, it denotes “will”; comp. “To bind his princes at his will” (be-nafsho) (Ps. 105:22); “Thou wilt not deliver me unto the will (be-nefesh) of my enemies” (Ps. 41:3); and according to my opinion, it has this meaning also in the following passages, “If it be your will (nafshekem) that I should bury my dead” (Gen. 23:8); “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my will (nafshi) could not be toward this people” (Jer. 15:1), that is, I had no pleasure in them, I did not wish to preserve them. When nefesh is used in reference to God, it has the meaning “will,” as we have already explained with reference to the passage, “That shall do according to that which is in my will (bi-lebabi) and in mine intention (be-nafshi)” (1 Sam. 2:35).

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1 41
Rambam clearly gives a more complete picture. Hopefully this helps clarify what's going on when soul and blood are compared.
Rabbi Hirsch says, "on the altar blood represents the soul."

The blood, then, is the physical representative of the soul. Through the blood, the soul rules the body. . . The animal soul---together with the body--- is formed from the earth. By contrast, the source of man's soul is not the source of his earthly frame; rather, God, as it were, breathed into man a spark of His Own essence. . . But your blood, which belongs to your souls, is Mine.

The Hirsch Chumash, Bereshis 9:6.
**represnts**

And just a few pages back he cautions repeatedly that soul is NOT blood, and that a literal equivilance is pagan. So, he begins with warning the reader "don't think that soul is literally blood". Then later he talks about it representing blood. Please don't overlook the previous two warnings that very closely preceed the commentary on 9:6.


 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
In normal Aramaic and Hebrew, the specific verbal conjugations determines which meaning of the root applies, but the Zohar ignores or flouts rules of grammar ----confusing the conjugations, playing with multiple meanings, often leaving the reader stumped and wondering.

Daniel Matt, Intro to the Pritzker Edition Zohar.
We're discussing the words "Sod B'rit HaKodesh". Where is the verb? These are all nouns. Also, this is not Zohar! It's from a later sage writing commentary. So the comment from Daniel Matt doesn't apply. Wolfson is clearly not checking translations of his sources. There should be a big bold warning at the beginning of is books: "These conclusions are based on english translations which I cannot/have not verified."

It's pretty easy to see that there's funny business going on if a person examines Wolfson's claims and balances them against what he considers evidence. I've already mentioned that he "presumes" ( his word ) that dancing is sexual. I already showed that he views a person in a crown as sexual. Both absurd. Here he claims that a golden bowl is phallic. Ummmm a bowl is the opposite of a phallus. It's not long, it's not skinny, there's no penetration.

Screenshot_20221213_082400.jpg



So what is Joseph of Hamadan describing? Something closer to this:


Screenshot_20221213_082843.jpg



Now let's look at how Rabbi Gikatilla describes Yesod:

Gates of Light page 53: The first description of Yesod in the book:

... and from the seventy channels that come from the middle line. For all these emanations, pathways, gateways, bridges, various flames, and channels flow through Netzach and Hod and are fused together through the attribute of El Chay which is called Yesod.

"From there is a well ... " ( Numbers 21:16 )
This verse means that we enter the highest pool, the Breichah, known as the name Adonay from the attribute of Yesod.
The attribute of Yesod is likened to a pool, a well, or perhaps a golden bowl. But we can't stop here, the analogy continues using various names and verses. Yesod is an attribute of El Chay, El Chay, below, is equated with the concept of "Tzadik". I'm including the quote below because it confirms that the Rabbi is describing Jewish mysticism, not something else because of the importance afforded to performing the commandents. Jewish mystism as opposed to other foreign practices encourages the physical execution of mitzvot. But also this confirms the imagery of overflowing vessels like the wine glasses pictured above.

Gates of Light: page 61

Know the attribute El Chay -- called Tzadik -- stands as an overseer of humanity and when he sees them involved in Torah study and Mitzvot yearning to purify themselves while behaving in purity and cleaness, then the attribute Tzadik spreads and broadens filling itself with a vast array of everflow and energy from above in order to empty it into the attribute of Adonay, which provides a great reward to those who cleave to the Torah and the commandments purifying themselves.
Spreading, broadening like a fluid being poured into a glass. The stream broadens and flattens at the bottom ( the foundation ) of the glass or bowl.

So, Wolfson and others make a mistake when comparing the golden bowl to a literal phallus. They translate the words incorrectly, they ignore the warnings not to view these as literal equivilences, and a crude misapprehension results. Wolfson, evidentally, does not check nor correct mistranslations. And he takes something shaped and behaving like a bowl or a cup as a phallus.

We now come to the problem of the sexual symbolism which throughout the Kabbalah, is inseparable from the image of the Tsaddik. In terms of mirroring the structure of Adam Kadmon in the human body, the ninth Sefirah not only corresponds to the phallus; it is also, by reason of this allocation, the site of the circumcision, the sign of the Covenant.

Gershom Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the God-head, p. 106.
Take note of the exagerations here. "Sexual symbolism throughout Kabbalah". That's not true. There are elements of affection, yearning, and union in some passages in the original texts. "Is inseperable" that's a lie. "In terms of the mirroring" the original texts do not mirror, they allude, they imply. Later commentary might "mirror".

Scholem is not speaking about Kabbalah, he is talking about later commentary.
This is precisely the distinction Rabbi Steinsaltz is discussing when he speaks of the danger of thinking that because a soul doesn't have a genuine physical analogue (a genuine physicality) it's not real, or that because it is real, it must have a genuine physicality.
Yes. He is warning against thinking soul is literally blood. I never said the soul isn't "real", All I said was the soul is not material. God did not lend literal blood to humans; God does not bleed.
According to Rabbi Hirsch, blood is the physical analogue for soul. That doesn't mean blood really is soul. But it really does represent soul in scripture.
Great! We agree! So now, hopefully, there will no longer be any accusations that women have impure blood by default.
How it does that is part of the main topic I had hoped to discuss in this thread.
Good. However, you started the thread with an etremely offensive statement about women and attempted to vaidate that with Jewish words and concepts. That's a pretty big distraction if what you intend to do is explore the symbolism of blood in scripture.

Please proceed, I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Again, the representation of impurity, the symbol of something impure, the idea of something impure, does not transmit impurity.

"Impurity" is itself an idea. It, "impurity" exists, and spreads, as memes always spread, through ideation, thought, communication.

One who, by [touching] a corpse, comes into contact with the soul of a man, who is destined to die, and does not purify himself, has defiled the Dwelling Place of God; that soul will be uprooted from Israel.

The Hirsch Chumash, Bemidbar, 19:13.​

Rabbi Hirsch interprets nefesh נפש as "soul" and says that anyone who comes in contact with the soul of a man, who is destined to die (?) and does not purify himself, has defiled the Dwelling Place (tabernacle) of God. What Rabbi Hirsch says in commenting on this verse justifies the fact that "impurity" isn't a physical property of a corpse (such that it transfers physically from the corpse to the living body) but is merely an idea, or concept, transferred the way all memes are transferred, through communication, thought, ideation:

Had it said כל הנוגע בנפש אדם אשר מת, the implication would have been that the corpse represents the נפש that died or the נפש of a dead person. However, נפש האדם [the soul of the man] and נפש האדאמ אשר ימות [the soul of a man who will die] are to be distinguished from נפש אדם [man's soul] and נפש האדאמ אשר ימות [the soul of man that's dead]. נפש אדם [soul of man] is the soul of an individual person, and if this person dies, then his soul is נפש אדם אשר מת [the soul of a man that is dead]. By contrast, נפש האדם [soul of the man] is the soul of man in general, the soul of man in his character as human being.​

Rabbi Hirsch is distinguishing between the individual soul of a dead man, versus mankind's soul as a general characteristic of fallen mankind. He is saying that coming in contact with a dead man's soul isn't what makes a person unclean. The uncleanness isn't a true property of an actual corpse. The actual corpse is merely an emblem of the fact that all men in this broken realm are slaves of death:

האדם אשר ימות is not a man who has died, but who is destined to die, man as mortal.​

A corpse isn't a carrier of uncleanness such that by coming in contact with it it's dirtiness makes you unclean, like, perhaps, how viruses transfer through the nearby air. Being near a corpse should transfer the idea that we are all subject to death. That's what the corpse transfers: an idea, a concept, a meme:

Accordingly, נפש האדם אשר ימות is the soul of man who is destined to die, the soul of mortal man. Every corpse represents נפש האדם אשר ימות, man over whom death prevails.​



John
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
"Impurity" is itself an idea. It, "impurity" exists, and spreads, as memes always spread, through ideation, thought, communication.

One who, by [touching] a corpse, comes into contact with the soul of a man, who is destined to die, and does not purify himself, has defiled the Dwelling Place of God; that soul will be uprooted from Israel.

The Hirsch Chumash, Bemidbar, 19:13.​

Rabbi Hirsch interprets nefesh נפש as "soul" and says that anyone who comes in contact with the soul of a man, who is destined to die (?) and does not purify himself, has defiled the Dwelling Place (tabernacle) of God. What Rabbi Hirsch says in commenting on this verse justifies the fact that "impurity" isn't a physical property of a corpse (such that it transfers physically from the corpse to the living body) but is merely an idea, or concept, transferred the way all memes are transferred, through communication, thought, ideation:

Had it said כל הנוגע בנפש אדם אשר מת, the implication would have been that the corpse represents the נפש that died or the נפש of a dead person. However, נפש האדם [the soul of the man] and נפש האדאמ אשר ימות [the soul of a man who will die] are to be distinguished from נפש אדם [man's soul] and נפש האדאמ אשר ימות [the soul of man that's dead]. נפש אדם [soul of man] is the soul of an individual person, and if this person dies, then his soul is נפש אדם אשר מת [the soul of a man that is dead]. By contrast, נפש האדם [soul of the man] is the soul of man in general, the soul of man in his character as human being.​

Rabbi Hirsch is distinguishing between the individual soul of a dead man, versus mankind's soul as a general characteristic of fallen mankind. He is saying that coming in contact with a dead man's soul isn't what makes a person unclean. The uncleanness isn't a true property of an actual corpse. The actual corpse is merely an emblem of the fact that all men in this broken realm are slaves of death:

האדם אשר ימות is not a man who has died, but who is destined to die, man as mortal.​

A corpse isn't a carrier of uncleanness such that by coming in contact with it it's dirtiness makes you unclean, like, perhaps, how viruses transfer through the nearby air. Being near a corpse should transfer the idea that we are all subject to death. That's what the corpse transfers: an idea, a concept, a meme:

Accordingly, נפש האדם אשר ימות is the soul of man who is destined to die, the soul of mortal man. Every corpse represents נפש האדם אשר ימות, man over whom death prevails.​



John
I understand it a little differently. But my understanding on this could be wrong. You've made an important point about transmission of impure thoughts, and ideas. I had not considered that.

These laws are Chukim, meaning, they do not have rational, logical, mechanisms for the human mind to attach. By their nature, they don't make sense. So, the good news is, there's plenty of room for speculation. The bad news is, there won't be conclusive explanations.

Regarding blood and symbolism, I'm not sure there's much here to forward that topic.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Now, as medically advanced people, we know that the mentrual blood doesn't contain an itty-bitty embryo aka a corpse. Primitive people didn't know that. All they knew was if intercourse was successful, the periodic flow would cease, and a baby-human-body developed. At some point an assumption was made that the menstrual blood contained a very small undeveloped body, a corpse.

Now, modern times, the practice of considering menstrual blood as a source for impurity is based on the same principle, but, it's known that there isn't a real itty-bitty corpse in the blood. The corspe is , for lack of better word, imagined to be there. The egg and the blood and the potentiality for human life are considered a source for impurity in the same way that a corpse would, but, it's understood that there isn't a real body in the blood. Not anymore. That's why I said "imagined".

FWIW, semen also is a source of impurity. So, it's not all focused on the women. But for that one, I don't know the reasoning.

The statement above, linked with the quotation I gave from Rabbi Hirsch pointing out that ritual uncleanness isn't an actual disease (but recognition that we're all born already a slave to death, i.e., will all become corpses eventually) is right in line with the topic of this thread, and even segues nicely into the somewhat prolonged back and forth recently about Yesod and Tiferet.

In brief (so to say) there's a "secret" סד related to the yod י of Ye-sod י–סד. And since the sages claim the yod is the mark of circumcision, the "secret of the yod," is the secret of circumcision. This secret of circumcision (Yesod) is directly related to Tiferet. Tiferet, and Yesod, are parts of an anthropomorphism related to the "image" and "likeness" דמות of "man" in relationship to the godhead, and vice versa.

I delight greatly in the Lord; my soul rejoices in my God. For he hath clothed me with garments of salvation ישע and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness צדקה.

Isaiah 61:10.​

Rabbi Gitkatilla quotes this verse in relationship to Tiferet (p. 223). He says on page 224 that Tiferet represents the garment of the priest (which naturally includes the chosen חשן between the kohen gadol's breasts). He says Tiferet is like a bejeweled garment with which the Lord is adorned. He further says the bejeweled garment is made up of Names of God (and Isaiah 61:10 specifically mentions "salvation" and "tsaddik"). On these names, and their relationship to a priestly garment, we have this from Rabbi Hirsch:

When the priests of Tziyon (verse 9) will clothe themselves with the צדק [tsaddik] taught and demanded by the Law of God, then God will also invest them with ישע [yesha --"salvation"], with the maximum power of perfect human "being" and life. . . .

The Hirsch Tehillim, 132:15-18.​

Rabbi Hirsch notes being clothed by the same two names (Yesha and Tsaddik) mentioned by Isaiah 61:10, and precisely as noted by Rabbi Gitkatilla in association with Tiferet. Tiferet is an ornamental garment worn between the breasts of the bride in Isaiah 61:10. Apparently the favorite ornament of a bride is akin to Tiferet. He (Rabbi Hirsch) distinguishes the two holy names in this way:

ישע is a result of צדק [the name Yesha is a result of Tsaddik] and its relation to צדק is the same as that of the positive garments of the high priest to the more negative garments of the ordinary priests (see Commentary to Shemos 28:43).

Ibid [bracket added by me].​

Rabbi Hirsch relates the garment Yesha ישע, directly to the chosen worn between the breasts of the high priest. The chosen is bejeweled and thus fits the idea of Tiferet perfectly since Tiferet is a priestly ornament betwixt the breasts of Adam Kadmon (the anthropos of the sefirotic tree):

He hath clothed me. It is past of יעט; "covering" עוטה (Ps. civ. 2) is of the same root, though of a different form. יכהן Serveth. It is a transitive verb, and פאר "ornament" is the object; it is attended by the bridegroom; comp;are my remark on ישרתונך "shall minister unto thee" (lx. 7). And as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels, with a chain around her neck.

Ibn Ezra, Isaiah 61:10.​

Both Ibn Ezra, and Gitkatilla, relate that this bejeweled, priestly צדק, ornament, reflecting divine names, is directly related to the Hebrew word tiferet תפארת. Both these sages separate the ligatures that make up the word tiferet (ת–פאר–ת) noting that the central word פאר is the word for an "ornament" while the two letters on the right and the left of this holy ornament are both ktav ivri tavs which is ironic in the sense that the ktav ivri tav is often similar to a Latin cross. The ornament פאר between two crosses (two tav) ת–פאר–ת is akin to the chosen worn between the breast of the high priest, and, if Ibn Ezra and Gitkatilla can be trusted, worn between the same breasts of the divine high priest Adam Kadmon.

--†



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
ישע is a result of צדק [the name Yesha is a result of Tsaddik] and its relation to צדק is the same as that of the positive garments of the high priest to the more negative garments of the ordinary priests (see Commentary to Shemos 28:43).

Ibn Ezra, Isaiah 61:10 [bracket added by me].​

The statement made by Ibn Ezra above segues into exegesis done here on Isaiah 49:18. Isaiah 49:18 could quite genuinely be considered the greatest epispasmic exegesis found throughout the entire Tanakh in that this one slip of the interpreter's wrist has covered up the Jewish understanding of deutero-Isaiah more than any such mistake throughout the entire text. The verse speaks of the wearing of the very "ornament" in the crosshairs of the current examination ---Tiferet. But the flawed exegesis found in the MT, and its faithfully unfaithful servant the KJV, claims:

Lift up thine eyes round about, and behold: All these gather themselves together and come to thee. As I live, saith the Lord, thou shalt surely clothe thee with them all, as with an ornament, And bind them on thee as a bride doeth.​

We have the same ornament, and the same bride wearing it, as found in Isaiah 61:10. But here, it's not the joyful priest of God wearing the Name of God, the bejeweled "chosen gadol", the ornament of the priest צדק and the high priest ישע. On the contrary, the city (Zion) is allegedly wearing the worshipers on her walls (see exegesis here) rather than the worshipers wearing the personified (anthropomorphized) city.

. . . as truly as I am living, it will be acted upon. כקשורי כלח=ככלח As the ornament of the bride round her neck.

Ibn Ezra, Isaiah 49:18.​

Exegeted faithfully, Isaiah 49:18 speaks of the same ornament as Isaiah 61:10. It's the same ornament fancied worn of the bride round her neck, found in both passages of Isaiah, as well as being worn by the bride, round her neck, between her breasts, at any church wedding throughout the world. Nevertheless, the latter isn't the reason Isaiah 49:18 is read against the grain of the entire context wear it's found. It's read against the grain of the entire context where it's found because of the context where it's found.

In the context where this ornament worn by brides throughout the world, between their breasts, is noted in the text of Isaiah, we read that a "banner" directly associated with this ornament will be lifted up in the hand (as Moses lifted the serpent rod in the desert), to, as the text says, "beckon to the Gentiles" (49:22). Which makes it clear why it's the Gentile brides throughout the world who wear this ornament said to resemble, typologically at least, the serpent lifted in the desert, betwixt their virgin breasts, and on the most solemn day of their life: God specifically lifted the serpent in the desert to save Israel, but furthermore, to "beckon" to an approaching epoch where Gentiles would follow the colors, or guidon, as it were, to the same or similar salvation acquired by Israel by looking up at the banner become ornament lifted in the hand.

In the original lifting of the serpent rod in his hand (Exodus 4:1-9), God then tells Moses to place this hand, with the serpent rod in it, betwixt his breasts where the serpent rod will become leprous. In context, God tells Moses that Israel might not accept the theophany associated with the leprous ornament between the breasts (which ironically will, the leprous branch, cause the goyim to come running), but that Israel will join the Gentiles in pursuing, and wearing, this divine, bejeweled spectacle lifted in the desert, precisely, the Jews that is, when its been healed of its leprosy such that Jews no longer fear being made unclean by the bloody corpse worn between an virgin bride's lily white breasts on the most solemn day of her life.

The grotesquery of the irony --- an innocent young almah or virgin, wearing the ornament of a bleeding, leprous, corpse, as though it's an ornament so glorious she wears it dangling between her milky white breasts (Isaiah 60:16) as she proclaims "I do" to God and Bridegroom -----is, and will be, missed by many religious penitents until such a time as the healing of the corpse, swallowed by Gentiles only at this time, becomes the universal salutary celebration known as the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (when the healed emblem of the serpentine lamb of God will be swallowed, universally, by everyone invited to the banquet ---John 6:53; Isaiah 25:6-11).




John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
The grotesquery of the irony --- an innocent young almah or virgin, wearing the ornament of a bleeding, leprous, corpse, as though it's an ornament so glorious she wears it dangling between her milky white breasts (Isaiah 60:16) as she proclaims "I do" to God and Bridegroom -----is, and will be, missed by many religious penitents until such a time as the healing of the corpse, swallowed by Gentiles only at this time, becomes the universal salutary celebration known as the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (when the healed emblem of the serpentine lamb of God will be swallowed, universally, by everyone invited to the banquet ---John 6:53; Isaiah 25:6-11).

As a footnote to the last paragraph, the same Ibn Ezra, whose faithful exegesis brings out the truth lost in the traditional rendering of the MT and KJV, corrects another woeful epispasm pulled over the holy text of these messianic renderings. In the text noted above (Isaiah 25:6-11) we're supposed to be introduced to the banner lifted in the hand of God to call all penitents to the supper of the salutary eating of the corpse lifted up on the passover spit or the branch that's passed over by all but the true inhabitants of Zion. But the MT, and KJV, as they're wont to do, pull their veil over the text to protect themselves and their readers from becoming unclean by ingesting a serpentine corpse, be it passed-over lamb, or salvific-snake, or both (Isaiah 25:6-7).

Later in the 25th chapter of Isaiah, a theophany is described concerning the serpent-lamb the eating of which transcends the transgression related to such a meal as writ large in the Law:

ואמר. דבק עם מלת עמו: ואמר And they will say.14A. V., And it shall be said. The people mentioned before, will say. ויושיענו. והוא יושיענו תמיד והנה הוא כזמן עומד: ויושענו And he saved us.15A. V., And he will save us. And he saved us continually. It is the imperfect tense.16See i., Note 43. כי. יד יי, מכתו: The hand of the Lord. His punishment. ונדוש מואב. שבאו לעזור הצרים על ציון, ונדוש מבנין נפעל מהפעלים השניים הנראים, או מפעלי הכפל: Moab, that will come to help the besiegers of Zion.כהדוש. שם הפעל מבנין נפעל, ובא שורק תחת חולם כי יתחלפו: ונדוש And shall be trodden down. Niphal of a verb (דוש) ע״ו or בְּהִדּוּשׁ .(דשש) ע״ע As is trodden down. Infinitive Niphal; וּ is here instead of וֹ; these two vowels are capable of interchange.

Ibn Ezra, Isaiah 25:9-11.​

And finally:

מדמנה. מקום הדומן: מדמנה Dunghill. ופרש. השם ידיו בקרב מואב: And he shall spread forth. The Lord shall spread forth. In the midst of them. In the midst of Moab. השוחה. כמו מי שחו (יחזקאל מ"ז ה'): השוחה He that swimmeth. Comp. שחו to swim (Ez. 47:5).​

Whereas the KJV implies it's the Moabites and their kind, i.e., those who attempt to besiege the people of Zion, whose hands are spread like a swimmer, Ibn Ezra corrects the theophanic emblem by revealing that it's the Lord, it's the savior noted in verses 9-11, who, get this, will be pictured, seen, in all his Corcovado-like glory, with his hands spread like a swimmer, or like Moses lifting the serpent-rod on the hill to defeat Amalek, i.e., destroying the enemies of Zion and welcoming the indigenous of Zion to the wedding super where he is himself ---that is the Lord -----the main course (John 6:53).

If one knew the leprous corpse in front of them was the embattled body of the Lord, would they venture ritual uncleanness to lend a Samaritan hand, or be lent one of those bleeding hands for their own healing? Who but a Moabite, or an Amalekite, would pass by their Lord and brother as the un-good Samaritan more worried about ritual legalese than love and protection of life and the Living God aka El Chay and or Yesod?




John
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The statement above, linked with the quotation I gave from Rabbi Hirsch pointing out that ritual uncleanness isn't an actual disease (but recognition that we're all born already a slave to death, i.e., will all become corpses eventually) is right in line with the topic of this thread, and even segues nicely into the somewhat prolonged back and forth recently about Yesod and Tiferet.
:thumbsup:
In brief (so to say) there's a "secret" סד related to the yod י of Ye-sod י–סד. And since the sages claim the yod is the mark of circumcision, the "secret of the yod," is the secret of circumcision. This secret of circumcision (Yesod) is directly related to Tiferet. Tiferet, and Yesod, are parts of an anthropomorphism related to the "image" and "likeness" דמות of "man" in relationship to the godhead, and vice versa.
Here's the logical chain as I understand from the above.

The name yesod >> secret of yud >> yud is circumcision >> circumcision is the secret of the yud.

The weak point is in the middle. What is the secret of yud? It's not in yesod as it's imagined lower in the tree. It's actually at the top of the tree.

Zohar 2:179b:8

רָזָא קַדְמָאָה, יוֹ''ד, נְקוּדָה קַדְמָאָה
דְּקַיְּימָא עַל תֵּשַׁע סַמְכִין דְּסַמְכִין
לָהּ. וְאִינּוּן קַיְימִין לְאַרְבַּע סִטְרֵי עָלְמָא. כְּמָה דְּסוֹפָא דְּמַחֲשָׁבָה, נְקוּדָה בַּתְרָאָה, קַיְּימָא לְאַרְבַּע סִטְרֵי עָלְמָא. בַּר דְּהַאי דְּכָר, וְאִיהִי נוּקְבָּא.

The original secret, Yud [ spelled yud-vav-dalet ], the original dot, it exists on nine samechs-of-samechs [ circle of a circle, or maybe 9 spheres ? ] ...
So, if there's a secret of yud, it transcends the circumcision. It's above it.

The connection between Tiferet and Yesod is not a secret. Both bring together opposing concepts while maintaining each concept's unique qualities.

I delight greatly in the Lord; my soul rejoices in my God. For he hath clothed me with garments of salvation ישע and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness צדקה.

Isaiah 61:10.
Note: "צדקה" not "צדק". Feminine righteousness / often translated as "charity". Tzedakah, not Tzadik nor Tzedek.

Rabbi Gitkatilla quotes this verse in relationship to Tiferet (p. 223). He says on page 224 that Tiferet represents the garment of the priest (which naturally includes the chosen חשן between the kohen gadol's breasts). He says Tiferet is like a bejeweled garment with which the Lord is adorned. He further says the bejeweled garment is made up of Names of God (and Isaiah 61:10 specifically mentions "salvation" and "tsaddik"). On these names, and their relationship to a priestly garment, we have this from Rabbi Hirsch:
There's a couple of issues here. First, on page 223 there is, yet again, confirmation that tiferet is a vav, which is the opposite of two ornaments. Tiferet are not a pair of ornaments, it's a vav.

The other problem is the Rabbi brings three verses not just one. "salvation" and "tzedakah" are not the focus, that's ancillary. The focus is on the word "PER" which all three verses have in common and is emphasized in all CAPS 3 times. Focusing on "salvation" and "tzedakah" are distractions.

we have this from Rabbi Hirsch:

When the priests of Tziyon (verse 9) will clothe themselves with the צדק [tsaddik] taught and demanded by the Law of God, then God will also invest them with ישע [yesha --"salvation"], with the maximum power of perfect human "being" and life. . . .

The Hirsch Tehillim, 132:15-18.
Rabbi Hirsch notes being clothed by the same two names (Yesha and Tsaddik) mentioned by Isaiah 61:10, and precisely as noted by Rabbi Gitkatilla in association with Tiferet. Tiferet is an ornamental garment worn between the breasts of the bride in Isaiah 61:10. Apparently the favorite ornament of a bride is akin to Tiferet. He (Rabbi Hirsch) distinguishes the two holy names in this way:

ישע is a result of צדק [the name Yesha is a result of Tsaddik] and its relation to צדק is the same as that of the positive garments of the high priest to the more negative garments of the ordinary priests (see Commentary to Shemos 28:43).

Ibid [bracket added by me].
Rabbi Hirsch relates the garment Yesha ישע, directly to the chosen worn between the breasts of the high priest. The chosen is bejeweled and thus fits the idea of Tiferet perfectly since Tiferet is a priestly ornament betwixt the breasts of Adam Kadmon (the anthropos of the sefirotic tree):
It's an intersting connection you've made. But, "salvation" and "tzaddik" are not really names. That was a false connection attempted while ignoring the other verses mentioned in Gates of Light. I don't think you'll find either "salvation" nor "righetous" as names anywhere.

But, I'll take a look at that psalm more carefully, and if I'm wrong I'll speak up and apologize.
Both Ibn Ezra, and Gitkatilla, relate that this bejeweled, priestly צדק, ornament, reflecting divine names, is directly related to the Hebrew word tiferet תפארת. Both these sages separate the ligatures that make up the word tiferet (ת–פאר–ת) noting that the central word פאר is the word for an "ornament" while the two letters on the right and the left of this holy ornament are both ktav ivri tavs which is ironic in the sense that the ktav ivri tav is often similar to a Latin cross. The ornament פאר between two crosses (two tav) ת–פאר–ת is akin to the chosen worn between the breast of the high priest, and, if Ibn Ezra and Gitkatilla can be trusted, worn between the same breasts of the divine high priest Adam Kadmon.
Cute. I like it. But, Adam Kadmon is not a priest of any kind.
 
Top