Exegeting Sarah . . .

[robrecht]

Hi Robrecht,

What you're calling a reish is actually a dalet as it appears in typed text when being used to construct a heh ה or a tav ת. I'm not sure why the dalet looks like that in type, but there's no Torah scroll, no mezuzah, no sacred Hebrew text that uses the typed text (where the dalet looks like a reish). Every heh ה or tav ת ever written by the hand of a Jewish scribe is constructed of a dalet and a yod (the heh), or a dalet and a nun (the tav). The rules (STA'M) for writing Hebrew letters states that a heh is constructed of a dalet and a yod (never a reish), while a tav is constructed of a dalet and a nun "(never a reish). Although it admittedly looks like a reish in the typed text, there's no reish in the letter tav, or the letter heh. The shape of the tav ת and the heh ה when typed is a convention of the system used for typewriters or type set text.

And yes, a tav is really a tav. -----I never suggested otherwise. ----- But in the ancient Hebrew text (Ktav Ivri) the tav was shaped like a "cross." -----And since it's the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, it represents "finality" or the "final judgment." The cross is the symbol of the final and complete judgment on this creation. All sin and failure was judged on the cross. You must know this and believe this in order that when the wrath of God calls you to account for your sins you know who your defense attorney is, and where he gained the authority to speak on your behalf. The very word "tav" means "sign" or "mark" such that the "cross" is the sign of God's judgment on sin, the mark of the final judgment of sin.

The modern Hebrew script (Ktav Ashuri) is an uncircumcised script. Therefore the "cross" in the ancient script is made to look like the un-circumcision that it represents. Furthermore, the tav is indeed a ligature formed from the nun and the dalet. Study the rules of STAM, or consult with an expert in Hebrew letter symbolism (someone like Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh) and you'll see that indeed the tav is constructed of a nun נ and a dalet ד. . . . And it makes perfect sense that the tav --- which represents "judgment" --- should be a ligature of a dalet and a nun, since the letters dalet and nun דנ spell "din" which means "judgment," "or "to judge."

. . . Should someone familiar with Hebrew letters doubt that a heh and a tav are always constructed with a dalet, and not a reish, they could Google-image "Torah scroll" and look at the tav and the heh on the scroll. There will never be a reish as is the case in typed script.

I agree that in some hand scripts a Resh and a Daleth can sometimes be confused. But by adding Yodh to either one, you would not get a sloppy He, unless you also distorted the Yodh or in some scripts flipped it horizontally, ie, wrote it backwards. To get a Tau you would need to flip the Yodh vertically, in other words, write it upside down (again only in some scripts). If you are only speaking of some handwritten scripts or one in particular, and not the script you used in your earlier posts, perhaps you could provide a link to exactly which script you are referring to.

I'm also not familiar with your use of the term 'ligature'. Usually, I understand by this to mean that both component letters still function in the same way with respect to meaning and pronunciation, and clearly this is not the case when you hold that a He is really only a Daleth and Yodh. There is no Daleth or Yodh sound in the pronunciation of He. Thus, a He is still a He. Do you want to play with the gematria of the text by substituting alternative values for different letters?

I'm glad that you brought up the ancient Hebrew script, rather than the current one adopted from Aramaic, since these ligature arguments would never make any sense, where a Daleth and Yodh cannot make a He and a Daleth and a Nun cannot make a Tau, at least not in any ancient Hebrew scripts that I have ever seen. Are you dating the text of Genesis to after the adoption of the Aramaic alphabet? Or, are you perhaps only talking about a mystical meaning that is divorced from the intended meaning by the original author of the text?

[Cow Poke]

Hi Cow Poke,



. . . Did you ever use the original languages in bible study?

No, cause I took seriously that part about being doers of the Word, and not hearers only.

[Xtian Rabinovich]

Hi Robrecht,

I agree that in some hand scripts a Resh and a Daleth can sometimes be confused. But by adding Yodh to either one, you would not get a sloppy He, unless you also distorted the Yodh or in some scripts flipped it horizontally, ie, wrote it backwards. To get a Tau you would need to flip the Yodh vertically, in other words, write it upside down (again only in some scripts). If you are only speaking of some handwritten scripts or one in particular, and not the script you used in your earlier posts, perhaps you could provide a link to exactly which script you are referring to.

I was pointing out that when we use a typed Hebrew letter a heh ה looks more like a reish ר over a yod י (rather than a dalet ד over a yod). ----But in properly written Hebrew letters, a heh always has a dalet over the yod, and never a reish over a yod. If someone were to use Google Images, to bring up a Torah scroll, they could see that all of the heh on the scroll have a proper dalet and never something looking like a reish. The same thing applies to the tav ת. As you can clearly see, here ת, it looks like a reish connected to a nun נ. But on the actual Torah scroll, a dalet ד is over the nun נ and never a reish ר over a nun. The tav I type here ת is not really a proper tav according to the rules for the Jewish scribes (soferim), STA'M. ––––– If they formed a tav like this --- ת--- on a scroll, it would have to be removed, or the scroll destroyed. Same with the heh. It can never look like this ה on an actual scroll. It must always have the little roof over the right leg that we see on a dalet ד.

I'm also not familiar with your use of the term 'ligature'. Usually, I understand by this to mean that both component letters still function in the same way with respect to meaning and pronunciation, and clearly this is not the case when you hold that a He is really only a Daleth and Yodh. There is no Daleth or Yodh sound in the pronunciation of He. Thus, a He is still a He. Do you want to play with the gematria of the text by substituting alternative values for different letters?

As I understand the term, a "ligature" occurs when two letters are combined to form one letter. This usually occurs as an error in writing a manuscript. If a scribe was tired, and was writing a nun following a dalet he could accidentally get the nun נ too close to the dalet ד such that the two letters are now read as one ת. This example is ironically appropriate since a dalet and a nun spell "din" which is the word for "judgment," while the tav ח is a letter representing "judgment" . . . even the final "judgment" (since the tav is the final letter of the alphabet and was originally the "cross" [Ktav Ivri] that represents mankind's final judgment). Din דנ="judgment." While the tav ת (clearly a ligature of the letters in Din דנ) was originally the symbol (a "cross"), of "judgment."

What I was getting at is that the tav is actually a legitimate "ligature" (rather than an accidental one) since the actual letter is constructed of a nun and a dalet (spelling the word "judgment").

I'm glad that you brought up the ancient Hebrew script, rather than the current one adopted from Aramaic, since these ligature arguments would never make any sense, where a Daleth and Yodh cannot make a He and a Daleth and a Nun cannot make a Tau, at least not in any ancient Hebrew scripts that I have ever seen. Are you dating the text of Genesis to after the adoption of the Aramaic alphabet? Or, are you perhaps only talking about a mystical meaning that is divorced from the intended meaning by the original author of the text?

. . . I think I noted that the Ktav Ashuri script (from the Assyrian script) is an "uncircumcised" script. The secrets that are found in the script of the circumcision (Ktav Ivri) are partially (or fully) covered up in the uncircumcised script (the Gentile script). The tav is a perfect example. In Ktav Ivri it's a pictogram of a "cross" representing man's final judgment. But in Ktav Ashuri, the cross is covered up, and now all we have is a symbol for a particular letter (no actual pictogram) ת. . . . But if it's understood that the "uncircumcised" script (Ktav Ashuri) "covers up" the circumcision (is epispasmic), such that the pictogram of the "cross" as the final judgment is covered up, then it's pretty remarkable that the two letters that perform this "cover up" are a dalet (which represents a veil or door or something to cover up an opening) and the nun, which, particularly when extended (at the end of a word) represents the male organ for reproduction (in Hebrew letter symbolism). The fact that the "cross" is the emblem of the final judgment is apparent to the circumcised heart or mind. But the uncircumcised mind is not aware of this, so for the uncircumcised mind, a tav ת replaces the "cross" nicely since the Ktav Ashuri tav is a cover (dalet) over the emblem of reproduction (nun), i.e., an emblem of reproduction not yet uncovered: "un-circumcision."

[robrecht]

Hi Robrecht,

I was pointing out that when we use a typed Hebrew letter a heh ה looks more like a reish ר over a yod י (rather than a dalet ד over a yod). ----But in properly written Hebrew letters, a heh always has a dalet over the yod, and never a reish over a yod. If someone were to use Google Images, to bring up a Torah scroll, they could see that all of the heh on the scroll have a proper dalet and never something looking like a reish. The same thing applies to the tav ת. As you can clearly see, here ת, it looks like a reish connected to a nun נ. But on the actual Torah scroll, a dalet ד is over the nun נ and never a reish ר over a nun. The tav I type here ת is not really a proper tav according to the rules for the Jewish scribes (soferim), STA'M. ––––– If they formed a tav like this --- ת--- on a scroll, it would have to be removed, or the scroll destroyed. Same with the heh. It can never look like this ה on an actual scroll. It must always have the little roof over the right leg that we see on a dalet ד.

We do not disagree over the issue of what a Daleth looks like in some hand scripts. What I would like to see is you illustrate your argument regarding Yodh with the specific script that you are speaking of. Link to whatever pictures or illustrations you like. Thanks.

As I understand the term, a "ligature" occurs when two letters are combined to form one letter. This usually occurs as an error in writing a manuscript. If a scribe was tired, and was writing a nun following a dalet he could accidentally get the nun נ too close to the dalet ד such that the two letters are now read as one ת. This example is ironically appropriate since a dalet and a nun spell "din" which is the word for "judgment," while the tav ח is a letter representing "judgment" . . . even the final "judgment" (since the tav is the final letter of the alphabet and was originally the "cross" [Ktav Ivri] that represents mankind's final judgment). Din דנ="judgment." While the tav ת (clearly a ligature of the letters in Din דנ) was originally the symbol (a "cross"), of "judgment."

If you are merely speaking about theological reflections upon individual letters, I don't see why you are speaking of scribal mistakes? Do you have a specific text in mind where a scribe mistakenly 'smushed together' (technical term) a Daleth and a Nun, so that the text erroneously had a Tau instead of a Daleth and a Nun?

What I was getting at is that the tav is actually a legitimate "ligature" (rather than an accidental one) since the actual letter is constructed of a nun and a dalet (spelling the word "judgment").

This is not a use of the term 'legitimate ligature' that I am familiar with--can you quote a scholarly or authoritative source that uses this term in this sense? I always like to learn things. What I understand as a legitimate ligature is the use of a combined symbol to stand for the two separate letters. While it may be represented by a single symbol, it is still representing the two letters, not a completely different third letter.

. . . I think I noted that the Ktav Ashuri script (from the Assyrian script) is an "uncircumcised" script. The secrets that are found in the script of the circumcision (Ktav Ivri) are partially (or fully) covered up in the uncircumcised script (the Gentile script).

Why do you think the Jews would adopt and continue to use an uncircumcised script? Do you think they were trying to hide secrets?

[Xtian Rabinovich]

Hi Robrecht,

We do not disagree over the issue of what a Daleth looks like in some hand scripts. What I would like to see is you illustrate your argument regarding Yodh with the specific script that you are speaking of. Link to whatever pictures or illustrations you like. Thanks.

If a person examined the rules for the writing of the Hebrew letters for sacred purposes they would see that it's a standard practice to speak of an inverted yod as existing under a dalet in the construction of the letter heh. Zola Levitt's Hebrew for Christians (link) website (click on any letter for information about the letter), though very basic, points out that a heh is constructed of two vav (making up the dalet) and an inverted yod (under the dalet).

[Xtian Rabinovich]

Hi Robrecht,

What I understand as a legitimate ligature is the use of a combined symbol to stand for the two separate letters. While it may be represented by a single symbol, it is still representing the two letters, not a completely different third letter.

If a tav ת is considered a ligature of a dalet-nun דנ=ת (sliding the nun on the left under the dalet on the right) . . . even though it's a third letter, it still retains (on one important level) some of the meaning of the individual letters. Dalet-nun means "judgment." And the tav is the quintessential pictogram of "judgement": the "cross." ----This relationship exists across the whole spectrum of the Hebrew letters. Each letter retains some important element of the other letters it's constructed of. There are a number of excellent Jewish resources which teach the meaning of the Hebrew letters based on the construction of the letters (particularly the interrelationship between the letters that make up a given letter).

[Xtian Rabinovich]

Hi Robrecht

Why do you think the Jews would adopt and continue to use an uncircumcised script? Do you think they were trying to hide secrets?

All the signs and symbols fundamental to Judaism are pictograms and emblems of the life and times of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because Judaism was preordained and prophesied (Deut. 31:15-21) to reject him, they have a considerable problem with the nature and design of their foundational rituals and symbols. They all point to the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth; and so much so that if Jews meditated on them for long they would wonder how and why their foundational symbols appear to justify the Christian proposition they utterly reject.

Therefore Judaism's rulers came up with the concept that Judaism's foundational symbols are "chukkim." They're "decrees" whose deeper meaning is not known, and cannot be known, until the arrival of Messiah, who will then reveal the meaning of their foundational signs. Jews are actually taught not to try to understand the meaning of their signs and symbols . . . since according to their rulers, the attempt to understand these signs and symbols is pointless prior to Messiah's arrival. This idea about signs and symbols who's meaning must be ignored until Messiah arrives segues into the topic of this thread.

If a person carefully studied the Jewish sages they would come to the conclusion they're the most brilliant experts of the Hebrew language who have ever lived. They examine and deconstruct every jot and tittle of the sacred text to a degree that boggles the mind. And yet for thousands of years no Jewish scholar has come to a forgone conclusion set forth in this thread: a dalet and not a heh is added to the name Sarai at the same time a heh is added to Abraham's name. . . As pointed out earlier in this thread, it's a legitimate exegetical fact that a dalet and not a heh is added to Sarah's name. So why did not of the exacting Jewish sages pick up on this clear fact? -----They didn't pick up on this fact because for them the actual meaning of the symbolism associated with Abraham's circumcision is a "chok" (the singular of a "chukkim") whose meaning awaits the arrival of Messiah.

But for Christians Messiah has arrived. So unlike our Jewish brothers, we can examine every Jewish ritual and symbol (even the Hebrew letters) attempting to understand what relationship the ritual or symbol has in accord with the life and times of Messiah: Jesus of Nazareth?

Abraham's circumcision occurs as the foundational act through which a new spiritual people will be born. Isaac is the emblem or ritual manifestation of what will eventually become a reality at the birth of Messiah. So what about the birth of Messiah gives retroactive meaning to Abraham taking a knife and drawing blood from his reproductive organ? Naturally since Jesus was virgin born, no male seed, Abraham's taking a knife to that organ symbolizes emasculation such that it symbolizes Jesus' virgin birth. Isaac's birth is a ritual enactment of virgin birth.

Though it would go too far afield to justify it here, the Tanakh establishes a clear and undeniable relationship between the "serpent" (the male organ) opening the veil (dalet) of a woman, versus a "hand" opening the same veil (dalet) from the inside out. Ironically the Hebrew word yad יד is used in the Tanakh for both the male organ and the hand. If the serpent opens the veil (dalet) then offspring are like Cain . . . their father is the devil (the serpent). But if a hand opens the veil (from the inside out) the one born where the hand and not the serpent opens the veil (dalet) is virgin born, and thus not the son of the devil (the serpent).

Since the Tanakh supports the relationship between a hand opening the dalet (veil) in contradistinction to the serpent opening the veil, the question arises concerning how, if Abraham ritually emasculates himself, to become a type of Joseph (Jesus' father), could Sarah's womb be opened by Isaac's "hand" rather than Abraham's serpent, since Abraham and Sarah had clearly (or at least we assume so) cohabited prior to the birth of Isaac?

Rabbi Michael Munk tells us that one Hebrew letter stands to represent the change from a masculine word to a feminine word: the letter heh. He explains that as such, and for many other reasons, the letter heh represents the "feminine." ------When a heh is added to Abram's name to become Abraham, Abraham becomes the bride of God and not a masculine entity in relationship to God. The word "dalet" means door, or veil, or covering . . . such that once Abraham makes a covenant in blood to become God's bride, and not a masculine partner in the covenant, Sarai must have her virginity restored. ------ At the same time Abraham bleeds the organ of masculinity to begin a covenant in the blood of the serpent (such that a heh is added to his name to make "Abram" a feminine "Abraham") Sarai's virginity is restored by placing a dalet in the name Sarai transforming it into Sarah (שרי becomes שרה). ------ Isaac is born as the ritual enactment of Jesus' virgin birth. His father ritually emasculates himself, and his mother has her virginity restored. In the ritual performance of the covenant, Isaac is born like Jesus of Nazareth, of a mother whose hymenal veil is intact, and thus opened by Isaac's hand, and whose father is emasculated from the conception such that the serpent plays no role in the conception or the birth.

[robrecht]

Hi Robrecht

All the signs and symbols fundamental to Judaism are pictograms and emblems of the life and times of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because Judaism was preordained and prophesied (Deut. 31:15-21) to reject him, they have a considerable problem with the nature and design of their foundational rituals and symbols. They all point to the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth; and so much so that if Jews meditated on them for long they would wonder how and why their foundational symbols appear to justify the Christian proposition they utterly reject.

Therefore Judaism's rulers came up with the concept that Judaism's foundational symbols are "chukkim." They're "decrees" whose deeper meaning is not known, and cannot be known, until the arrival of Messiah, who will then reveal the meaning of their foundational signs. Jews are actually taught not to try to understand the meaning of their signs and symbols . . . since according to their rulers, the attempt to understand these signs and symbols is pointless prior to Messiah's arrival. This idea about signs and symbols who's meaning must be ignored until Messiah arrives segues into the topic of this thread.

Interesting. Would you please point me toward the original sources (in the Talmud? Kaballah? elsewhere?) that apply the idea of חקות or חקים to the Hebrew alphabet? And the original source that first applied this idea to the life and times of Jesus? Is this latter idea relatively recent, perhaps related to modern messianic Judaism, or older?

If a person carefully studied the Jewish sages they would come to the conclusion they're the most brilliant experts of the Hebrew language who have ever lived. They examine and deconstruct every jot and tittle of the sacred text to a degree that boggles the mind. And yet for thousands of years no Jewish scholar has come to a forgone conclusion set forth in this thread: a dalet and not a heh is added to the name Sarai at the same time a heh is added to Abraham's name. . . As pointed out earlier in this thread, it's a legitimate exegetical fact that a dalet and not a heh is added to Sarah's name. So why did not of the exacting Jewish sages pick up on this clear fact? -----They didn't pick up on this fact because for them the actual meaning of the symbolism associated with Abraham's circumcision is a "chok" (the singular of a "chukkim") whose meaning awaits the arrival of Messiah.

I am still interested in seeing the script where you see this transformation of שרי into שרה by means of the addition of a Daleth; particularly how the Yodh is being used. Also, I believe I asked previously if you see this as happening in an original text written in ancient Hebrew script or in the later Aramaic script that the Torah scrolls are written in today?

[Xtian Rabinovich]

Hi Robrecht,

Interesting. Would you please point me toward the original sources (in the Talmud? Kaballah? elsewhere?) that apply the idea of חקות or חקים to the Hebrew alphabet? And the original source that first applied this idea to the life and times of Jesus? Is this later idea relatively recent, perhaps related to modern messianic Judaism, or older?

If someone were to research the concept of a "chok" חק (I think Judaism 101 has something on the concept) they would see that according to Judaism, although ritual circumcision is called a "sign" (as well as being a chok) the meaning of bleeding the male reproductive organ is considered something that can't be known until Messiah arrives. Since Messiah has arrived for we who accept Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah, the significance of bleeding the male reproductive organ is clear as day. Jesus was born of a virgin pregnancy. . . But since Jews reject Jesus' virgin birth, for them, bleeding the male reproductive organ (the very birth of the covenant) is merely something they must do in ignorant obedience until Messiah comes and tells them what it means.

Judaism's relationship to the meaning of the Hebrew letters is directly tied to their relationship to the signs that they consider chukkim (unknowable decrees or statutes). If the Ktav Ashuri tav is made up of the word "din" --- "judgment" ----and it is, then since the Gentile script is epispasmic (in Jewish terms) . . . i.e., a re-covering of what was revealed at circumcision, the fact that in Ktav Ivri the tav is a "cross" is meaningless to a Jew, since by rejecting Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah, the "cross" has no particular meaning for the modern Jew.

I am still interested in seeing the script where you see this transformation of שרי into שרה by means of the addition of a Daleth; particularly how the Yodh is being used. Also, I believe I asked previously if you see this as happening in an original text written in ancient Hebrew script or in the later Aramaic script that the Torah scrolls are written in today?

. . . To answer the second question first, as is fitting, the foreskin must exist before it can be removed. The removal of the foreskin creates the significance of the "sign" of its removal. The sages ask why, since God is perfect, did he create the foreskin in the first place (since it's removal is a perfecting of the human body)? Why does the beit come before the alef in the Torah? We can deconstruct the Ktav Ashuri script to see the significance of the Ktav Ivri script in a way that we could not appreciate if the un-circumcision script (Ktav Ashuri) weren't our first access to the Torah. In other words, deconstructing the uncircumcised script (Ktav Ashuri) allows us to see God's plan, and take part in it, in a manner that would not be the case if the Ktav Ashuri script weren't there as a covering to be removed.

If a person were to study the Jewish sages and their take on Hebrew letters they would see that the yod is taught throughout Judaism, the Talmud, Midrash Rabbah, the Zohar, and many other forms of midrashim, to be the mark of circumcision. One letter represents circumcision: the yod. –––––– That might not seem too significant but for the fact that one letter represents a veil, or covering, such as is removed at ritual circumcision: the dalet. . . Armed with these incontestable facts (which can easily be verified with a little study) we have the irony that the letter heh is constructed of the two Hebrew letters that are directly associated with ritual circumcision. We have the dalet (a covering) representing the prepuce, and the yod representing that which is uncovered in ritual circumcision.

Armed with these incontestable facts we can clearly see that the Name of God revealed to Abraham at the circumcision and the offering of Isaac, "Shaddai" שדי is the word for lamb שה (as in the "Lamb of God" --- Jesus of Nazareth) after the dalet ד has been removed to uncover the yod י. If a person took the Name "Shaddai" שדי and placed the dalet ד (the covering) back over the mark of circumcision, the yod י, they would transform the word "Shaddai" שדי back into the word for "lamb" שה . –––– The Name "Shaddai" is unveiled for the first time when Abraham unveils the covering covering the great secret that the Lamb of God will be God the Lamb. In other words God reveals to Abraham (at his circumcision) that the Lamb of God שדי is God the Lamb שה. Uncover the mark of circumcision --- the yod --- which is to say pull the dalet (the covering) off of the yod in the word "lamb" and you reveal the Name "Shaddai" שדי .

If a person looks carefully at the three letters in "Shaddai" שׁ––ד––י, they can see that if you took the two last letters ד––י and placed the last letter (i.e., the yod on the left) underneath the first letter (the dalet on the right) the letter heh ה is formed. A letter shin ש with an uncircumcised letter heh ה (the veil or covering --dalet --- remains over the yod) forms the word "lamb" שה. But if we merely reverse that process to pull the dalet ד from over the yod י we have a dalet-yod די instead of a heh. We have "Shaddai" as the circumcised "Lamb."

Scripture here distinguishes between the מילה [milah: circumcision] act itself and מילה as a sign inscribed upon our flesh. The community-- or the father, who represents the community to his son---inscribes the "די"! on the child, thus assigning him the destiny להתהלך לפני א–ל ש–די.

Hirsch Chumash, Bereshis 17:11.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, the author of the Hirsch Chumash, without knowing precisely the importance of what he points out, when he points out that a dalet yod is inscribed at the covenant cutting (Rabbi Hirsch would never concede that Shaddai is the God lamb, the Lamb of God) nevertheless inadvertently supports the exegesis provided in this thread by stating that a dalet and a yod are uncovered in the covenant uncovering. Rabbi Hirsch actually adds an exclamation ! after the די (dalet yod) as though he intuited on some level the importance of what he was pointing out. . . Even beyond that, someone might notice that in the statement that ends the sentence (the Hebrew for "walk before Shaddai") Rabbi Hirsh separates the shin ש from the dalet-yod די, again pointing out that on some level his mind is toying with the significance of these highly significant letters, and their sacred deconstruction.

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.

[robrecht]

My dear Mr Rabinovich, please let me know if you ever feel like answering the questions that I actually asked.

In the meantime, Happy Easter!

[John Reece]

[snip]

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

From Professor Elliot R. Wolfson's website (color and bold emphasis added by JR):

elliot wolfson has published extensively in the area of jewish mysticism and philosophy in the medieval and modern eras. engaging the immense and complex corpus of kabbalistic texts critically, he also seeks to extend and transform this distinctive tradition of speculative thought. in so doing, he intersects with and contributes to a range of fields and disciplines, including philosophical hermeneutics, the history and phenomenology of religion, and theories of gender and eroticism.

Dictionary in Accordance:

speculative: engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge.

[Xtian Rabinovich]

Hi John,

From Professor Elliot R. Wolfson's website (color and bold emphasis added by JR):

elliot wolfson has published extensively in the area of jewish mysticism and philosophy in the medieval and modern eras. engaging the immense and complex corpus of kabbalistic texts critically, he also seeks to extend and transform this distinctive tradition of speculative thought. in so doing, he intersects with and contributes to a range of fields and disciplines, including philosophical hermeneutics, the history and phenomenology of religion, and theories of gender and eroticism.

Dictionary in Accordance:

speculative: engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge.

Professor Wolfson, with whom I've had the privilege of discussing some of these things, tends to hold to a similar idea as the one I hold about the nature of the written word. The letter is dead and calcified. It has a veil over it that must be removed in a process that's as bloody and painful (to our existing epistemology) as what Abraham undertook to get the Abrahamic covenant rolling. There's no proper exegesis without eisegesis. Lexicographers are linguistic funeral directors. All they do is make a corpse look something like it looked when it was still alive. You can't speak to a corpse. You can't learn much from a corpse. The dead letter must be resurrected. Judaism, in rejecting the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, is without a resurrection hermeneutic.

On this lovely Easter Sunday Jews are being circumcised around the globe. But not a one of them knows what it means for the hymenal tissue that the mohel tears with the nails on his hands to be being torn by the nails in a Jewish male's hands, and not by the serpentine organ itself. Their spiritual relationship to the text is lexicographical. They're funeral directors of the Tanakh. They're trapped in the death of the dead letter by their rejection of our Lord Jesus Christ whose resurrection we celebrate on this wonderful Easter day.

When the Jews asked Paul what right he had to take such liberties with the Torah text (the text of the Tanakh) . . . since the orthodox traditional reading was set in stone, so to say, in Judaism, Paul told them that because Jesus Christ had risen from the dead, he, Paul, was able to practice a resurrection hermeneutic on the text that was not accessible to those funeral directors who at best could fancy up the corpse that they worshiped as though it were still alive. Paul told them that the true Torah had been resurrected and was seated at the right hand of the Father, and that he, Paul, was empowered through a resurrection hermeneutic, to make the text speak living words regardless of what violence those living words did to the dead letter that his Jewish compatriots are to this day wont to lie in the synagogue ark which, like the Ark of the Covenant, is a tomb, and not a place for anything living to be found.

[Xtian Rabinovich]

Hi Robrecht,

Happy Easter!

Happy Easter to you too! . . . Sorry that I failed to answer your question. If you rephrase it I will try again with a abbreviated and more concise answer.

[John Reece]

Hi Robrecht,

Happy Easter to you too! . . . Sorry that I failed to answer your question. If you rephrase it I will try again with a abbreviated and more concise answer.

robrecht has asked you not a single question, but rather a series of multiple questions simply stated and quite easy to understand.

Why should he repeat or rephrase the questions he has asked you, when all you need do to answer said questions ― if they are not too great a challenge to the speculative nature of your assertions ― is to re-read robrecht's posts?

[Xtian Rabinovich]

Hi John,

robrecht has asked you not a single question, but rather a series of multiple questions simply stated and quite easy to understand. . . Why should he repeat or rephrase the questions he has asked you, when all you need do to answer said questions ― if they are not too great a challenge to the speculative nature of your assertions ― is to re-read robrecht's posts?

Here's one of the last questions he asked:

Interesting. Would you please point me toward the original sources (in the Talmud? Kaballah? elsewhere?) that apply the idea of חקות or חקים to the Hebrew alphabet? And the original source that first applied this idea to the life and times of Jesus? Is this latter idea relatively recent, perhaps related to modern messianic Judaism, or older?

Judaism doesn't explicitly apply the concept of a "chok" to the Hebrew letters themselves (so far as I know). They debate whether Ktav Ashuri or Ktav Ivri is the script of the original tablets given to Moses. But they do explain that when Messiah comes he will provide a new Torah (or at least a new reading of the original consonants). I believe Robrecht and I discussed this in the past. Midrash Rabbah, Ecclesiastes XI.6, 1-9 says, "The Torah which a man learns in this world Is Vanity in comparison with the Torah [which will be learnt in the days] of the Messiah." There are a great number of similar statements in Jewish midrashim. I think I even posted many of them in the past.

Since Judaism acknowledges that they're not now able to glean the meaning from the text that they will be able to receive from the text when Messiah arrives, I think it's fair to say that at least implicitly the same idea (of meaning hidden until Messiah) exists in relationship to the Torah text, and thus, it's not absurd to point out that the letters themselves are hiding secrets that will be unlocked by the arrival of Messiah (which is the basic Jewish idea of a "chok").

. . . The question below is more difficult to decipher?

I am still interested in seeing the script where you see this transformation of שרי into שרה by means of the addition of a Daleth; particularly how the Yodh is being used. Also, I believe I asked previously if you see this as happening in an original text written in ancient Hebrew script or in the later Aramaic script that the Torah scrolls are written in today?

The script that we type on our keyboard is Ktav Ashuri (with some minor modifications to the actual letters). So Ktav Ashuri is the script where we see שרי being transformed into שרה simply by placing a dalet ד over the yod י that already exists in שרי. Since the heh ה in "Sarah" is constructed of a dalet and a yod . . . and since a yod is already in the name "Sarai" (שרי) all that's needed to transform "Sarai" to "Sarah" is to place the yod under a dalet.

The Torah scrolls at any synagogue are today written in Ktav Ashuri. So the foregoing applies to the Torah scrolls found in any synagogue. The same principles we find in the Ktav Ashuri script aren't going to hold true to the Ktav Ivri script since the Ktav Ivri script is the "circumcised" script, such that it functions on completely different principles. Ktav Ivri, handled properly, would no doubt reveal its own secrets; perhaps secrets of a very great nature. But to examine the Ktav Ivri script, we would need information about the pictographic meaning of each and every letter. I don't think it's the case that what applies to the one script applies to the other. For example, a heh in Ktav Ivri doesn't appear to be constructed of a dalet and a yod. So the relationship we can find between a dalet and a yod in Ktav Ashuri isn't necessarily going to hold true in Ktav Ivri.