John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
In biblical Hebrew הרה (hareh) is used for both "conception" and also for "pregnancy." ----It's translated both "conceived" and "with child," depending on the context. -----"Conception" is always the beginning of "pregnancy." -----So using the same word is appropriate when speaking of both "conception" and also "pregnancy."
Rabbi Hirsch quotes the Talmud speaking of "conception" (pregnancy) taking place exclusively at night. But then Rabbi Hirsch supplements Niddah 16b by speaking of "physical" conception as though there's some non-physical conception he's going to reveal to us?
Niddah 16b speaks of "conception" taking place at night. It says nothing about "physical" conception, as though there were some other kind of conception.
Since Niddah 16 points out that "pregnancy" can only occur at night (since that's the only time Jews are allowed to participate in the act that leads to "pregnancy") it stands to reason that the Talmud speaks singularly of the only possible Jewish "conception" as taking place at night. But Rabbi Hirsch throws a giant wrench into the statement of the Talmud by speaking of "physical" (fleshly) conception, as though it were distinct from some other kind of conception? ------ Why does Rabbi Hirsch supplement the Talmud's statement about "conception" taking place at night, with the idea of "physical" (fleshly) conception taking place at night?
He's clearly setting the reader up for a different form of conception that doesn't take place at night and doesn't produce a "physical" (fleshly) body.
But then why does Rabbi Hirsch, in the context so clearly established in his paraphrase of the Talmud's statement about "conception" occurring exclusively at night, change the word for "conception," to the word for "birth," the German "Geburt"? "Birth" is clearly not a Jewish phenomenon associated exclusively with "night." -----Jewish "births" occur night or day.
An honest exegete knows Rabbi Hirsch has chosen to use a word meaning "birth" (Geburt) where he's clearly speaking of "conception." . . But Why? . . . Let's see what his statement looks like if we replace the misplaced word with the word he clearly means:
Fast forward to the other conception. The one Rabbi Hirsch juxtaposes against a night conception; the conception Rabbi Hirsch makes clear can occur only in broad daylight (and never at night), and which he makes clear occurs eight days after the "birth" associated with the nighttime "conception."
When, if "physical" conception takes place at night, and conception as a Jew takes place in the day, does "birth" as a Jew take place? If the "conception" that leads to the non-physical "birth" takes place eight days after the physical "birth" (conceived at night nine month's earlier), then when does the "birth" associated with the daytime conception (brit milah) take place?
Rabbi Hirsch specifically (consciously or subconsciously) mixes the word "conception" and "birth" in order to gloss over, for himself, and his readers, the troublesome fact that though the Jew is indeed "conceived" through ritual circumcision (eight days after physical birth), he's not in fact "born" of ritual circumcision. His "birth" surely can't precede his "conception"? His conception and birth surely can't occur simultaneously? And his "conception" is eight days after his physical "birth." Such that Rabbi Hirsch tries to gloss over the fact that something is missing: When is that which is "conceived" on the eighth day in fact "born"?
There are two "conceptions" which require two "births."
What does is mean to imply that if you're a true Jew (rather than merely a fleshly, physical Jew), Ye must be born-again. Born a second time. Not of "physical" conception, at night, but from brit milah, which occurs not only in broad daylight, but in front of multiple witnesses?
When is that which is "conceived" on the eighth day, in fact "born"?
What does brit milah as "conception-event" imply? What can we learn about how a non-physical Jew is conceived by examining the conception-event that's specifically and precisely performed in broad daylight so that we might all examine it, as I have for some time now, to determine the difference between a physical Jew, conceived at night, and a non-physical Jew, conceived through the rituals associated with brit milah (milah, periah, metzitzah)?
John
Rabbi Hirsch quotes the Talmud speaking of "conception" (pregnancy) taking place exclusively at night. But then Rabbi Hirsch supplements Niddah 16b by speaking of "physical" conception as though there's some non-physical conception he's going to reveal to us?
Niddah 16b speaks of "conception" taking place at night. It says nothing about "physical" conception, as though there were some other kind of conception.
Since Niddah 16 points out that "pregnancy" can only occur at night (since that's the only time Jews are allowed to participate in the act that leads to "pregnancy") it stands to reason that the Talmud speaks singularly of the only possible Jewish "conception" as taking place at night. But Rabbi Hirsch throws a giant wrench into the statement of the Talmud by speaking of "physical" (fleshly) conception, as though it were distinct from some other kind of conception? ------ Why does Rabbi Hirsch supplement the Talmud's statement about "conception" taking place at night, with the idea of "physical" (fleshly) conception taking place at night?
He's clearly setting the reader up for a different form of conception that doesn't take place at night and doesn't produce a "physical" (fleshly) body.
But then why does Rabbi Hirsch, in the context so clearly established in his paraphrase of the Talmud's statement about "conception" occurring exclusively at night, change the word for "conception," to the word for "birth," the German "Geburt"? "Birth" is clearly not a Jewish phenomenon associated exclusively with "night." -----Jewish "births" occur night or day.
An honest exegete knows Rabbi Hirsch has chosen to use a word meaning "birth" (Geburt) where he's clearly speaking of "conception." . . But Why? . . . Let's see what his statement looks like if we replace the misplaced word with the word he clearly means:
Physical conception belongs to the night ---The name of the angel in charge of [physical] conception is 'Night' [Niddah 16b]---- but milah, conception as a Jew, belongs to the daytime.
Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23.
The "physical" conception is now properly juxtaposed against the non-physical conception. Rabbi Hirsch clearly and explicitly juxtaposes "physical conception" (a night event) with conception as a Jew (which occurs exclusively in the daytime). The reason for Rabbi Hirsch's tongue-tied statement now comes to light. "Physical" conception occurs exclusively at night for a Jewish person. But the "birth" associated with the conception can, and does, obviously, occur at night or day. There are two events. The conception (night only) and the birth (night or day).Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23.
Fast forward to the other conception. The one Rabbi Hirsch juxtaposes against a night conception; the conception Rabbi Hirsch makes clear can occur only in broad daylight (and never at night), and which he makes clear occurs eight days after the "birth" associated with the nighttime "conception."
When, if "physical" conception takes place at night, and conception as a Jew takes place in the day, does "birth" as a Jew take place? If the "conception" that leads to the non-physical "birth" takes place eight days after the physical "birth" (conceived at night nine month's earlier), then when does the "birth" associated with the daytime conception (brit milah) take place?
Rabbi Hirsch specifically (consciously or subconsciously) mixes the word "conception" and "birth" in order to gloss over, for himself, and his readers, the troublesome fact that though the Jew is indeed "conceived" through ritual circumcision (eight days after physical birth), he's not in fact "born" of ritual circumcision. His "birth" surely can't precede his "conception"? His conception and birth surely can't occur simultaneously? And his "conception" is eight days after his physical "birth." Such that Rabbi Hirsch tries to gloss over the fact that something is missing: When is that which is "conceived" on the eighth day in fact "born"?
There are two "conceptions" which require two "births."
What does is mean to imply that if you're a true Jew (rather than merely a fleshly, physical Jew), Ye must be born-again. Born a second time. Not of "physical" conception, at night, but from brit milah, which occurs not only in broad daylight, but in front of multiple witnesses?
When is that which is "conceived" on the eighth day, in fact "born"?
What does brit milah as "conception-event" imply? What can we learn about how a non-physical Jew is conceived by examining the conception-event that's specifically and precisely performed in broad daylight so that we might all examine it, as I have for some time now, to determine the difference between a physical Jew, conceived at night, and a non-physical Jew, conceived through the rituals associated with brit milah (milah, periah, metzitzah)?
John
