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

מילה [circumcision] is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but the beginning of a higher "octave." It marks the second, higher "birthday," man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action. Physical birth belongs to the night . . . but מילה [circumcision], birth as a Jew, belongs to the daytime.

Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23.

The idea of "free and moral action" associated with a new birth (which is not a mere supplement to the physical birth) is Pauline to the core: the law is nullified in the new birth such that the one so born into this second, higher, birthday, is free from the law, and thus, goes further than the law could ever encourage him to go since the lawful actions of the one born-again are "free" from the penalties and threats associated with the law of the first birth, the law of the flesh, the law endorsed and enforced by the angel of the night, conception, death.

In, A Radical Jew, Rabbi Daniel Boyarin gives an excellent analysis of some of St. Paul's most misunderstood statements. Rabbi Boyarin dissects Paul better on many of his statements than many Christian scholars. His analysis of Paul's statement (below) sounds as if it's directly informed by the quotations from Rabbi Hirsch (above). The context of Rabbi Boyarin's exegesis is Roman's 7:7-13:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

To this statement of Paul, Rabbi Boyarin says:

Starting from the assumption that Romans 7 continues Romans 5, I want to propose that the entire discourse about Law and commandment in this section of Romans has to do with sexuality. Of all the myriad interpretations that have been offered for the soliloquy of chapter 7, the one that makes the most sense to me, for all its problems, is the interpretation that the speaker of these verses is Adam . . .
1. Only Adam was alive before any commandment was given (v. 9).
2. The commandment not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge came and gave Sin (the Serpent) an opportunity to bring death to Adam (v. 9).
3. "Sin deceived me" (εξηπατησεν) is the same term that Eve used to describe what happened to her, namely, that the Serpent "deceived me" (ηπατησεν με) (v. 11; cf. Gen. 3:13).
4. The result of the transgression is death, so "the very commandment which promised life [be fruitful and multiply] proved to be death to me."

Keeping in mind Rabbi Boyarin's claim that Paul's Romans 7 soliloquy is about the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, and Adam and Eve being deceived by the nature of the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, such that they break the commandment about eating from the tree of knowledge (in an attempt to be fruitful and multiply), Boyarin says:

We thus see that at three points in his discourse Paul repeats the same highly significant sequence of ideas. In their former state of being in the flesh, Jewish Christians had been obligated under the Law. This Law is a law of flesh, because with its emphasis on fleshly obligations and especially procreation, it inevitably leads to passion and desire. However, under the new dispensation afforded to Christians through baptism, which is an enactment of Christ's death and resurrection, they are born again freed of the obligation to the flesh, that obligation which produces sinful desire in the members and fruit for death. The erotic life of Christians is ideally entirely devoted to the new bridegroom, Christ, and the joining with this bridegroom results not in fruit for death but in spiritual fruit for God.

The emphasis on embodiedness involved in being Jewish, in both senses of "flesh," that is, valorizing circumcision and other fleshly practices as well as concentrating on genealogical connections, implies necessarily the obligation to have children. The only solution, then, is to escape from the condition of being in the flesh, to die to the Law and be reborn in the new life of the spirit, which spiritualizes precisely those fleshly, embodied aspects of the Torah, kinship and the performance of Jewish ritual and thus sexuality. Freed from the captivity of the letter, the flesh, the commandment which actually cause us to sin, we can serve God in the freedom of the spirit and escape from that which stirs up our members. It thus constitutes a return to the pre-lapsarian state in which Adam dwelled when he lived apart form the Law, that is, both the law to be fruitful and multiply and the prohibition to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. For the Christian, Christ and dying with Christ constitute a return to this state of grace and redemption from the death and the bearing of fruit for death which Adam's transgression occasioned, as opposed to the bearing of spiritual fruit for God of Romans 7:4. "In the flesh" here, then, like its equivalent, "in the letter," means simply in literal Jewish existence, in Israel according to the flesh.

On the next page Rabbi Boyarin says: "Paul never once to my knowledge mentions the bearing of children as a positive event, not even as a necessary evil!" 

מילה is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but the beginning of a higher "octave." It marks the second, higher "birthday," man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action. Physical birth belongs to the night . . . but מילה, birth as a Jew, belongs to the daytime.

Clarifying the above statement Rabbi Hirsch writes:

Therefore, the physical birth of the child is completed on the seventh day. The eighth day, the octave of birth, as it were, repeats the day of birth, but as a day of higher, spiritual birth for his Jewish mission and his Jewish destiny.

Rabbi Hirsch is clear that "physical birth" is related to "night" and "darkness" and fleshly sensuality, which Rabbi Kaplan relates to the "phallus" (which is sacrificed on the altar of the sandek on the eighth day). Rabbi Hirsch calls the eighth day the octave of birth, but of a higher order than the physical birth. He calls it a "spiritual" birth. Ironically, Rabbi Hirsch's "spiritual birth," is set apart from the "physical birth," by sacrificing the organ through which physical birth takes place, the organ sacrificed on the altar of the sandek:

   

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. . . Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a teacher of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness (John 3:3-11).

Rabbi Hirsch says physical birth is complete on the seventh day, and that the eighth day is associated with a higher, spiritual, birth, not conceived at night, which night is ruled by the sensual aspect of human existence, i.e. phallic-sex, but conceived in the daytime, where the Talmud forbids phallic sex (Niddah 16b). . . And what's the "sign" of this spiritual birth conceived in the day, where the Talmud forbids phallic-sex? . . . Taking a sharp knife and cutting the flesh of the phallus such that the "blood" associated with this "sign" is treated as though it came from the altar of sacrifice. Is there any sacrifice in Judaism whereby "blood" is taken from the sacrifice without requiring the life of that which is being sacrificed?

After the sacrifices is complete (and the organ of the sacrifice has relinquished its life and blood), i.e., milah, the mohel takes his sharpened fingernails and tears the very membrane (periah) that signifies virginity (when its intact, since phallic-sex can't occur for the male or female with it intact). He tears the membrane of virginity with the nails in his "hand" signifying a rupturing of virginity caused not by the phallus (whose life has just been sacrificed to acquire the sanctifying blood that fertilizes the new birth) but by the nails in the "hand" of a male Jew.

Rabbi Hirsch clearly compares the seven days after the physical birth to the seven days of creation in Genesis. Which is to say in seven days the physical world was complete while according to Rabbi Hirsch, in seven days the physical birth is complete. In more than one place he says the number "eight" represents transcending the physical and mundane. Eight is a number of transcendence, such that if seven is associated with the physical fleshly life, and eight is the number of transcendence, wouldn't it be fair to say that a birth taking place on the eighth day represents entering into a life that transcends the physical life, physical existence?

Seemingly (if not seamlessly) justifying this logic is the fact that the birth on the eighth day is symbolized by discarding with the organ that affected the birth on the first day. The blood of the organ through which the physical birth takes place is literally, in the analogy, used as the seed for the new birth, the being born-again not of flesh and blood, but of water (the mikvah) and "spirit" (which "spirit" Midrash Rabbah compares to "blood").

In his "ye must be born-again" sermon, Jesus, who according to the Apostle John, was born of "water and blood” (I John 5:6), tells his interlocutors that if they're to enter into the Kingdom of God they must be born of "water and spirit" (which "spirit" Midrash Rabbah compares to "blood"). 

Rabbi Hirsch speaks explicitly of two births. In the case of each birth, conception takes place in one moment of time; one by means of the phallus and the "white seed" (Abulafia), and the other by the blood of the limb, the seed that's red (adumah). Whereas in physical birth there's a protracted amount of time between the conception and the birth, in the new birth the birth occurs nearly simultaneous to the conception event.  At the Passover, the red seed was placed on the thighs of the bride (Yoma 2a) and the birth occurred the next morning (see Rabbis Waskow and Berman, Freedom’s Journey), when the veil of the bride (Yoma 2a, Shabbat 118a) was opened by a male Jew leaving the "house" (rather than entering) . . . with the blood of the groom (red seed) still on the thighs of the "bride."

Rabbi Hirsch says the first seven days of creation are like the seven days after the physical birth. They represent the completion of the "physical" world and body. ------But the new birth, which Rabbi Hirsch says is a "spiritual" birth (not even a "completion" or "supplement" to the first birth) gets only one day. And not even an "evening and morning" . . . just one day.

He's backed up by the symbolism itself. The high priest (mohel) with his nails sharpened for the sacrifice (on the lap of the sandek) first cuts off the flesh associated with physical birth (conceived at night) and then, in the light of day (R. Hirsch), having just discarded with the "flesh" associated with "physical" conception, takes the nails in his Jewish hand and opens the very membrane (door or veil) that's opened at the conception event associated with the "physical" birth, which, conception event always, for orthodox Jews, takes place at night (Niddah 16b, “It is forbidden to perform one's marital duty in the day-time”.).

Both rituals, the sacrifice of the physical flesh (and Jews are taught that the "blood" is the primary symbol of milah . . . and no sacrifice ever survives the taking of its "blood"), and the tearing of the membrane of virginity, take place on the same day.  The blood of milah is the seed that must be acquired before the membrane of virginity is opened by nails in a Jewish males hand.

"Physical birth belongs to the night . . . but מילה, birth as a Jew, belongs to the daytime."

Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23.

The ellipsis in the quotation is itself a quotation (in Hebrew) of Niddah 16b: physical birth belongs to the form of conception that takes place at night. . .The Soncino Press English translation of the Hebrew text of Niddah 16b reads: "The name of the angel who is in charge of conception is 'Night'."  The word translated "conception" (heron) is not the word that would be translated "birth" (yalad). With Niddah 16b translated, Rabbi Hirsch's statement would look like this:

Physical birth belongs to the night [since] (The name of the angel who is in charge of conception is 'Night') but מילה [circumcision], birth as a Jew, belongs to the daytime."

Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23.

With the quotation of Niddah 16b, it’s clear that when Rabbi Hirsch speaks of “physical birth” belonging to the night, by “belonging,” he’s implying that the means of conception occurs at night. Therefore, in the second statement, about milah (מילה), “birth as a Jew” belonging to the daytime, it’s patently clear that he’s implying that as “physical” birth is associated with a night conception, the birth associated with milah (מילה) is related to a daytime conception (a conception that is not allowed to take place with the phallus intact --- Niddah 16b).

In the expanded quotation, Rabbi Hirsch makes it clear that he equates physicality with darkness, nature, night, “the dark side of life.” While on the other hand, the daylight is associated with man’s power (through Shaddai) over the night, over the physical nature, and over the dark side of life:

. . . מילה [circumcision] is invalid at night; the prescribed time for its performance is during the day, in the daylight of man's wakeful life. מילה [circumcision] is not an offering to the powers of nature, which rule at night over the dark side of life; מילה [circumcision] does not relate to the physical aspects of man, which are fettered in thick darkness. Rather, מילה [circumcision] consecrates man to א–ל ש–די, Who rules freely over the dark powers He Himself created; מילה [circumcision] summons man and his darkest urges to the luminous heights of freedom of will. מילה [circumcision] is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but the beginning of a higher "octave." It marks the second, higher "birthday," man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action. Physical birth belongs to the night . . . but מילה [circumcision], birth as a Jew, belongs to the daytime.

Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23.

Circumcision is not concerned with the dark powers of an unfree nature. Circumcision freely directs us to the One absolute God Whose Law binds the forces of nature, and Whose essence and freedom are reflected in the free-willed creativity of man during his waking hours. It is to such a man that circumcision addresses itself, placing the knife into his hand and demanding that he himself apply the limits of God's Law to the sensual aspects of his body. . . You must learn from Him how to say "די" [di] to the forces of sensuality, making His will your own. You must measure all the endeavors of your sensual being by the standards of His will. With the knife of His "די," His "enough!," you must apply the מילה, you must set limits to בשר ערלתו ["uncircumcised flesh"], the physical aspects of your body which otherwise you would not control. Only if you impose these restraints upon your physical self can you expect His blessing and His aid.

Collected Writings Volume III.

In these quotes, Rabbi Hirsch is clear that milah is taking the knife to the physical aspects of your life; aspects associated with "night," "sensuality," "physical conception," etc.. Since milah is applied to the phallus, it's patently clear that Rabbi Hirsch is saying to cut the phallus to undermine the birth associated with night, sensuality, death, physicality, etc..

He says that the "די" of Shaddai (ש–די) represents the "cutting" of the phallus that affects the displacement of the phallic (serpentine) aspects of human existence. This cutting of the flesh to create the די of ש–די, is the "Enough!" spoken to the serpent. His nights are over. His control over human existence is over. A new birth, not associated with the phallus, which is cut out of the Jewish birth, displaces the place of the serpent; the place that is seminal in all non-Jewish births.

Rabbi Hirsch says that the first seven days of physical life are associated with the birth conceived at night, while the eighth day marks a birth (of the same person born eight days earlier) that transcends the physicality of the birth eight days earlier, and which represents the power to overcome the forces of sensuality and the death associated with the night and night-time conception, i.e., phallic-sex.

It’s perhaps coincidental that the mitzvah associated with this new (second) birth is the bleeding of the physical flesh associated with the first birth? The irony is compounded many orders of magnitude when it's admitted that the Messiah received by a large portion of humanity was allegedly born from the blood of the phallus (it was literally rather than ritually bled out of his birth) as another almost too perfect coincidence. That this would-be Jewish Messiah would be quoted saying that you must be "born again," not of the flesh (of the natural birth) but of the blood of that organ, and the water of the purified (the mikvah) womb (Rabbi Kaplan), is really pushing the limits of credulity to the breaking point.

. . .the truth of the thoughts that are here communicated seems to me unassailable and definitive. I therefore believe myself to have found, on all essential points, the final solution of the problems. And if I am not mistaken in this belief, then the second thing in which the value of the work consists is that it shows how little is achieved when these problems are solved.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Intro  .