HOME
johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2015 John D. Brey.

Does a Jew become a Jew by performing Jewish rituals? Or does he perform Jewish rituals because he's Jewish? 

When did Abraham become a Jew? If he became a Jew after performing what Rabbi Hirsch points out is the original Jewish ritual ----circumcision ----then it appears that performing a Jewish ritual is what makes a person a Jew? ----- If, on the other hand, Abraham was already a Jew, and that's why he was willing to receive and perform the ritual circumcision, then the question still exists concerning what transformed Abraham from a Gentile into a Jew if not ritual circumcision?

The Torah seems to imply that Abraham becomes a Jew at the point God sets him apart from the Gentile world by establishing a unique covenant relationship with him. It's the establishment of a unique covenant relationship with Abraham that makes him a "Jew," and gives him his Jewish identity.

But then God clearly and unambiguously tells Abraham that the "sign" of the covenant relationship (and thus the sign of Jewish identity) will be the ritual of circumcision. At this point there appears to be a clear case where a "ritual" that's commanded to be performed by Abraham and his progeny is not just a "ritual" requiring precise performance according to rules and procedures but the "ritual" itself (the original and founding "ritual"), is said to be a "sign," somehow circumscribing the nature of the covenant that makes Abraham the original Jew.

By making the original "ritual" the "sign" of the covenant, God sets up a reciprocal relationship between the ritual and the covenant such that the ritual is a sign of the covenant. If the covenant is the source for Abraham's "Jewish" identity, then there's a reciprocal relationship between the  sign of the covenant ----ritual circumcision ---- and Abraham's Jewish identity.

What possible significance could there be between ritual circumcision and Jewish identity? How can all the procedures and requirements of ritual circumcision present a meaningful and significant distinction between being "Jewish" and being "Gentile"? 

Though it’s often stated that the term “Jew” is associated with the giving of the Law (and thus the Mosaic covenant), Abraham is nevertheless the founding "father" of the nation. He's the source for whatever Israel and the Jewish people are and represent in a fundamental sense. There might be a technical distinction related to Sinai and the term "Jewish," but it's still a fact that whatever it is to be Jewish is related firstly to the covenant established with Abraham. There’s no Israel, no Sinai, no Jew, without the covenant to Abraham. Whatever it is to be Jewish, to be an Israelite, to be the people of God (to be Abraham's spiritual offspring), is fundamentally represented in the ritual sign of circumcision. 

The same symbol that signifies that a male is "Jewish" also applies to a woman. There's a particular membrane on the human body that must be transgressed by the hand in place of the phallus. If the phallus transgresses the membrane of virginity the child is Gentile. If the hand transgresses the membrane the child is Jewish. The membrane (which must not be torn by the phallus) is related to the first sexual encounter of male and female. On the male, the membrane attaches the foreskin to the glans until it's tore loose when the male has his first sexual encounter with his bride. Similarly, the female's membrane is generally intact until the same moment. When the male organ tears its own membrane (which ironically is the exact membrane on the female body) it almost simultaneously tears the membrane on the body of his virgin bride.

Therefore, when the Jewish father pulls back the foreskin of his male child to tear the membrane of virginity with his fingernails, he's signifying that the process that normally tears this membrane --- phallic-sex (Gentile sex) ---- has come to an end.  The reign of the Serpent, serpentine reproduction, is over. The reign of death, empowered by the scroll of the Law, is ended.

In verse 10 of Genesis 17, God says that his covenant with Abraham is that all his sons will be "circumcised." But then in the next verse he says that the sign of this "circumcision" is that . . . you will circumcise the flesh of the foreskin. ----- What's the difference between the covenant of circumcision and the sign of that circumcision? If cutting the flesh of the foreskin is the "sign" of the covenant of circumcision, what’s the actual covenant of circumcision? What relationship is there between cutting the flesh of the foreskin as a “sign” and the actual covenant cutting?

At Passover, which is a continuation of the revelation started in Genesis 17, Moses connects the sanctification of the firstborn (who opens the womb) with the mass circumcision that took place in relationship to the Passover. In other words, even as Isaac was sanctified as Abraham's firstborn womb-opener (symbolized by Abraham’s ritual circumcision), so too, after the Passover circumcision, Moses says to sanctify all the firstborn womb-openers.

In his brilliant understanding of biblical symbolism, Rabbi Hirsch ponders over the Hebrew symbolism employed in this narrative. He says that the firstborn "womb opener" isn't merely sanctified for himself, he sanctifies the womb itself, so that not only is the firstborn “womb-opener” sanctified, but by sanctifying the womb, he makes sure that all who pass through this sanctified place will themselves be sanctified.

But then it hits Rabbi Hirsch that all children born naturally open the womb on their exit? So Rabbi Hirsch wonders out loud how Moses can set apart the firstborn specifically as the "womb-opener" (Rabbi Hirsch shows that “opening the womb” is made into the fundamental formula sanctifying the firstborn) when all children born of a natural birth open the womb.

One of the primary symbols in circumcision is tearing the membrane (periah), which on the female body signifies a closed womb. But if that membrane is left intact on the Jewish male until his first sexual encounter (where it’s torn naturally) he's not a member of the Abrahamic covenant. This suggests that the whole point of circumcising the child at birth, rather than adolescence, is to ensure that the veil of virginity is torn by a "hand" and not by the phallus itself. This logic applies both to the tearing of the potential groom’s veil of virginity, his membrane, and also the tearing of the veil of virginity of his bride.

If the male is entered into the Abrahamic covenant when the veil of virginity is torn by a hand rather than the phallus itself, then the same applies to the female, who would be entered into the Abrahamic covenant in the same manner. Like her male counterpart, her membrane must be torn by the nails in a Jewish hand if she’s to enter into the Abrahamic covenant. Her circumcision is fundamentally identical to his (the membrane of virginity being torn by nails in a Jewish hand).

If the firstborn is to be sanctified by "opening the womb" with his hand, then that womb must remain closed (the membrane intact). The first actual Jewish woman must have her womb opened by her firstborn son rather than her husband's phallus. . . But once this occurs her womb is sanctified such that even if her husband enters it that sex is sanctified --- Jewish --- and all the offspring that come forth from that process are sanctified by the fact that the veil was originally torn by a hand and not a phallus.

Genesis 17:4-5 says: "As for Me, this is My covenant with you: You shall be a father of a multitude of nations; you are no longer to be called Avram, but your name is to be Avraham, for I have appointed you as father of the multitude of nations."

To this verse, Rabbi Hirsch replies:

What is the meaning of this latter phrase? To maintain that it refers to Avraham's physical descendants is difficult, for they are mentioned only in verse 6. The name "אברהם" also shows that, here, the phrase is not to be taken in the physical sense. Were אב meant to be taken literally, in the physical sense, the form of the name would be "אבהם" and the ר would be meaningless and disruptive.

Rabbi Hirsch points out that the covenant doesn't seem to be talking about Abraham's physical line. Rabbi Ellie Munk makes similar points. Rashi --- at this verse --- says Abraham is to become the father of the whole world. Similarly, the scholars Keil and Delitzsch point out that through Jacob, one nation is born. But the covenant to Abraham speaks of him being father to a multitude of nations. Ishmael doesn't count in these multitude of nations, since he's not part of the covenant being spoken about (as coming through Sarah) when a multitude of nations is mentioned.

Rabbi Hirsch points out that verse 6 says God tells Abraham that his physical lineage will also be exceedingly fruitful. And again, this is not Ishmael. This is Abraham's line through Sarah being spoken of as something different than the "multitude of nations" whom Abraham will father in a sense different than his physical line. . . This might seem like an unreasonable conclusions. . . But Rabbi Hirsch says these things pointedly in his Chumash. They’re part of the text. And they’ve simply been interpreted rough-shod to say what given traditions want to hear.

Properly interpreted Genesis 17 says God will establish a covenant of "circumcision" with Abraham that will make him the father of a multitude of nations. This multitude of nations will be exceedingly fruitful, as will Abraham's physical lineage through Sarah.

Even though Abraham's physical lineage play a special and specified role in the enactment of the covenant, they’re not the sole covenant people. There are many reason this is so. Rabbi Hirsch points out many of them. For instance Ishmael wears the sign of the covenant in his flesh, as do Gentiles in Abraham's company. Since Gentiles wear the sign of the covenant in their flesh, wearing the sign of the covenant in the flesh doesn't make Israel the sole target of the covenant. But if Israel isn’t the sole target of the covenant then why are they singled-out in a special way regarding the covenant? What’s their specific role in completing the covenant? 

The covenant is fully ratified when a firstborn Jewish male fills up the symbolic significance of bleeding the flesh in the way specified in the sign of the covenant. Which is to say Israel's special role in the enactment of the covenant is to the be the genetic-line through whom Messiah will come. Messiah will then be recognized as the spiritual "seed" of Abraham who will call the whole world to become the multitude of nations spoken of in the language of the covenant (Deutero-Isaiah 101).

That Israel, who plays the primary role in the birth of the Messiah, should reject him, reject the very virgin birth that fills up the symbolism of bleeding that organ (and tearing an intact membrane), and should seek the death of Abraham's spiritual son . . . this is a great mystery waiting to be unraveled at the second advent of the virgin born Messiah.

It is striking that in our verse the מילה [milah] itself is called ברית [brit] implying that the very act of circumcision constitutes fulfillment of the covenant. In the next verse, however, מילה [milah] is called אות ברית [sign brit] a sign of the covenant, implying that the fulfillment of the covenant entails more than the act of circumcision. All this is said here at the first mitzvah unique to Israel, a mitzvah whose essential character is symbolic, and this can serve as a key to understanding two dimension of all similar mitzvos.

Rabbi Samson Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash.

God speaks of the covenant of circumcision, and then says cutting the flesh of the foreskin will be a "sign" of the covenant. Rabbi Hirsch is clear that if the cutting of the flesh is the "sign" of the covenant then the covenant is something other than the cutting of the flesh? What possible relationship could there be between the sign (cutting the flesh) and the actual covenant of circumcision? Rabbi Hirsch points out that they’re different things: "Scripture here [v.11] distinguishes between the מילה [milah] act itself and מילה [milah] as a sign inscribed upon our flesh."

Struggling with this paradox Rabbi Hirsch goes on:

In symbolic mitzvos we are commanded by God not only to be mindful of the idea that is symbolized, but also, and indeed primarily, to perform the mitzvah act. Recollection of the idea can never substitute for the performance of the act. Failure to perform the act is tantamount to denying the idea. He who fails to make the sign of the covenant breaks the covenant itself (v. 14); the making of the sign itself is called keeping the covenant (v. 10).

 . . On the other hand, the performance of the act accomplishes its full purpose only if it becomes a "sign", a "symbol"; only if it is taken to heart as a symbol, and if the idea symbolized by the act comes alive within us.

Rabbi Hirsch forces himself to say that the performance of the act (the mitzvah) accomplishes its full purpose only if it becomes a "sign," a "symbol.". . Cutting the flesh, tearing the membrane, securing the blood on cloth, are all "symbolic." It's not enough simply to perform the mitzvah. You have to turn the mitzvah into a "sign." You have to accept that the mitzvah is a sign. You have to know what the sign signifies. If you don't you're performing the mitzvah improperly.

מילה [milah] does not generally mean: to cut, to circumcise; only in connection with ברית מילה [brit milah] does it occur in this sense. מול [mul] means "opposite," as in  . . . (Bemidbar 22:5) . . . (Tehillim 118:10): "In God's Name, I will oppose them."  As a verb, then מול [mul] means: to oppose, to the limit. To be sure, מול [mul] in connection with ערלה [orlah] means "to cut off.". . . The cutting, however, is merely a means, whereas the end and intention is to oppose, to the limit, the ערלה [orlah], or more precisely: to oppose the הערלה בשר, [the orlah of the flesh] . . ..

The flesh that's "opposed" is the flesh normally used to father a son. And the word "orlah" doesn't necessarily mean "foreskin." It means "un-circumcision." So the commandment is to "cut off" or "oppose to the limit" the flesh of un-circumcision.

What's the "flesh of un-circumcision"? Well if cutting skin off the phallus is only a "sign" of the actual circumcision, what’s the actual circumcision such that cutting some flesh off the phallus is a fitting symbol of the actual circumcision? How about emasculation? How about cutting off all of the flesh rather than merely cutting off a piece as a "sign" of going all the way? ----- In this case, the "orlah of the flesh" (un-circumcision) is not, per the mere "sign," a little piece of the flesh, but the entire flesh. The phallus itself is being called "un-circumcision." The foreskin is only the sign of the un-circumcision (the foreskin is only a "sign" of the entire phallus). Cutting off the foreskin is only the sign of the actual circumcision.

How ironic then that the man billions of human beings considers the Jewish Messiah was born of a pregnancy where his father's phallus didn't merely enter his mother with a flesh-wound (so to say). The father was completely emasculated from the pregnancy that led to the birth of a son of Abraham whom the entire nations of the world have come to accept as Abraham's greater son.

Rabbi Hirsch notes that "opening the womb" is the signifier of how the firstborn is sanctified. He then ponders how this can be . . . since it appears that all children must open the womb to be born? Rabbi Hirsch knows very well that there’s only one way that the firstborn can set himself apart from all other children in the direct manner suggested by the text. He must open a "closed-womb" that, once opened by him, can never again be opened in this manner.

There's only one way that the firstborn can set himself apart as Jewish law requires: he must open the womb that all Gentile children have opened for them by the phallus . . . and he must do it single-handedly ----with his own hand. Rabbi Hirsch doesn’t explain that the foundational ritual of Judaism is that a male hand must tear the membrane that in all other cases is torn by the phallus at the consummation of the birth of the firstborn. That would be asking too much of him. But for what it’s worth, Rabbi Hirsch does note that taken literally, brit milah means full opposition to the flesh being cut. 

Rabbi Hirsch does segregate the "ritual" of circumcision from what the ritual signifies about the real circumcision. The ritual merely removes the skin and the hymen but leaves the phallus intact to race toward the oblivion of phallic-sex (since mere ritual doesn't destroy the reality of phallic-sex). The reality is that a Jewish male's hand is going to rupture the hymen at birth, and when that happens, the reign of the phallus, which is the reign of death, will be over once and for all. Whoever is born-again, from the blood of the circumcision, will never taste death.

The two things that are of primary importance to a proper understanding of Jewish circumcision is the tearing of the membrane -- periah -- and the blood of the phallus. The tearing of the membrane is done by nails in a Jewish male's hand. And the blood of the phallus is an ornament thereafter used to adorn sacred things. 

In Judaism, blood outside the body always represents death. It's always unclean except in this one case. The blood of circumcision (or an animal surrogate for circumcision blood) is the blood of death itself (and death is the source of uncleanness) so that this one blood, the blood of death itself, far from being unclean, is the cleanest thing on the planet. Circumcision blood, as the representation of the death of death, the death of the organ of death, is so clean it can clean up uncleanness. Put it in a mikvah and it can clean even the niddah's uncleanness. 

Periah --- occurs when, after the death of the phallus, a Jewish hand tears the membrane that would normally (or naturally) require a living phallus in order that it be transgressed or transpierced. Periah tears the membrane that would normally be torn by the phallus if the phallus hadn’t already been bled to death in the first round of the ritual.

When God establishes his covenant with Abraham and Sarah, they become new people. Therefore God changes their names (reflecting the fact that they’re completely new people). But as is the case early in the Torah, names play on events in the narrative. Cain's name קין is related to the Hebrew word "acquired" קנה. Similarly, when Abram and Sarai are transformed into new people the name change reflects some important information about their newness.

A heh ה is added to Abraham's old name while a dalet ד is added to Sarah's old name. Throughout Jewish midrashim, and commentary, the heh ה represents the "female" such that unlike Abram, Abra ה am is unmanned. Adding the heh ה to his name makes him a non-phallic male. That's what all Jewish men are symbolically, non-phallic males. That's what the resurrection body will be, non-phallic male.

Unmanning Abram to turn him into Abraham means that if Abram hasn't already used the phallus to conceive Isaac, and we know he hasn't since Isaac is the firstborn male of the new person born of the new covenant (Abraham and Sarah rather than Abram and Sarai) then Isaac must of needs be born of an unmanned male: Abraham. . . But since Sarai's womb was opened by Abram's phallus, it would be unseemly for the first new creature of the new covenant --- Isaac --- to be born through the opening made by the serpentine "womb-opener" of the old covenant.

Therefore even as God changes Abram's name in a manner signifying the meaning of the change (Abraham is like Adam prior to the fall --- a non-phallic male), so too God changes Sarai's name in conjunction with the significance of her new role in the new covenant: a virgin mother with an intact (closed) womb. This change is obviously necessary for her to fulfill her part in Isaac's sanctified birth. God therefore adds a dalet ד to Sarai שרי transforming her name into Sarah שרה.

The letter heh ה in Sarah's name שרה is clearly a yod י covered up by a dalet ד. As Rabbi Samson Hirsch points out, circumcision "inscribes" the letters די (dalet yod) onto the "opposed" flesh. It's ironic that phonetically the letters Rabbi Hirsch says are inscribed onto the "opposed" flesh (at circumcision) are verbalized as "die"! ------- Secondarily it's a fact that the letter yod י is said to represent the circumcised organ while the dalet ד represents a "veil" or "door" (the word "dalet" means "door" or "veil"). This is to suggest that if you pull the veil back from the letter that means circumcision (the heh is constructed of a dalet over a yod), you have a dalet and a yod -- די (phonetically "die") such that “Sarai” represents a barren mother of the old covenant with her dalet missing שרי while “Sarah” represents the mother of a new covenant with her dalet, or veil, restored שרה.

Someone serious about studying the text will note that this interpretation trumps any interpretation that claims a heh is added to both Abram and Sarai since for a heh to be added to Sarai as it's added to Abram no letter would be removed from Sarai as no letter is removed from Abram's name when the heh is added.

To transform "Abram"  אברם to "Abraham," the heh is inserted after the reish: אברהם. No letter is removed. ------ To transform "Sarai" שרי to "Sarah" we merely insert the dalet ד over the existing yod י to get שרה (the heh is constructed of a dalet over a yod).

Someone serious about the logic of Hebrew letters will note that this interpretation is fairly comprehensive in that explains a number of mysteries that Jewish scholars labored over in vain.

Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch says that the reish ר in the name "Abraham" symbolizes spiritual offspring rather than Abraham's actual physical posterity. He comes to this conclusion by noting that the name "Abraham” אברהם, if it were speaking of his physical posterity, would be merely "Abham" (which in Hebrew would be ab hamon = "father of multitude"):

To maintain that it refers to Avraham's physical descendants is difficult, for they are mentioned only in verse 6. The name "אברהם" also shows that, here, the phrase is not to be taken in the physical sense. Were אב meant to be taken literally, in the physical sense, the form of the name would be "אבהם" and the ר would be meaningless and disruptive.

The reish ר is meaningless and disruptive if speaking of Abraham's physical descendants. But before addressing the meaning of the reish in the name "Abraham," it's important to acknowledge another of Rabbi Hirsch’s points:

The combination of ברית and נתן almost never occurs elsewhere . . . As a rule, the formula is ברית כרת, ברית הקים, not ברית נתן. It is possible then, that בריתי ואתנה does not mean "I will establish with you a new covenant," but, rather, "I will transfer to you an existing covenant."

The reish in Abraham  אברהם is disruptive unless it represents "spiritual" progeny, rather than physical progeny . . . and, the covenant is not a new covenant given to Abraham, but an existing covenant renewed through Abraham.

The first word in the Torah is the word "covenant" berit ברית, with the reish spelled as out as "rosh" (the reish represents the firstborn rosh ראש). The covenant that’s given to Abraham is the covenant that is the first word in the Torah בראשית. The word "covenant" ברית, with the reish (firstborn) spelled rosh בראשית.

The "R" (reish) in Abraham represents the "R" spelled out in "be-Resh-it." That "R" is the "rosh" or "firstborn" of creation found in the center of the word "covenant" יתרב. The word "covenant" is the word for "house" beit בית with the letter R in the middle ברית. The covenant is about a firstborn found in the first word in the Torah. The firstborn of creation is in the womb of the covenant in the first word in the Torah.

The same R is found in the name "Sarah" even after the transformation to the name associated with the covenant renewed through Abraham. Sarah is Abraham's "house" according to the Talmud. She’s his beit בית. And she has the firstborn of creation inside her now that the covenant is transferred to Abraham: שרה .

. . . As pointed out above, the dalet over the yod represents the veil or hymen covering the yad (yod) that will be revealed when the veil is removed from the yod (mark) of circumcision. . . . 

If the R is pulled out of "covenant" ברית you have "beit" בית or "house." But Sarah is the "house" of the firstborn of creation --- i.e., the Rosh (head) of creation in the first word "covenant," which is the first word in the Torah. ----So in the covenant transferred to Abraham, Sarah is the "house" of the covenant. That “house” (Sarah) houses the R (or rosh) the firstborn of creation. She acquires this high position when a dalet restores her ability to be a sanctified "house" ---a temple (which is a house with an intact veil covering the nuptial chamber).

If Sarah is the house of God, the temple, with an intact veil (restored in the initiation of the covenant) then the R inside her is the firstborn of creation. But for this firstborn of creation to be born, the dalet must be transpierced by the yod in the letter heh, and the reish, the R, must come out of Sarah when the dalet is torn by the yod, or yad, i.e., the hand, of the firstborn.

The Name revealed to Abraham in connection with the establishment of the covenant is the Name "Shaddai." ------The Name "Shaddai" is the name “Sarah” with the R (reish/rosh) removed (born into the world) and the dalet torn to unveil the hand, the yad, yod, of the firstborn. Remove the R (the firstborn of creation) from Sarah's womb, and from her name, and picture this R (reish/rosh --- firstborn) coming out of Sarah, hand first, yod first, yad, first . . . and from beneath and intact dalet (veil) . . . and you have the Name "Shaddai." ------ "Sarah" שרה transforms to "Shaddai" שדי simply by removing the reish ר (it has left the "house" to begin its incarnation) and pulling the dalet ד off the yod י so that the heh ה becomes די (די being the letters Rabbi Hirsch claims are revealed at the covenant cutting of ritual circumcision).

You must learn from Him how to say "די" [“die”] to the forces of sensuality, making His will your own. You must measure all the endeavors of your sensual being by the standards of His will. With the knife of His "די" . . . you must apply the מילה [milah], you must set limits to בשר ערלתו [uncircumcised flesh], the physical aspects of your body which otherwise you would not control. Only if you impose these restraints upon your physical self can you expect His blessings and His aid.

Rabbi Hirsch, Collective Writings Volume III.

Rabbi Hirsch plays on the (dalet-yod) די, which transliterated would spell "die." He plays with the idea that the flesh בשר of un-circumcision  ערלה (the phallus) must "די" (“die”) ---- But where he doesn’t go . . . for it’s too dangerous within the dictates of his orthodox concerns, is to point out ----irony beyond irony ----- that the very word "די" is a pictogram of "periah" ---- which is the second sign (and most important) in a ritual circumcision.

The second stage of ritual circumcision, "periah," is where the nails in the circumciser’s hand are used to tear the membrane (of virginity) and pull it back to reveal the corona (since when "periah" takes place the foreskin has already been removed). . . But what any Jew even remotely familiar with Hebrew word and letter symbolism would surely find disturbing (or fascinating) is the fact that the word "די" (dalet-yod) . . . which is said to be engraved in the flesh at "periah" (by the hand of the circumciser) . . . is literally a pictogram of the "membrane" ד (the dalet is symbolically a veil, membrane, or covering) being transgressed by a "hand" י since the yod (in dalet-yod --- די) means "hand" (which remarkably is spelled יד). The word for "hand" is יד (yod-dalet) while the word for yod, is similarly יד (yod-dalet).

. . . The rabbit hole goes really deep since as stated the yod י in the word "hand" יד is itself spelled יד. This point is important since it implies that in the word "hand" we have a pictogram of a "hand" (yod) and a "membrane" or veil (the dalet). The very yod י in the word "hand" יד ---is pictographically a "hand" ----while the dalet in the word "hand" יד is pictographically a "membrane" or veil.

Once these relationships are pointed out it can be seen, almost like a hieroglyphic animation, how the "hand" (the yod in the word "hand") passes through the membrane (the dalet in the word "hand") to become the letters Rabbi Hirsch claims are engraved in the flesh at "periah" די. . . . This suggests that the very word engraved in the flesh by the Jewish hand passing through the membrane (as occurs in the second stage of ritual circumcision) is the word you get when the hand (the yod in the word "hand" יד) passes through the membrane (dalet) to become די. 

Someone with a working knowledge of the Hebrew letters, or perhaps even a recognition of their basic shape and size, can be made to see that just as the letters די are engraved when the circumciser's hand (literally nails in his hand) pass through the membrane in bris periah, so too, in the very letters themselves, the yod יד passes through its own membrane (the dalet in the word yod) to become the letters די.

One is said to see the Holy One from the sign of the covenant inscribed in one's flesh, the letter yod. As we have seen, in the case of the Zohar the letter yod is not understood simply as a sign of the covenant between God and Israel but is the very sign of the Holy One himself. . . Here we meet a convergence of anthropomorphic and letter symbolism: the physical organ in its essential character is interchangeable with the letter, and the letter with the physical organ.



Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation: From Midrashic Trope to Mystical Symbol.

What Professor Wolfson says is particularly important since the physical organ in its essential character is interchangeable with the letter, while the letter is interchangeable with the physical organ. The letter that Professor Wolfson explains is the sign of the Holy One himself is the yod circumcised according to the dictates (so to say) of the ideas presented above. . . . In other words, an actual yod is not uncovered at circumcision, since the yod itself יד uncovers itself at circumcision: is circumcised. To circumcise the yod יד is to let the "hand" י of the yod יד pass through the veil ד of the yod יד, therein becoming די, the letters said to be engraved in the flesh.

The yod is the "hand" of God that passes through the dalet to become די, which marks the death of the serpent, since the hand of God passes through the veil when Jesus of Nazareth (born apart from the fleshly serpent) tears the veil of a closed womb at his birth. The hand that opens the womb is the yod of די, the yod that passes through the dalet to mark itself as the "strong hand of the Lord."

Sanctify unto God the "hand" (yod) that opens the womb (passing through the dalet). For that yod, that hand, is, far from being the mere symbol of the covenant with God, rather, the sign of God himself: God’s own hand.

In his Collected Works Volume III, Rabbi Hirsch obsesses over the letters "די." ----- There can be little doubt that he’s on the verge of seeing that indeed no yod is uncovered at circumcision but that the yod uncovers itself to reveal the deepest meaning of the sign of the covenant: a hand י passing through a veil ד to become the letters די therein signifying the hand of God passing through the veil at His birth into the world. A birth that said “enough” or “it is finished,” to the jus primae noctis the serpent enforces on the world. 

Coming from his particular background Rabbi Hirsch is prejudiced toward the idea that circumcision signifies "limitation" (“enough”) not "annihilation" (“It is finished”). ----- Someone not prejudiced in this way can't help but see a brilliant Rabbi contradicting himself at every turn in order to make his presupposed prejudice fit within the clear intent of the symbols that are opposed to that presupposition.

The words and symbols Rabbi Hirsch uses when allegedly speaking of "limitation" rather than "annihilation" are at best a contradiction:

With the knife of His "די" . . . you must apply the מילה, you must set limits to ערלתו בשר [uncircumcised flesh], the physical aspects of your body which otherwise you would not control.

Rabbi Hirsch speaks (The Collected Writings Volume III) of using a "knife" to allegedly "limit" rather than "kill." -----He's already told us that מילה (milah) means to "oppose" the flesh where the word is applied. Then, later in his essay on "milah," he points out that after God has commanded Israel not to make treaties or pacts (no limitations or half-measures) with their enemies, but to annihilate them wholesale, they stand before the walls of Jericho:

Joshua stood before the walls of Jericho and the initial step toward the conquest of the land was to be taken. Even as they had passed through the Red Sea, the Children of Israel now marched across the river Jordan and the Amorite kings were gripped by terror. At that moment, God said to Joshua (5, 2), the general of the Israelites: "Make yourself sharp swords." For what purpose? To enslave the enemy? To conquer the land? For neither of these. The sword of conquest was to be wielded by another, higher Authority. . . go, perform upon Israel, upon your nation of warriors, the circumcision; according to Yebamoth 71b this meant the first and second part of the act, the milah that is completed by periah.

Rabbi Hirsch is clear that Israel is about to "conquer" (not enslave) the land by the sword. They’re told not to make pacts or half-measures but to annihilate their enemy. But first, God has them take the “sword” to defeat a greater enemy than they'll find in the land they're about to conquer. They're going to take the sword to the serpent who must die די before they can begin their Jewish mission and destiny. God doesn't tell Israel to tame their enemies or make a pact with them so that they can live in harmony or balance. He tells them to annihilate them with extreme prejudice. Therefore it seems inappropriate to suggest that Israel make a pact with the serpent (the greatest enemy known to man), bring him into submission, but let him live (wounded and bleeding) in the very garden of the sanctified body of the Jew.

Clearly forgetting himself, and his flawed presupposition that circumcision is a half-way measure (a pact of compliance), Rabbi Hirsch shows from scripture that circumcision is a military conquest at the point of a sword, and not a mere enslavement of this great pagan enemy of all mankind. His rational mind recoils (so to say) at the thought of emasculation (Isa. 52:14). And in this re-coiling of his rational mind, his Jewish mind loses the recollection of a man by the name of Abraham who walked by faith not by sight. Who, through faith, was able to obey God, without questioning (or reasoning) about the whys and wherefores that the rational mind finds so difficult to digest.

In the context of the narrative, Israel is at Gilgal (the Hebrew etymology of "Golgotha"). They're very near Jericho. They’ve been commanded by God that they’re not to make treaties or pacts with any of their enemies. They’re not to spare man, woman, child, or animal. They’re to enter Jericho and annihilate their enemies. But then they're told to make swords, which are assumed to be used to fulfill the commandment to annihilate their enemies. So what do they do, they circumcises themselves. And then, presumably, with the same swords, annihilate the pagans of the land.

Orthodox Judaism envisions creation in procreation. That's a great Jewish principle. . . And it's why natural born Jews recoil at the idea of demonizing natural procreation (phallic-sex). But if natural creation stops at a certain point (a Jewish interpretation of די), and human's take over (to complete what God left unfinished) then it makes no sense to begin the new creation (on the eighth day) with the same problem that brought the original creation to her knees: the serpent in the garden.

Judaism sees the human body as a microcosm of creation. Genitalia are the garden of delights in the center of creation. And there's a serpent in the garden. And he brought down creation. And on the eighth day he's bled to death. And on the eighth day the membrane he always tore through (on the male and the female at their first encounter with phallic-sex) is tore through for the first time by the nails in a Jewish hand. That's how the eighth day starts. That's how the new creation is born. When nails in a Jewish hand transgress the veil of creation formerly marked as the domain and reign of the serpent (Mark 15:38-39).

Natural born Jews naturally take pride in their natural birth as the phallic-progeny of Abraham. Unfortunately they take so much pride in that birth, that when they’re told that circumcision is about a new creation, a new covenant with Abraham, not based on natural creation or natural procreation, they recoil aghast. ------- It's like catching monkeys by placing a cucumber in a bottle. Once the monkey grasps the cucumber he won't let go and so is slowed down and caught by his captors.

Natural born Jews are so proud that their seed came through Abraham's natural organ that when told that the symbol of circumcision is the cutting off of that organ, they grasp onto it so forcefully in their theology that they're ensnared by the very Serpent Abraham wounded to free them. Great is the mystery of iniquity that those born of the natural seed of Abraham would become the enemies of those born of the covenant begun on the eighth day in the blood of the organ of natural birth. The natural born Jew becomes the sworn enemy of the Son of the covenant and those who are born through the tongue that replaced the serpentine organ.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own [flesh and blood], and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:10-14.

Judaism rejects pagan incarnation myths even though every one of their own myths is based on pagan precedent. Judaism thought they were supposed to simply reject every aspect of antecedent myth and ritual (rather than wait until it was fulfilled through them) such that they began to practice rituals bled dry of any meaning whatsoever. They turned the ritual into the reality, since they thought they were supposed to bleed the pagan myths dry. They called the mythological signs bled dry "chukkim." They claimed that when Messiah came, he would put the blood back into the myths so that Jews would know what they actually signified. But when Messiah arrived they bled him dry, and rather than filling up what was missing in their bone-dry myths with his blood, they went on practicing dry myth and rituals – chukkim --- pretending that the practice itself (bled dry of significance) was the full meaning of the myth.

For the aniconic Jew circumcision isn't a picture of an emasculated pregnancy (signifying the virgin birth of the God/man). It's a practice whereby Jews show they're Jewish by bleeding the male organ. Why does that make a person Jewish? Because that's what they've always been told in rules taught by the very men Jewish law rules against when it comes to identifying Jewish identity and those things most Jewish. That's how they've always practiced it. And think they always will. ------To say that taking a knife and bleeding the male organ of reproduction symbolizes the virgin birth of a god/man is pagan to the core. And yet it's only pagan if it's assumed that it's purely mythological --- as the pagans practice it.

The idea was not for Israel to reject pagan myths and ideas wholesale, but rather to be the very people through whom the truth would manifest itself not as merely mythological, never destined for anything but pagan worship, but as actual historical reality. Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the pagan myths through Jewish blood and ancestry. But Judaism had succumbed to an inverted paganism. Pagans make myth reality apart from historical actuality. Pagan Jews do those Gentile pagans one better by practicing pagan myths not as though the myth itself subsumes the need for historical actuality, but as though their rejection of myth for myth’s-sake empowers the mythological ritual without the need for historical actuality. Both pagans deny and reject the possibility of myth becoming historical reality. And yet the fundamental myth of all mankind, the virgin birth of an incarnate God/man, became reality in historical time, and was rejected by both forms of paganism, Jewish and Gentile.

Jews know that the rituals performed in bris milah are "signs" of something only being manifest in a ritual way through the performance of the ritual elements of the mitzvah. But until Messiah comes Jews will practice ritual-circumcision as though their performance of the mitzvah is the whole purpose for the ritual (since until Messiah comes the true significance of the physical "sign" of circumcision can't be known).

But with the passage of time, and no Messiah, the performance of the mitzvah eventually subsumed the "sign" element of the mitzvah such that Jews began to think of even the most important mitzvah of all, circumcision (which is also the most important "sign" of all) as merely a mitzvah and not a sign. The fact that the "sign" of circumcision signifies something that can only be fully understood when Messiah comes (since it's a chok and a "sign") meant that for hundreds of years Jews were performing the ritual sign of circumcision without knowing the true symbolic significance of the ritual (since that awaited the arrival of Messiah). Somewhere along the line, the ritual performance of the mitzvah bled into the full reality, without Messiah, so that Jews started performing ritual-circumcision as though the ritual performance of the mitzvah subsumed the entirety of the purpose for the mitzvah (which was originally designed to be a "sign").

The ritual became the full reality rather than a sign signifying some element "marking" the arrival of the Messianic Age. Then the Messianic Age arrived. But not in the way Jews were expecting. Messiah came, was born of a virgin, opened the membrane with the nails in his hand (just like the mohel performing the "sign" of virgin birth in the mitzvah). He then proceeded to reveal down to fine detail every element of bris milah. . . . . . But because Judaism had conflated the performance of a premonitory "sign" with the true significance of the sign, most Jews rejected the very virgin born Jew who opened the membrane of his mother with the nails in his hand, and then opened the membrane to the world-to-come (with nails in his hand) when he was treated to a kerygmatic manicure that cured-man once-and-for-all.

Jew thinks of bris milah as an end in itself, the performance of the mitzvah being the end-all and be-all of the ritual. . . . And God forbid they start thinking of it as a "sign" with actual significance awaiting Messiah's birth. For then they would have to admit that it would be hard to find a significance more fitting than suggesting that bleeding the father's reproductive organ prior to the birth suggests of a virgin birth. Or that a Jewish hand transgressing the membrane of virginity with nails in the hand would be a too nice image of a male child transgressing the membrane of virginity at his birth (since the serpent was denied the right to pierce that membrane at his conception).

Talk like this makes little sense to Jews who long ago de-mystified the idea that circumcision is a "sign." Just as they make the performance of the mitzvah the fullness of the chok/sign, they make the fact that they consider themselves Jewish to be the fullness of what that identity signifies. In other words it signifies nothing, since it is what it is (just like circumcision), a fact of reality not requiring a significance attached to it. 

But in fact, Jewish identity is a chok and a sign. And since Jews have conflated the significance of a chok into the performance of the mitzvah attached to the chok, they conflate the significance of Jewish identity with the fact that they are Jews. Their thinking is so drastically circular that anyone not involved in the circularity of this strange way of thinking can only shake their head and keep moving (assuming they have the patience to even unwrap what's going on).

None of this denies the usefulness of performing mitzvot in obedience to God. But if the mitzvah is clearly taught to be a "sign," then the sign is given for a reason. It would probably be fair to say a premonitory reason. It's supposed to cue the performer of the ritual to events being signified by the sign elements of the ritual. If obedience to the commandment is allowed to subsume the sign element of the commandment, it might be fair to say that the performance of the commandment has become a deterrent to the whole purpose of the commandment.