HOME

johndbrey@gmail.com

© 2013 John D. Brey.

Exodus 13:2 says, "Sanctify to Me every firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the Children of Israel, both of man and of beast; it is Mine." Or perhaps "Me."

 On this verse we gain great insight through the always insightful Rabbi Sampson Hirsch:

‎פטר means "to let out," also "to be let out." (פטר is related to פתר), to uncover the hidden-meaning of a dream, and the like [say a closed-statement], and . . . would seem to refer to the child, in which case it would mean: the one expelled from the womb. But then it would refer to every child. Hense, פטר should be taken as referring to the mother's womb, and as denoting the opening of a hitherto closed place.

Rabbi Hirsch notes that if the Hebrew word used for "opening the womb’ פטר merely talks of opening the womb, then every child would be included in the requested sanctification (and thus the statement about “firstborn” would be meaningless). In the same context, Rabbi Hirsch says: "The halachah, which links the consecration of the firstborn to פטר . . . teaches us that the meaning of this law is essentially the consecration of the womb. If the first child is a male, he is not born only unto his home and family, but, rather, unto God."

Throughout the context of his writing on this verse, Rabbi Hirsch constantly comes back to the idea that it's not the firstborn male who is consecrated in the verse, but the womb this firstborn male "splits" (פטר): "Thus, the meaning of this commandment is none other . . . than the realization . . . according to which the consecration of the firstborn is taken as the consecration of the mother's womb . . .."



Unfortunately none of Rabbi Hirsch's comments directly explain why the firstborn opening the womb would sanctify the womb, unless by applying "split" to a womb formerly closed up, we note not the opening of a veil previously opened by the father's serpent, but the opening of the hymen itself. . .  In this case the "firstborn" takes on significance since the hymen would only ever be intact for the firstborn and never anyone other than the firstborn. Only the firstborn can set himself apart by opening the womb for himself. No other child can fulfill that halachic requirement.

If the sanctification of the womb is like the sanctification of the male organ, through the tearing of the second veil (the membrane not the flesh), then only the firstborn can sanctify the womb, since the membrane (hymen) is torn permanently after the birth of the firstborn. . . But natually the veil (hymen) should be torn already since the sexual intercourse that produced the firstborn should have torn the veil (hymen)?



Unless, that is, the sanctification of the womb is actually the secret to understanding how the male-organ is sanctified when the second veil (the membrane) is torn in a proper bris milah ceremony (particularly periah). ------ Which is to say, the signifier and sign of male circumcision is actually female circumcision: virgin birth, where the firstborn tears the intact membrane with the same fingernails the mohel uses.

The Jewish male-member is circumcised before it’s ever used to father a firstborn son, signifying that the circumcised male-member doesn't take part in the birth of the firstborn male. If the male-member doesn't take part in the conception of the firstborn son, then the female will have the same membrane torn by the same Jewish fingernails, which, are the nails in the hand of the hand that’s just been nailed down as the sanctifyer of both the male and the female Jew.

Bethlehem (bêṯ lě·ḥěm): בית = "house," להם = "bread." ---- Bethlehem is the "house of bread." ----  But more specifically, the "house of unleavened bread," the kind of bread that's food for the Passover.

But thou, Beth-lehem . . . 
Though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, 
Yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; 
Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

 Micah 5:2.

King Messiah is prophesied to be born in Bethlehem, in a מִשְׁאֶרֶת (miš·ʾě·rěṯ): a "kneading-trough." ----- At the time of the Passover we read that,"The people picked up their dough before it was leavened, their kneading-troughs [משארת] being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders" (Exodus 12:34). The children of Israel wrapped unleavened dough in cloth, or clothes, put them on their shoulders, and were "thrust" out of Egypt before the dough could be leavened. ----- "For unto you is born this day in the city of David [i.e., Bethlehem] a Saviour . . . And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in clothes lying in a kneading-trough" (Luke 2:11-12).



One of the preeminent New Testament commentaries (Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament), says this concerning the fact that the angel implies finding the child wrapped in clothes in a kneading-trough should be a clear "sign," to those who see it:

The other three instances of φάτνη are in the nativity story (Lk. 2:1–20) in the depiction of the birth (v. 7), the promise of the angel (v. 12 → VII, 231, 10 ff.) and the adoration of the shepherds (v. 16). This surprising emphasis shows that, possibly already in the pre-Lucan source, great importance was attached to the concept. But exposition is difficult, since the text of Lk. 2:7 is not wholly clear and there are no real parallels in religious history.

The angel emphasizes the birth is in the city of David, Bethlehem, the city that's the "house of bread," or "unleavened bread." ----- The context suggests Passover, therein giving away the meaning of the fact that this Bread of Life, unleavened dough, born on Passover (such that there was no room in the inn), was thrust out of the womb before any levening took place, wrapped up in cloth (or swaddling clothes), and placed in a kneading-trough, used as a crib with which to carry him on his parent's shoulders.[1]

Exodus 12:39 says, "And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt, for it was not leavened; because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual."

The lack of leaven sounds like it’s a mere coincidence of their being "thrust" out of Egypt. But we know otherwise, since we know about the feast of unleavened-bread, marking this unleavened-bread as a significant sign of the Passover (and the bread was actually eaten the night before they were thrust out). The key is the concept of "leaven”:

When Israel went out of Egypt, they left their domain-- alien domain, the domain is called hamets, evil bread. That is why idolatry is called so, and this is the mystery of the evil impulse, alien worship, also called שאור (se'or), leaven. This is the evil impulse, for so it functions in a person, like leaven in dough: entering one's innards little by little and then increasing, until the whole body is permeated by it. This is idolatry, of which is written There shall be no alien god in you (Psalm 81:9) --- literally!

The Zohar, Tetsavveh, 2:182a.

The Jewish sages of the Zohar speak of the evil impulse being an “alien God”--- in you "literally." ------ This is the Christian concept of original sin. The leaven is passed on from dough-to-dough, through the male seed, where the leaven resides. And the organ that passes this leaven is the fleshly serpent that’s killed in brit milah (whenever any living thing is made to bleed in Jewish ritual the blood always signifies death).

In the Talmud, Berakhot 4:2, a prayer is attributed to Rabbi Tanhum: "May it be Your will, YHVH my god and God of my fathers, that You break and destroy the yoke of the evil impulse from our heart. For you created us to do Your will, and we must do Your will: You desire it and we desire it. So who prevents it? The leaven in the dough." . . . The Talmud sounds like a passage from the New Testament: "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" (Romans 7:14-17).



In numerous places throughout the Talmud, and Jewish midrashim, the "evil impulse" is likened to "leaven," which is equated with sin, the desire to sin, and the sin that, like an alien-god, lives, literally, in the fleshly body.

 When "leaven" is recognized as a symbol of sin, and particularly sin being passed on to a new lump of dough in the womb, through the serpent (implanting the "evil impulse"), it doesn't take too much imagination to think about what “unleavened”-bread signifies. And if Messiah is to be born in the city known as the House of Unleavened Bread ביתלהם Bethlehem, of an unleavened lump, and then specifically calls himself the Bread of Life . . ..

As previously noted, the word בית (beit) means "house" And the word ראש (rosh) means "head," or "first," idiomatically, "first-born." ---- And if בית means "house," and ראש means "first-born," then the word ברית (berit) means "house of the first-born." Or more correctly, the "house" בית where the "head" or "first" or "first-born" ראש dwells.


The letter reish ר symbolizes the rosh ראש . . . such that if you place a reish ר in a "house" בית, you have a "house" indwelt by the reish ב–ר–ית.  The word "berit," as in "berit milah," is a word symbolizing the "house of the reish," which idiomatically is the "house of the head," which should be thought of as the "house of the first-born." . . . In other words, God's "covenant," Hebrew ברית berit, is about the "house of the firstborn," the house where the first-born will be found.


Rabbi Sampson Hirsch sets the stage for what all these words and letters mean in context. Concerning the "covenant" ברית God established with Abraham, Genesis 17:1-2, Rabbi Hirsch tells us:

Jewish destiny does not spring from the natural course of events. One cannot write about the development of Jewish history as one would write the history of the nations of the world. In the ordinary course of nature the first Jew would never have been born, and (even if he had) the last Jew would have ceased to exist long ago. The archetype of the Jewish phenomenon is יצחק [Isaac]; the idea of his birth was absurd by ordinary reckoning.

Rabbi Hirsch points out that Isaac's birth is a supernatural birth. It doesn't occur in the normal, or natural course of events. And Isaac's birth is the archetype for the whole Jewish phenomena. Rabbi Hirsch continues:

This covenant is to be ביגי ובנין --- bilateral: The historical existence that I am to grant you, and the devotion that you are to give to Me, are both components of the ברית, independent of all external conditions and circumstances. The combination of ברית and נתן almost never occurs elsewhere. . . It is possible, then, that ואתנה בריתי does not mean "I will establish with you a new covenant," but, rather, "I will transfer to you an existing covenant."

Rabbi Hirsch points out that God claims he's going to "give" Abraham a covenant, which Rabbi Hirsch points out is most likely a pre-existing covenant, one that was already in existence. The very first covenant in the Torah is the very first word in the Torah, bereshit בראשית. --- A careful reader will note that the word bereshit, in the Hebrew, is the word for "covenant" berit ברית spelled out completely. Which is to say the letter reish in berit ("covenant") ברית ––is merely spelled out ראש such that the first word in the Torah is "covenant" ב–ראש–ית (with the letter reish ר spelled out ראש).



All that's required to see that the first word in the Torah is "covenant," is the knowledge that the word ראש and the letter ר reish, are interchangeable. Expand the letter reish ר into rosh ראש and the first word in the Torah is "covenant." ---- The covenant that Rabbi Hirsch explains has found a human recipient is the one that begins with the first word in the Torah. (Additionally, the first word in the Torah, בראשית, speaks of the covenant of the “first” or “head” or “firstborn,” meaning the “house” בית of the “firstborn” ראש.)

Rabbi Hirsch shows that as the recipient of this preexisting covenant, Abram's new name doesn't mean he is the father of natural posterity, but of supernatural, or metaphysical posterity. Rabbi Hirsch notes that the reish ר in "Abraham" אברהם is problematic since without it, Abraham's name would simply mean "father" אב of "nations" הם. ----- But as Rabbi Hirsch points out, the R, or reish, means that Abraham is the father of a supernatural seed; one which is represented by the supernatural conception of Isaac immediately after Abraham ritually circumcises himself to enter symbolically into the actual covenant of circumcision.



The covenant God cuts with Abraham makes Abraham the father of the supernatural seed that is the Rosh (the firstborn of all creation) hidden away in the covenant from the very foundation of the world--- and the foundation of the written Torah. The Rosh housed in the first word of the Torah, ב–ראש–ית, is going to be revealed for the first time through the offspring of Abraham: not Isaac, nor Jacob, nor David, but the seed of Abraham born supernaturally. The one whose birth conforms to the symbol of a ritually slaughtered male–member.

Abraham and Sarah are the "house of the firstborn." And not just any firstborn. Many people, if not most, are a house for a firstborn. And Isaac is not the firstborn that makes Abraham and Sarah special. They're special because they're the "house of the firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15). Israel is the "covenant" people. ---- Through them came the "firstborn of all creation," born when the symbol of circumcision became the reality of a man born of a ritually slaughtered male–member; a man who became a ritually slaughtered male member of the covenant–people in order to become the banner that called the Gentiles into the commonwealth of glory. They came running when they saw him lifted up like a banner for the whole world to see . . . lifted up higher than any man . . . lifted up into the clouds of heaven, from whence he will return to claim what is his, was his, and will always be his.

We're told no chametz (leaven) left Egypt. And Rashi says the children of Israel had many animals who could have carried the unleavened dough, but the children of Israel carried it themselves, on their shoulders, "lovingly" (Rashi). Rabbi Hirsch remarks that it's the meal of deliverance. It's the bread of freedom. They loved the unleavened dough, knowing it signified their deliverance.



The angel at the Annunciation, said that it would be a sign that they would find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in a kneading-trough. The sign was that the babe was the unleavened dough which would provide freedom from an even greater slavery than the one experienced in Egypt. This unleavened dough, this bread of life, also crossed a watery chasm without chametz.



The Red Sea was the hymen opened by the hand of God[2] allowing Israel to leave Egypt מצרים without chametz. The Hebrew spelling is significant since the babe wrapped in clothes lying in a kneading-trough left Miriam מרים without chametz. And as fate, or forethought would have it, "Miriam," the Hebrew name of Jesus' mother, is the word "Egypt" without the tsaddi צ. Also, as fate or forethought would dictate, Miriam מרים has a relationship to the Hebrew word for "covenant," berit ברית.


The word berit ברית, is the word bereishit בראשית, with the rosh ר spelled out (ראש) rather than existing in the form of the single letter. The word berit ברית is also the word for for a virgin–daughter bat בת with the mark of circumcision yod י, and the letter representing the first-born ר who is first to open the hymen. ------ This is to say the word for covenant, berit, is a word composed of the letters for a virgin-daughter, bat, the letter for circumcision, the yod, and the letter for the firstborn, the reish . . . such that the "covenant" is about the birth of the firstborn, from a circumcised pregnancy, by means of a virgin daughter.



In the name of “Miriam” we get to close the deal since the Hebrew word “Miriam” מרים, is the word for the letter mem מם, with both the mark of circumcision, the yod י, and the mark of the first-born, the reish ר, squeezed into the middle מ–רי–ם. Mem means "water" or "womb" or "mom." So Miriam מרים is a "mom," a "womb," with a first-born ר and the mark of circumcision י inside her. 

Jesus leaves Miriam without chametz. He's the reish, ר, from a circumcised pregnancy yod י, such that he leaves מרים, as Israel leaves מצרים.

Unleavened bread is ultimately and intimately associated with the Passover deliverance from slavery. The Feast of Unleavened Bread is a celebration of this deliverance such that inquiring minds might wonder how or why unleavened bread would become such a significant emblem of freedom from slavery? Why not untied shoes, or un-groomed hair, or even body odor? These things are just as much a part of a rapid and unplanned exit from slavery as the fact that there was no time to infuse the new dough with old dough, so that the leaven from the old dough might give rise to the new dough.



When the Jewish sages wonder out loud about such things, they almost immediately turn to Hebrew words, looking deeper into the letters and symbols in order to find some key to the meaning of the larger concepts. 
The first key to understanding unleavened bread is the concept of "leaven."

When a leavening agent, like its biological counterpart, comes in contact with heat and moisture (so to say), it releases the chemicals that cause the bread to rise. The ancients noted the phallic shape and purpose of the upper stone in the mill, where the wheat was ground (so to say), they also imagined the bread "rising" as symbolic of the belly of the woman where the grinding took place and where the now leavened dough would rise up to become the bread of life. They secondarily noted that the release of the leaven occurs precisely when the heat and moisture of a woman's body interacts with the leavening agent.

Two ideas are seminal to the whole idea of unleavened bread, and thus the Passover. In Jewish and Christian sources, the slime of the serpent contaminated Eve's womb the moment it passed beyond the veil of her temple. Once that veil was torn, her body was no longer a "temple," but at best it was now a house with an unwelcome guest: the slime of the serpent. Secondary to this is the idea, taught throughout the Zohar, and Jewish midrashim in general, that the slime of the serpent somehow contaminated the most holy place of Eve's temple in a manner such that all offspring born from a women without an intact veil over her most holy place, are contaminated by the slime of the serpent, even if the father wasn't the serpent himself, but only a biological replica from a human father.



Without getting toο far into the nitty-gritty of these ideas, the "leaven" of the serpent remains in the womb of the woman, therein being that part of the original dough (which birthed Cain) which will continually give rise to the next loaf of leavened bread. Which is to say that every loaf of bread born after Cain, rises because a little part of the dough that became Cain is left in the kneading-trough where the flour is deflowered to become leavened bread.

The Hebrew word "leaven" שאר, is an anagram for the word representing the "firstborn," spelled out "rosh" ראש, and represented by the letter reish ר. ----- The word used for the "kneading-trough" where the leaven is added to the new dough is the Hebrew word "miseret," which is spelled משארת. There’s "leaven" שאר right in the middle of the kneading-trough where leaven is to be added to the new dough משארת.


In the Hebrew word for the "kneading-trough," where the "leaven" is added to the un-leavened dough, not only do we have “leaven” (right in the middle of the word), but the word itself is a play on the first word in the Torah, which is "bereshit." ----- The first word in the Torah, "bereshit," is the image of a virgin daughter בת, with the letter that represents a circumcised organ, the "yod" י right in the middle of the word. . . making the virgin who is part of a circumcised union a proper "house," בית.



But in the first word in the Torah, the "house" of God is not only produced by a circumcised union (the yod י), but the "house" is indwelt by a "firstborn" the reish ר, while the veil of the house is intact. The "house" of God, the first word in the Torah, has a firstborn inside while the veil is intact. The "house" of God remains a "temple" even though there is someone inside the "temple" since that someone inside the temple has entered without disturbing the intact nature of the veil.



The word for the "kneading trough," where the leaven is added to the new dough, and where we find the word "leaven" smack dab in the middle of the word, משארת is a direct counterpart to the first word in the Torah, which is בראשית. ------ Whereas משארת has "leaven" in the middle (שאר), the word בראשית has a "firstborn," a ראש in the middle. Whereas bereshit, starts with a beit ב, which is the emblem of a "house" or a "woman," miseret, "kneading-trough," starts with a mem מ, which is the emblem of a "mom," or a "womb" (see Rabbi Ginsburgh's The Hebrew Alef-Beit). Whereas bereshit has the emblem of a circumcised pregnancy, the yod י, the yod is missing in the word for "kneading-trough." The "mom" with leaven in the middle of her word, and her body, doesn't possess the letter that signifies circumcision, the yod י. She doesn't have a "firstborn" ראש in the middle of her body or word, but rather "leaven" שאר.

"Leaven" is seor שאר. "Death" is mot מת.  "kneading-trough" is "miseret," leaven שאר in the middle of death מת. Which is to say the words "leaven" and "death" make up the word for the "kneading-trough" where leaven was added to the unleavened dough מ–שאר–ת.

‎
מ–שאר–ת Kneading-trough.


שאר  Leaven.


מת Death.

Since the ancients understood the theological relationship between making-love and making bread (it's actually kneaded into the very dough that’s the written Torah), it's significant that Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, among others, tells us that not only is there a phonetic similarity between the words "womb" and "tomb" in English, but, " . . . the [Hebrew] word Kever, which usually means a `grave,' is also occasionally used for the womb" (Waters of Eden). Rabbi Kaplan elucidates how the "mikvah" (the holy water used for ritual-cleansing) actually represents a purified–womb where re-birth occurs (Ibid.).

Exodus 12:34 tells us that the Israelites were thrust out of Egypt so unexpectedly that they were forced to wrap their dough in cloth, or clothes, without the normal leaven it acquired from being placed directly into the kneading-trough, the place where it received leaven from the last batch of dough: "And the people took their dough before it was leavened in their kneading-troughs --- being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders." . . . In this way they carried their dough unleavened as they left Egypt.



Later in the story, the unleavened bread becomes the primary signifier of the Passover. The Feast of Unleavened Bread is the celebration of the true freedom represented by the freeing of the Israelite slaves from Egypt. The unleavened bread tells us more about the meaning of the Passover than does the fact that the Israelites were freed from Egypt. Which is to say the freeing of the dough from the leaven is actually more fundamental to the story than the freeing of the Israelites from Egypt.



Since it's true that the freeing of the dough from the leaven is fundamental to the meaning of the Passover, it should be possible to superimpose the freeing of the dough from the leaven, over the freeing of the slaves from Egypt?


Egypt represents the "kneading-trough" where leaven is added to the dough. The very word for "Egypt," is a womb, מים, with an "adversary" צר smack dab in the middle.


מים


צר


מ–צר–ים

Since Egypt represents the macrocosmic kneading-trough where leaven is added to the dough, the Red Sea symbolizes the veil, or hymen which signifies whether the "womb" has been transgressed by the serpent, or remains intact.

Prior to the death of the Egyptian firstborn, Moses is told to take God's serpent, the rod of His justice, symbolic of His phallus, and strike the water and it will turn to blood (signifying death to the firstborn) . . . just as always occurs when the hymen is transgressed by the serpent leading to blood on the sheets. . . . But when Israel leaves Egypt, through the Red Sea, not only are they carrying unleavened dough, but the Red Sea isn't red, and Moses is not told to strike it with God's rod. He’s told to stretch out his “hand,” and tear the hymen which is like a curtain restraining unleavened Israel in the womb of Egypt.



Throughout the symbolism there’s the juxtaposition of the veil being rent by a rod/serpent, versus it being opened by the hand of God or Moses. Which is to say, Israel leaves the womb of Egypt with unleavened bread in their hands, passing through the watery veil that is rent by the hand and not the serpent.



When God allows his rod to rape Egypt, leading to the death of the firstborn, we're told that frogs invade the “bedchambers” of the Egyptians. Leaven carried on the bodies of these frogs invades the very bridal chamber of the Egyptians, leading to the death of the firstborn. The imagery of the frogs invading the bedchambers signifies the visual relationship between tadpoles and sperm. The sperm that enter every woman's womb, carry the same leaven and bloody death that contaminated the Egyptian bedchambers when God's rod brought death to the womb of his adversary.

And the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy kneadingtroughs.

Not only does the Torah point out that the frogs enter the houses, but more specifically the "bedchamber," the "bed," and the oven and the kneading-troughs, which have already been shown to be the place where leaven is added to the dough. This one verse (Exodus 8:3) combines the kneading-trough and the bed, as the place where leaven is added to dough. And since Moses has struck Egypt with the rod of God, leaving blood on the sheets (of the bedchamber), and all over the womb of Egypt, it's significant that the frogs come out of the rivers and invade the beds and kneading-troughs of the Egyptians. The kneading-trough is combined with the bed, and blood (death) on the sheets of the bed, in one significant verse.

Blood on sheets, or the "bedchamber" (Exodus 8:3) represents breaking the veil of the womb by means of the bridegroom's serpent. Blood on the thighs, which would be represented symbolically by the doorposts of the "house" (Yoma 2a) can only represent the blood of the womb being spilled at birth rather than conception. ------ The Egyptian firstborn die because of blood on the sheets of the bedchamber, while the Israelite firstborn live because the blood is on the thighs of their kneeling mother and not on the bedsheets or in the kneading-trough.


The Jewish "house" often had only one room, with a veil separating the bedchamber from the rest of the house. The only place the Jewish woman was able to kneel while supporting herself was in the entry to the house. She would kneel, while supporting herself with the doorposts on either side of her, while midwifes, would stand in the doorway to help deliver the child. If there were an intact hymen in the case of the birth of the firstborn, the blood would get on the doorposts of the house, and definitely not on the bed sheets in the other room.



At the time of writing, it would have been well-known by Jews that women knelt in the doorway, such that blood on the doorposts was a living symbol for the ancient Jews. They knew what was being symbolized in the Torah when the death of the Egyptian firstborn occurred because of blood of the bed sheets, while the salvation of the Israelite firstborn was due to blood on the door-posts. It's a case of blood being generated by the serpent, or the hand of the firstborn of God. At conception (serpent) or birth (circumcised conception).

After the birth of a child, the mother would no doubt hold the baby before it was given to the mid-wife to be washed. She would then have to support herself again on the doorposts (due to weakness from the ordeal) therein getting blood on the doorposts of the house.



In the Passover, the blood is placed on the doorpost and lintel with a hyssop branch. The hyssop branch represents cleansing and purity, while menstrual blood, or the blood of the typical birth, represents tumah, or impurity. It’s the blood shed at circumcision that represents taharah, ritual purity. So that when at the Passover, blood is placed on the doorposts with a hyssop branch, it represents a circumcised birth, a ritually pure birth. The blood on the doorposts, far from requiring ritual cleansing, cleansed the Israelites as they left their homes to leave Egypt forever, the birth of the nation.



Those familiar with Christian iconography are aware that there are three cross at the crucifixion. ----- By making sure the blood went up the doorpost onto the lintel, a cross was formed on either side of the doorway such that the mother with her arms spread across the doorway would produce an image of Christ on the cross with both hands stretched out toward the cross on either side of him. It's said that the veil in the temple was rent the moment Christ died, symbolizing the birth of the nation of Israel from the torn veil of his body. As the Israelites left their homes that Passover morning, they passed through the circumcision blood on either side of the doorway, passing through the torn body of Shaddai, the Lamb of God.

The entrance to the ancient desert dwelling had two veils, like the entrance to the bride. And there's reason to believe that the entrance of the house was where birth took place, signifying in a stronger way, the relationship between the actual architecture of the house, and the female body. The child was probably born in the chamber between the two veils, which would be outside the inner veil representing the hymen (the veil closest to the interior of the house). After the birth, the child would probably be taken outside the entry veil, where it would be washed in some sort of communal bath before being brought back to the house.



The symbolism of the Passover was clear to the people who took part in it. They were fully aware what the blood on the doorposts meant since they had probably seen blood on the doorposts, and washed blood off the doorposts, many times. 



But whereas menstrual blood, or blood from the placenta, causes a state of ritual impurity, the miracle of the birth of the nation of Israel at the Passover occurred such that the blood on the doorposts caused ritual purity rather than ritual impurity. ---- The sages of the Talmud, and Jewish midrashim know that the "house" represents the human body. And they know that the blood on the doorposts represents blood on a human body. And they know that the door of the house represents the genitals. So they say, throughout Jewish midrashim, that the blood of the lamb was mingled with the blood of circumcision, knowing that if the blood of the lamb represented anything but the blood of circumcision, the birth of the nation of Israel would be a ritually unclean birth.

Israelites were basically clean people with a healthy dose of modesty. Their homes were very basic. No showers or baths. At best one bedroom and a main room. ----- But since the Israelites were decent people, they would have attempted to keep themselves as cleans as was reasonable in their circumstances. They would have kept large clay containers with water outside the front door to clean themselves after a hard day work. No shower, just a spit bath (so to say). After cleaning up a bit outside the front door, they would enter a sort of mud room (between two modest veils) where they could clean their private parts with a bit of privacy. There was no master bath. The only place they cleaned themselves was outside, or in the space between the two veils. 



The goal would have been to keep all nasty stuff outside, or near the door, so that the inner home would be as clean and comfortable as possible. The last thing an Israelite would think to do would be to birth a child inside the house, where all the associated stuff would draw flies and worse. But being modest people, the Israelites would have wanted privacy during this event. The area near the door would provide a breeze to help keep the birthing mother comfortable, as well as making it possible to keep all the nasty stuff outside of the house, and clean up after the event.

They [recent Egyptian revolutionaries] stand in a great line of nonviolent revolutionaries, stretching back in the traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam to those who dared to smear blood on their doorposts and move through these wombs to rebirth themselves and break the birth waters to cross the Red Sea.

Rabbi Arthur Waskow (Founder and Director of the Shalom Center).

As the birthing approached, the doorways of the Israelites, through which they would leave their houses to begin the Exodus, were sprinkled with the blood of lambs. These doorways echo the bloody doorway of the womb through which all human beings must pass to begin their independent lives. Those who walked through this bloody passage on the night of the Exodus became newborns, God's "firstborn.". . The "breaking of the sea" (Exod. 14:21), as the Bible calls the moment when the Israelites crossed the Sea of Reeds that had divided for them, echos the breaking of the waters that precedes the birthing of a newborn.

Rabbi Arthur Waskow (Freedom Journeys, p.25).

In the Hirsch Chumash, at Exodus 4:23, concerning the "firstborn" בכור, Rabbi Sampson Hirsch says:

The form of the word is active, not passive. The בכור [firstborn] is not the one who is set free, but the one who sets free . . . He is פטר רחם [opener of the womb]. He is בכור [firstborn] not for himself but for those who come after him. His קדושה [sanctification] lies in that, through him, the home is first blessed with children; through him, the רחם [womb] becomes קדוש [holy], and everything that subsequently passes through this portal will be holy unto God.

If we assume that the "firstborn" is opening the hymen of the womb, i.e., he’s virgin born, then by opening the womb by the strength of hand, rather than the leavening-organ (בשר "flesh" = ב–שר "house of leaven"), the firstborn doesn't only sanctify the womb he’s opened for himself, he’s turned the womb into a virgin womb, so that whomever comes out of that womb is "holy" (set apart) unto God. Those coming after him are sanctified by the fact that he was a "firstborn." By opening the womb, he sanctifies the womb, making it perpetually virgin.[3]



Later in Exodus, it hits Rabbi Hirsch that something’s not right? ----- The language concerning the sanctification of the "firstborn" seems to suggest that it's specifically the firstborn child who is sanctified by opening the womb? As Rabbi Hirsch points out: "But then it would refer to every child [since every child opens the womb]. Hence פטר should be taken as referring to the mother's womb, and as denoting the opening of a hitherto closed place" (Exodus 13:2).



If "opening the womb" doesn't signify an intact hymen, then every child opens the womb. ----- But Rabbi Hirsch knows that the Torah is specifically sanctifying [setting apart] the firstborn . . . and specifically because . . . he opens the womb. Rabbi Hirsch is caught in conundrum of Judaism's own making: If the Torah is not speaking of an intact hymen, then every child opens the womb, so that the very thing the Torah text uses to set apart the firstborn, opening the womb, is superfluous.



The Torah pretty unambiguously sets apart the firstborn son. But when we string together Rabbi Hirsch's statements from various place in his commentary (in the Hirsch Chumash) we see that he's hiding something that he can't bring himself to acknowledge.

The firstborn is unique because he’s the only child whose birth can be seen to occur with an intact hymen (a closed mem as it were). ------ That's the glaring and clear meaning of the sanctification of the firstborn. ------ If he truly opens a closed womb, then that will be evident to anyone who knows his mother's womb was still closed. But only the firstborn can open a closed womb in this sense, and thus only opening a closed womb gives the firstborn a significance different than any other child. . . . Which is to say, if we're not talking about an intact hymen, then the focus on the "firstborn" is utterly superfluous, and the Torah text is made void of any significance . . . which is tragic.




In the ancient Jewish wedding practice the groom actually took the sheets upon which the marriage was consummated, the "proof of virginity cloth," and presented it to a witness of the bride's parent's choosing. These witnesses generally returned the bloody cloth to the bride for safekeeping.



This practice creates a glaring halachic problem? ------ How can the groom take the "proof of virginity cloth" with the blood of a niddah, and present it as a sacred article to presumably another Jewish male, acting as witness for the parents of the bride? ---- He cannot, unless the blood of the hymen unlike other blood, far from being tumah, ritually impure, is, like the blood of circumcision, not only pure, but sacred.



The "proof of virginity cloth" is treated in a manner not unlike a cloth purified by the blood of circumcision. It too --- circumcision blood --- is captured on cloth. And the cloth it's captured on, is  . . . far from being ritually impure . . . in fact, pure as the driven snow. So pure is circumcision blood, that the cloth used to cover the Torah scroll is allowed to have circumcision blood on it. . . The blood is a "witness" to the virginity of the process through which the true Torah is consummated.



Rabbi Hirsch tells us that the "firstborn" is sanctified because he opens a previously closed womb. And only the firstborn can open a previously closed womb, and thus the blood on the thighs of his mother is a "witness" to the virginity that was breached by the strength of a hand rather than a leavened organ. 



At the Passover, blood is placed on the doorposts, which are the thighs of the Jewish home, which Jewish home represents a Jewish bride. And this blood is not about a conception event, but the birth of the nation of Israel. They leave the home to enter into the world as a nation. Their hands pass through the blood on the thighs of the home which is there by a Jewish firstborn's hand, and not by the serpent passing into their home.

In light of all this a memorial is placed on the Jewish doorpost even today. It signifies the blood of the Lamb of God, Shaddai, placed on the doorposts all those years ago. 



Two particular letters are enlarged on the scroll that's placed in the mezuzah, which (the mezuzah) signifies the blood of the Lamb of God (found on the thigh of the Jewish home on Passover morning). The two letters are the Hebrew letters עד which spell the word "witness." The mezuzah is the blood of the Lamb of God, which is the blood of the lamb placed on the thighs of the Jewish home, as "witness" to the virginity of the home from which the Jew's exit without a night visit from the Gentile serpent: the angel of death, the angel of goy sex, i.e., phallic-sex. 



The Jewish home is "virgin" on the morning of the birth of the nation for one very clear reason, the serpent doesn't enter the Jewish home. The blood on the thighs of the Jewish home, like the blood the groom presents to the bride's "witness" --- is the blood of virginity: proof that whatever caused the blood was circumcised --- such that the blood on the "proof of virginity cloth" is circumcision blood.

In the prototype circumcision/Passover narrative, Abraham sits on a "birth-stool" in the entrance of his tent --- in the heat of the day.

Hashem appeared to him in the Plains of Mamre while he was sitting [on a stool] in the doorway of the tent in the heat of the day.



Genesis 18:1.

Why was he sitting on a stool in the heat of the day? Because it was the coolest place in the house. The entry-veil was doused with water creating an extremely functional evaporative-cooler ---- making the entrance of the tent the coolest place in the home. 


We know the stool he’s sitting on is a "birth-stool" since he has just been circumcised, and according to the sages: “The verse [Gen. 18:1] . . . refers to Abraham by a pronoun to direct our attention to the preceding passage which refers to him by name and speaks of his circumcision, and thereby indicates that God's appearing to him was related to the circumcision” (Mishmeres HaKodesh . . . Note #3 in Rashi's Commentary on the Torah.)

As has been noted many times, brit milah, ritual circumcision, represents the place where a theophany of God is said to occur. Every Jew who attends a brit milah ceremony is in the Presence of Hashem. A literal theophany is said to occur, such that many important Jewish professors, Wolfson and Boyarin,(to note just two), claim that part of Jewish theology is the belief that an actual seeing of God takes place at every brit milah.



Furthermore, Jewish tradition has it that this narrative occurred on Passover, that this is the original Passover, and part of the reason why we read throughout Jewish midrashim that circumcision blood is mingled with the blood of the lamb on the Passover doorpost. ------ As Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan points out, both Abraham and Lot make matzoh on this particular day . . . a day, as it were, when the destroying-angel has appeared. Not only does the first use of the word "matzoh" occur in this narrative, but Abraham specifically notes that the destroying-angel is going to "passover" his house on his way to the destruction of Sodom (figuratively Egypt).

The destroying-angel passes-over Abraham's home (doesn’t enter his "house") . . . but tells him that Sarah, Abraham's "house" (Yoma 2a) is going to have a guest, even though the angelic serpent doesn’t enter into the door of the house. Sarah is right behind the veil, sitting on the birth-stool (which Abraham has just vacated), when she hears that she’s supposed to be made pregnant. Her pregnancy occurs while she’s sitting on the stool marked with Abraham's circumcision blood (midrashim notes that Abraham is sitting on the stool, trying to remain cool, tending to his circumcision wound, when the destroying-angel arrives).

The destroying-angel passes-over Abraham's "house," so that Isaac is born without the services of the angel-of-death (the serpent). He's the first firstborn Jew. The destroying-angel doesn't enter the house where he’s conceived (or even the tent where Sarah resides). The death-angel remains on the outside of the veil with Sarah on the inside sitting on the bloody birthing stool.



But the serpent does enter Lot's house. Lot's house isn't protected by fresh circumcision blood like Abraham's. 



The narrator is clear that the death-angel passed-over Abraham's house because there was fresh circumcision blood in the doorway of Abraham's house. And since numerous Jewish sources tell us that a man's "house" is his wife, we know that Isaac is born from a pregnancy related to the protective power of circumcision blood. The serpent didn't enter Abraham's house to father Isaac. Isaac is born of circumcision blood. The death-angel passed over Sarah's doorway because it was marked by the blood Abraham left on the birthing-stool he vacated as the angel of death passed-over his house and his tent and his wife's doorway, on the way to Lot's "house" and Sodom and Gomorrah.



Lot's wife dies. The angel of death entered Lot's home. He didn't passover Lot's home. Lot's home is destroyed by the serpent's entrance. His wife and his house are destroyed because the angel of death entered his home and his wife. Her doorway wasn't protected by fresh circumcision blood, and so the angel of death was free to enter. There was no Passover here, no passing over the home of Lot, nor the doorway of his wife. Both were destroyed.

The Jewish sages of the mystical tradition spin together an amazing story from the complex play of words that occur in Genesis 18. Rashi starts it off by noting that proper Hebrew exegesis reveals that although Abraham circumcised Ishmael himself, Abraham didn't single-handedly handle his own circumcision:

AND HE WAS CIRCUMCISED [Gen. 17:24]. the construction of this verb parallels, when something was done to him, i.e., it is nifal, similar to "when they were created." Abraham took a knife -- and took hold of his foreskin -- and wanted to cut. But he was afraid because he was old. --- What did the Holy One, Blessed is He, do? He sent forth His hand and held Abraham's foreskin together with him, as it says, "And He cut with him the covenant."

There are a large number of concepts being touched on here (so to say). [4] ----- Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, XLVI, 5, says:

AND THE UNCIRCUMCISED MALE (XVII). Is there an uncircumcised female? The meaning, however, is that we must perform circumcision on the member which marks the distinction between male and female.

Since Rabbi Sampson Hirsch says that the Hebrew word used for "circumcision" actually means "opposition," we can read the quote from Midrash Rabbah to suggest that circumcision opposes the duality between male and female. By killing the member that distinguishes between "male" and "female," circumcision opposes births based on male/female dichotomy. In the parlance of St. Paul, there is no male or female in the circumcision: the circumcision performed without hands: "And He cut with him the covenant."

The play of words gets deep in the Zohar, where, the sages note some elaborate grammatical issues in the interpretation of Genesis 18:

Once he was circumcised, what is written? YHVH appeared to him. To whom? It is not written: YHVH appeared to Abram, for if to Abram, how is this more laudable than before he was circumcised, where it is written: YHVH appeared to Abram (ibid. 12:7)? Rather, a concealed mystery: YHVH appeared to him --- to that rung who spoke with him, which did not happen previously, before he was circumcised. . . "He was sitting at the opening of the tent" (ibid. 18:1). He --- not revealing whom . . ..

The writers of the Zohar actually note that it's not necessarily Abraham singularly who is said to be sitting at the opening of the tent. They note that it's probably not speaking of Abraham alone as the one sitting at the opening of the  tent, although Abraham definitely is sitting at the opening of the tent. ----- On this, Daniel Matt's commentary on the zoharic passage says: "Grammatically, the third-person pronoun is referred to as nistar, `hidden,' as opposed to the second-person pronoun, which is called nokheah, `present.' In the Zohar this grammatical designation is given a mystical twist: He alludes to the higher `hidden' realm of the sefirot --- flowing into Shekinah, the opening of the tent, the opening of the divine realm."



Abraham is sitting on a birthing-stool birthing the divine presence, whose hand actually tears the hymenal-tissue normally torn by the nails on the hand of the mohel. Abraham fears God, and fears circumcision, so God uses his own Hand to tear the veil on the member the tearing of which creates the birth of the divine --- through a process that's opposed to the member that normally determines male and female gender (gender is determined by the member "opposed" mul, in circumcision).


The serpent of death, who kills the Egyptian firstborn on the Passover, is outside Abraham's tent on Passover. Sarah is behind the first veil covered in Abraham's circumcision blood, both on her hands and thighs. The serpent says she will have a son, and immediately she hears Him inside the second veil of the tent, such that He's already in her womb (beyond the intact hymen of her doorway) the moment the angel proclaims she will bear a child. The blood on her thighs, Abraham's circumcision blood, reveals how it is that she can hear the voice of the divine Presence inside her when Abraham's member is still bleeding and not likely to be used anytime soon in the normal way. It's used in the new way. It's abused, and opposed. It's the victim in a new birth not based on gendered union, but on a union of man and God. A union opposed to the organ that normally determines gender, and helps pollute the blood of the one so engendered.

Midrashim states the death-angel passed-over the entry to Abraham's tent on Passover. ----- But Passover hadn't yet occurred? ----- And the sages know this obvious fact. ---- So they're applying a retroactive-hermeneutic in order to understand the meaning of the fact that there's circumcision blood on the entry to Abraham's tent keeping the death-angel from entering Abraham's home, i.e., making the death-angel Passover Abraham's home on his way to destroying the Sodomites who are a type of the Egyptians. "Why did God protect them through blood? So that He should remember in their favour the blood of Abraham's circumcision" (Midrash Rabbah Exodus, Xvii, 3). 



There's no doubt the Jewish sages and Rabbis know (if the Jewish hoi polloi don't) what's going on with these symbols. They know from the Talmud, and sagely commentary far and wide, that Jewish thought equates the "house" or "home" with the Jewish man's wife. And they know that the Tabernacle and Temple, being the "house" of God, represent God's wife. So when blood is placed on the doorposts of the Jewish man's "house" there's a direct parallel to blood being found on the thighs near the door of his virgin bride. 



What would it mean if there were blood on the thighs near the two veils that must be transgressed to enter into a Jewish virgin? It obviously depends on whether the blood is from the torn hymen of the virgin (meaning she’s no longer a virgin) . . . i.e., typical, non-Jewish conception (phallic sex), or the blood is from the torn hymen on the Jewish groom (periah), which signifies that he has already given birth to the death of phallic-sex prior to impregnating his virgin bride with the blood of that sacrifice.

The Torah narrative goes ridiculously far toward attempting to make this narrative perfectly clear when, on Passover, on the way to destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, the death-angel not only passes over Abraham's home, because of circumcision blood, but tells Abraham that Sarah will have a child based not on the desire of a husband (in this case Abraham) but on the fact that the death-angel (the phallic-serpent) who has never passed over a door prior to Abraham's circumcision, will now, for the first time, pass over Abraham's door, such that Isaac is the type of the firstborn of creation, Adam (born without a phallus).

The death-angel passes over Abraham's house since there's circumcision blood on the doorposts. Since the doorposts of a Jewish man's house, represent the doorposts of a Jewish man's virgin bride, the blood of his circumcision signifies the blood of the hymen torn at the consummation of an uncircumcised pregnancy. In the circumcised pregnancy, the consummation occurs with an intact hymen on the bride, but a torn hymen on the groom (periah: the second stage of a full circumcision).

"But Sarah doesn't have an intact veil: no intact hymen? . . . She can't give birth to the firstborn who tears the hymen with his hand (the quintessential sign of the true firstborn) since Abraham and Sarah have no doubt had sex, such that Sarah's hymen was torn by the serpent before Abraham took a knife to its throat?"

Coterminous with Abraham putting a knife to the throat of the serpent, God tells him that because he's bleeding the serpent of its life-blood, his wife's name is no longer to be Sarai שרי, but Sarah שרה.

The commentators claim that a heh ה is added to the name Sarai שרי to transform it into Sarah שרה. ------ But they're obviously wrong. ----- And their wrongness is based on not using scripture to interpret scripture. A heh ה is not added to the name Sarai. A dalet ד is added to the name Sarai. Sarai is transformed into Sarah not by the addition of a heh ה, but the addition of a dalet ד to cover the yod י already present in the name Sarai (the Hebrew letter heh ה is constructed by placing a dalet ד over a yod י). 

Since the whole narrative conflates the terrestrial home with the wife (as noted in the Talmud—Yoma 2a), it's significant that parallel to Abraham circumcising himself Sarah has her door (dalet ד ) restored. God places a dalet ד in Sarah's name at the same time that Abraham promises in blood not to transgress Sarah's new veil, door, dalet ד with the serpent (in which case all the symbolism of the firstborn's hand, the nails in his hand, tearing the intact veil in the temple of his mother's body would be rendered moot).

[1] There’s ambiguity concerning the translation of the word φάτνη as “manger.” ---- Since the angel notes the fact of the child being wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in the φάτνη as being a “sign” (and a significant one), there’s reason to believe that his birth is being tied to the birth of the nation of Israel, when unleavened dough became the bread of freedom and life. Likewise this dough was wrapped in clothes so that it couldn’t contact the leaven in the kneeding-trough where it was carried on the shoulders of the Jews, as though it were a crib for the vigin born dough. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says: “The organs of digestion are called φάτνη, Plat. Tim., 70e; Aristot. Part. An., II, 3, p. 650a, 19, and cf. Philo Spec. Leg., I, 148 in exposition of Dt. 18:3. The “trough” expresses a parasitic life, Eur. Fr., 378 (TGF, 476), 670 (570); Eubulus Fr., 129 (FAC, II, 140); Ael Nat. An., 9, 7; Fr., 39[1]” ------ Jewish midrashim stations “leaven” in these same organs of digestion. The Zohar (Be-Reshit 152a) says: “This serpent is death of the world, penetrating a person’s blind gut.” Daniel Matt’s footnotes says: “blind gut " מעוי דסתים (Me’oi distim), `His hidden intestine,’ the cecum, beginning of the large intestine; corresponding to the Latin intestinum caecum, `blind gut’ so called because it is prolonged behind the opening of the ilium into a cul-de-sac. See Avot de-Rabbi Natan A, 16: `. . . the evil impulse in his intestines.’”

[2]  Rabbi Arthur Waskow (Founder and Director of the Shalom Center) acknowledges the idea of the Red Sea as the veil of the womb when he says: “They [recent Egyptian revolutionaries] stand in a great line of nonviolent revolutionaries, stretching back in the traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam to those who dared to smear blood on their doorposts and move through these wombs to rebirth themselves and break the birth waters to cross the Red Sea.”

[3] The New Testament implies that Jesus opens a heavenly womb that was previously closed. Anyone who believes in him passes through a womb that has been made permanently virgin by the fact that his hand opened this veil once and for all. Since “faith” in Jesus is the new mechanism for “birth,” being “born-again,” those who place faith in Jesus take part in a virgin birth: they are, like Jesus, born by coming through a veil that was made virgin by being opened by a the hand of a virgin born male. This sanctification of the womb functions forwards and backward. As in the essay: A Token Jew, this virgin birth retroactively sanctifies all Jewish births performed ritually, through brit milah, acting as an eschatological retroactivity.

[4] Ezekiel chapter 9 supplements these ideas. The Shekinah doesn’t enter the birthing chamber of the temple, where the unleavened bread resides, from the outer-courtyard, but lifts from the Ark of the Covenant, where sacrificial blood is sprinkled, going from there straight to the doorposts, or “threshold” of the house of God. The Hebrew word for "threshold" is the word for a "serpent" or "cobra," פתן peten, with the addition of the Hebrew letter representing the "womb," i.e., the "mem" מ. The "threshold" of a "house" is where we find the "doorposts" normally associated with the serpent's lair, the female womb (represented by the Hebrew letter mem מ). The glory of God lifts itself from the cherub (a class of linen-bound seraphim . . .angelic serpents), and lights (so to say) on the doorposts and lintel of the threshold to the serpent's lair, the serpent's headquarters (as it were). He lights there with a message to a particular linen-bound angelic-serpent, the one who he just tore himself away from, by strength of hand (with help from the sharpness of the nails in his hand). ""Pass-over the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and you shall mark a sign [tav] upon the foreheads of the men who are sighing and moaning over all the abominations that were done in its midst." ------ In the Exodus, the destroying-angel "passed-through" Egypt on the Passover. Ezekiel 9 is a similar Passover narrative; as is Genesis 18. Each account gives another piece of the puzzle. The key factor is that the veil is intact until an organ (hand) pierces the veil from inside-out, not-outside in. The serpent, a type of phallic sex, always pierces (enters) the veil from outside-in. But the "hand" of the Lord comes from the inside, from heaven and not earth, and enters into the earthly realm from the heavenly realm. Rashi, Rosh Hashanah 31a, says: “from the cherub --- which was on the Ark cover, for the Shechinah had been resting there until then, and it began to withdraw and go outside little by little in ten steps, and this is the first step---from the cherub to the threshold of the Holy of Holies.”