johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2013 John D. Brey.
© 2013 John D. Brey.
Genesis 17:4-5 says: "As for
Me, this is My covenant with you: You shall be a father of a multitude of
nations; you are no longer to be called Avram, but your name is to be Avraham,
for I have appointed you as father of the multitude of nations." [1]
To this verse, Rabbi Hirsch replies:
To this verse, Rabbi Hirsch replies:
What is the
meaning of this latter phrase? To maintain that it refers to Avraham's physical
descendants is difficult, for they are mentioned only in verse 6. The name
"אברהם" also shows that, here, the phrase is not to be taken in the
physical sense. Were אב meant to be taken literally, in the physical sense, the
form of the name would be "אבהם" and the ר would be meaningless and
disruptive.
Rabbi Hirsch is clear that circumcision,
bris milah, "is the founding covenant of Judaism." And yet he
puzzles that the new name given to Abram suggest the covenant is not talking
about his physical descendants, but some sort of metaphysical descendants. Rashi
notes the same thing: that Abraham will be father to the whole world. Rabbi Elie
Munk concurs. He points out that the addition of the heh in Abram's name
"represents a material void." He says: "Integrated into the name
of the patriarch, it indicates that it is not a question of physical paternity,
but paternity in the spiritual sense. This extends over a `multitude of
nations' of both Jewish and non-Jewish stock, as Rashi points out . . . ."
This implies that the "metaphysical" Jew needn't be a physical descendent of Abraham. Rabbi Munk points out that Abraham’s descendants can be of non-Jewish stock. This suggests that the physical stock of Abraham aren’t necessarily the metaphysical stock. A person can be a Jew after the flesh (Abraham's descendent), as Saul of Tarsus points out, and not be a metaphysical Jew. A person can be a metaphysical Jew, but not be a physical descendent of Abraham. Rabbis Munk and Hirsch make this perfectly clear in their commentaries.
Rashi points out that Abram's new name means that "Abraham" is the father of a multitude of nations: "father to the whole world.” Which means that circumcision is not a sign signifying Abraham's physical stock, his paternal family, but a sign of his relationship to a metaphysical, or spiritual, Multitude of Nations.
The exegetes Keil and Delitzsch state the facts this way:
This implies that the "metaphysical" Jew needn't be a physical descendent of Abraham. Rabbi Munk points out that Abraham’s descendants can be of non-Jewish stock. This suggests that the physical stock of Abraham aren’t necessarily the metaphysical stock. A person can be a Jew after the flesh (Abraham's descendent), as Saul of Tarsus points out, and not be a metaphysical Jew. A person can be a metaphysical Jew, but not be a physical descendent of Abraham. Rabbis Munk and Hirsch make this perfectly clear in their commentaries.
Rashi points out that Abram's new name means that "Abraham" is the father of a multitude of nations: "father to the whole world.” Which means that circumcision is not a sign signifying Abraham's physical stock, his paternal family, but a sign of his relationship to a metaphysical, or spiritual, Multitude of Nations.
The exegetes Keil and Delitzsch state the facts this way:
Since
Ishmael therefore was excluded from participating in the covenant grace, which
was ensured to Isaac alone; and yet Abraham was to become a multitude of
nations, and that through Sarah, who was to become "nations" through
the son she was to bear (ver.16); the "multitude of nations" could
not include either the Ishmaelites or the tribes descended from the sons of
Keturah (chap. xxv. 2sqq.), but the descendants of Isaac alone; and as one of
Isaac's two sons received no part of the covenant promise, the descendants of
Jacob alone. But the whole of the twelve sons of Jacob founded only the one
nation of Israel, with which Jehovah established the covenant made with Abraham
(Ex. vi. and xx.-xxiv.), so that Abraham became through Israel the lineal
father of one nation only.
Keil and Delitzsch explain their point more clearly:
From this
[the fact that Abraham is the lineal father of only one nation through his and
Sarah's physical posterity] it necessarily follows, that the posterity of
Abraham, which was to expand into a multitude of nations, extends beyond this
one lineal posterity, and embraces the spiritual posterity also, i.e., all
nations who are grafted ------ into the seed of Abraham (Rom. iv. 11, 12, and
16, 17). Moreover, the fact that the seed of Abraham was not to be restricted
to his lineal descendants, is evident from the fact, that circumcision as the
covenant sign was not confined to them, but extended to all the inmates of his
house, so that these strangers were received into the fellowship of the
covenant, and reckoned as part of the promised seed. Now, if the whole land of
Canaan was promised to this posterity, which was to increase into a multitude
of nations (ver. 8), it is perfectly evident, from what has just been said,
that the sum and substance of the promise was not exhausted by the gift of the
land, whose boundaries are described in chap. xv. 18-21, as a possession to the
nation of Israel, but that the extension of the idea of the lineal posterity,
"Israel after the flesh," to the spiritual posterity, "Israel
after the spirit," requires the expansion of the idea and the extent of
the earthly Canaan to the full extent of the spiritual Canaan, whose boundaries
reach as widely as the multitude of nations having Abraham as father; and,
therefore, that in reality Abraham received the promise "that he should be
the heir of the world" (Rom.iv. 13) [Rashi, Bereshit 17:5].
If Abraham is to become the father
of a "multitude of nations" then the promised seed must expand beyond
the boundaries of physical Canaan (the nation of the physical posterity:
Israel). His posterity must expand beyond his physical seed, which is
circumscribed by the Israelite people.
Keil and Delitzsch’s comments are a
prelude to the essay, A Token Jew (link), which describes how
circumcision, as ritual emasculation, is the "sign" signifying the seed
through which the physical posterity of Abraham will be expanded into the
"multitude of nations." The expansion occurs when a woman, of the
physical seed of Abraham, experiences an emasculate pregnancy. Her Son becomes
the spiritual seed of Abraham to whom the multitude of nations come running
when they see him lifted up from the earth like a banner (Isa. 5:26; 11:10;
40:5; 49:6; 49:22). ---- The seed of Abraham, which came from a circumcised
pregnancy, where the father's scar was cutting enough to cut through to the
meaning of the sign of circumcision, i.e. birth from an emasculated pregnancy, opened
what was formerly unique to the physical seed of Abraham, sharing that
spiritual heritage with a multitude of nations.
As the essay, A Token Jew, points out, it’s only from the spiritual seed of Abraham that the physical seed retroactively achieve their significance. Without the birth of the spiritual seed, i.e. the one born of a circumcised pregnancy, the whole purpose of the physical seed is destroyed. Which is to say, as the Jewish sages are wont to say, if not for the actual circumcision, not only would Israel not have been born, but neither would the world have been created.
As the essay, A Token Jew, points out, it’s only from the spiritual seed of Abraham that the physical seed retroactively achieve their significance. Without the birth of the spiritual seed, i.e. the one born of a circumcised pregnancy, the whole purpose of the physical seed is destroyed. Which is to say, as the Jewish sages are wont to say, if not for the actual circumcision, not only would Israel not have been born, but neither would the world have been created.
The Holy One, Blessed Is He, said to
Adam, "Accursed is the ground because of you: through suffering will you
eat from it all the days of your life." Then Adam said, "Master of
the world! Until when?" He said to him, "Until a man will be born
circumcised."
Midrash Tanchuma Bereishis 11.
Midrash Tanchuma Bereishis 11.
Rabbi Sampson
Hirsch points out that brit milah is the founding covenant of Judaism. But
he says the covenant isn’t about physical progeny, but spiritual. And the
spiritual progeny are said to be a "multitude of goy," and not
Abraham's physical lineage through Sarah. ---- Rabbi Munk points out explicitly
that non-Jewish stock make up the multitude of nations. Circumcision is said to
be the "sign" of the metaphysical covenant. It's said to be a
physical sign related to the metaphysical covenant: Israel, a physical people,
signifying a spiritual multitude.
Cutting
the flesh of the reproductive organ is said to signify God's metaphysical
covenant to Abraham: the covenant that will lead not to physical lineage
through Sarah and Isaac, but spiritual lineage through a seed born once the
organ of reproductions is cut off.
Only
one Jew has ever claimed to be born in such a way. And as fate would have it,
the whole world of goy have run to him, converted to him, and sought him out lovingly,
through faith and conversion.
The physical line of Abraham, through Sarah, are the custodians of the physical signs of the covenant God made to Abraham. They're the scribes who are to guard and protect the physical Torah scroll, even as they're to protect the physical sign of what was at one time the impending birth of the metaphysical seed of Abraham. We can say "metaphysical" seed of Abraham, because this seed has no father, and is thus a metaphysical seed, as opposed to the normal physical seed. And because this seed of Abraham is not born through sexual procreation, neither is the "multitude of nations" born into this spiritual commonwealth through physical procreation (per Abraham’s physical lineage), but through spiritual procreation: through conversion.
Conversion to what? The physical seed? . . . Should the multitude of nations, the actual target of the covenant, convert to the physical seed, who are only the temporary custodians of the actual metaphysical covenant?
The physical line of Abraham, through Sarah, are the custodians of the physical signs of the covenant God made to Abraham. They're the scribes who are to guard and protect the physical Torah scroll, even as they're to protect the physical sign of what was at one time the impending birth of the metaphysical seed of Abraham. We can say "metaphysical" seed of Abraham, because this seed has no father, and is thus a metaphysical seed, as opposed to the normal physical seed. And because this seed of Abraham is not born through sexual procreation, neither is the "multitude of nations" born into this spiritual commonwealth through physical procreation (per Abraham’s physical lineage), but through spiritual procreation: through conversion.
Conversion to what? The physical seed? . . . Should the multitude of nations, the actual target of the covenant, convert to the physical seed, who are only the temporary custodians of the actual metaphysical covenant?
The concept of “chukkim,” i.e. supra-rational statutes whose meaning is not understood in a rational manner, speaks to the fact that the physical progeny of Abraham don’t know precisely how the metaphysical epoch and era begin. The signs of the metaphysical covenant were chukkim (a sign whose shape and form is known, but whose actual significance is not). The physical seed of Abraham were dispatched to deliver a particular package, the contents of which weren’t known to them. For this reason, when Jesus of Nazareth arrived, through virgin birth, the very people who wore the sign of virgin birth in their flesh, did not immediately realize that Jesus was the metaphysical seed of Abraham, nor that his virgin birth was the perfect analogue for the scar that was the physical sign of the metaphysical covenant.
Jesus’
virgin birth turned the physical signs into the fullness of meaning fulfilling
the concept that the spiritual meaning of the chukkim would not be known, or knowable, until the arrival of
Messiah. When he arrived, and gave the metaphysical meaning related to the
physical signs, the physical progeny of Abraham got rid of him, as they tried
to get rid of a multitude of previous sign-interpreters, to include Joseph the
son of Jacob.
Nevertheless,
like Joseph before him, but on a grander scale, Jesus of Nazareth became not
just the ruler of Egypt, or Jerusalem, or even the world, but of everything. Jesus will eventually be revealed to Israel,
as Joseph was revealed to his brothers, and the weeping and wailing will be
unbearable in Israel. They will eventually realize the role they played in the
grand plan of God, and long to cleave to the Messiah, who endured so much at
the hands of those who were dispatched to receive him.
Throughout Isaiah, we're treated to the plea for why no one was there to receive him, why no one was there to help him. ---- So he saved himself. ---- He was numbered with the transgressors, lifted up like a fleshly banner, marred more than any man. And yet the nations rallied to him. Those, whom he never sought, searched for him. A multitude of nations, without the Torah, without wisdom, without spiritual guidance, rallied to him. Not as physical progeny, but as spiritual sons. Not through the will of a father. But through conversion based on what came out of his holy mouth, the oral Torah, which makes every physical statute, the written Torah, sensible.
As Rabbi Hirsch points out, with others, to include Rashi, God first establishes his covenant with Abraham and calls it a covenant of circumcision. That's what the covenant is about, circumcision. And as Rabbi Hirsch and others point out, this covenant of circumcision is not fundamentally about Abraham's physical offspring with Sarah, but about the establishment of Abraham as the father of Gentile nations. When Abraham becomes the “father” (literally) of Gentile nations, then the covenant of circumcision is fulfilled. But the fulfillment is not such that the true sons of the covenant (Gentile nations) must wear the "token" of the covenant. The token of the covenant is for the physical sons of Abraham, whom God commands to guard the mere "token" or "sign" of the covenant.
According to Rabbi Hirsch, the statement at Genesis 17:4-5 is the full statement about the covenant of circumcision. And it says nothing about Abraham's physical line. As Rabbi Hirsch points out, the genealogical seed are spoken of immediately following the statement about the multitude of Gentile nations. Rabbi Hirsch says: "What is the meaning of this latter phrase [Gen. 17:5]? To maintain that it refers to Avraham's physical descendants is difficult, for they are mentioned only in verse 6."
Throughout Isaiah, we're treated to the plea for why no one was there to receive him, why no one was there to help him. ---- So he saved himself. ---- He was numbered with the transgressors, lifted up like a fleshly banner, marred more than any man. And yet the nations rallied to him. Those, whom he never sought, searched for him. A multitude of nations, without the Torah, without wisdom, without spiritual guidance, rallied to him. Not as physical progeny, but as spiritual sons. Not through the will of a father. But through conversion based on what came out of his holy mouth, the oral Torah, which makes every physical statute, the written Torah, sensible.
As Rabbi Hirsch points out, with others, to include Rashi, God first establishes his covenant with Abraham and calls it a covenant of circumcision. That's what the covenant is about, circumcision. And as Rabbi Hirsch and others point out, this covenant of circumcision is not fundamentally about Abraham's physical offspring with Sarah, but about the establishment of Abraham as the father of Gentile nations. When Abraham becomes the “father” (literally) of Gentile nations, then the covenant of circumcision is fulfilled. But the fulfillment is not such that the true sons of the covenant (Gentile nations) must wear the "token" of the covenant. The token of the covenant is for the physical sons of Abraham, whom God commands to guard the mere "token" or "sign" of the covenant.
According to Rabbi Hirsch, the statement at Genesis 17:4-5 is the full statement about the covenant of circumcision. And it says nothing about Abraham's physical line. As Rabbi Hirsch points out, the genealogical seed are spoken of immediately following the statement about the multitude of Gentile nations. Rabbi Hirsch says: "What is the meaning of this latter phrase [Gen. 17:5]? To maintain that it refers to Avraham's physical descendants is difficult, for they are mentioned only in verse 6."
So what does verse
6 say: “But I will make you, too,
exceedingly fruitful; I will even make you into nations, and kings will descend
from you” (Rabbi Hirsch’s translation). ---- God first establishes the covenant
of circumcision with Abraham, which is about him becoming the father of Gentile
nations. But immediately after this, God say to Abraham, that he “too” (also) will
be exceedingly fruitful; and that God will even make his physical descendants
into nations, and kings will descend from his physical seed. Ishmael and Isaac
both fathered physical lineages through Abraham's physical seed, which became
nations and kings descended physically through Ishmael and Isaac.
But the passage clearly separates the covenant of circumcision, whereby Abraham will be the father of Gentile nations, from what follows as an addendum, where Ishmael, Isaac, and Abraham's sons through Keturah, will all become a physical line of nations and kings.
Once this distinction is made, we see that God commands Abraham's physical seed through Sarah, though not through Hagar or Keturah, to "guard" the covenant of circumcision. ------ And how are they to guard the covenant of circumcision? By wearing a "token" of the actual circumcision, cut into their very flesh, thereby signifying that the actual covenant will cut their very flesh, the hymen, when by the strength of his hand, and the nails in his hand, the firstborn tears the miraculously intact Jewish flesh in order to cut the covenant God made with Abraham.
But the passage clearly separates the covenant of circumcision, whereby Abraham will be the father of Gentile nations, from what follows as an addendum, where Ishmael, Isaac, and Abraham's sons through Keturah, will all become a physical line of nations and kings.
Once this distinction is made, we see that God commands Abraham's physical seed through Sarah, though not through Hagar or Keturah, to "guard" the covenant of circumcision. ------ And how are they to guard the covenant of circumcision? By wearing a "token" of the actual circumcision, cut into their very flesh, thereby signifying that the actual covenant will cut their very flesh, the hymen, when by the strength of his hand, and the nails in his hand, the firstborn tears the miraculously intact Jewish flesh in order to cut the covenant God made with Abraham.
Abraham’s sons through Sarah
are to cut open the very membrane on the male organ (periah), which on the female organ has developed into the hymen. They’re
to cut off a piece of flesh from their reproductive organ in order to mark and
guard the nature of God's covenant to Abraham. The cutting of the flesh, which
Abraham's physical offspring through Sarah must guard, will be the key to
establishing the multitude of Gentile nations, born of a male in the physical
line of Abraham and Sarah, who will be cut off from the phallic-element of the
Abrahamic-line, through an actual circumcision, rather than a phallus marked
with the token of that actual circumcision.
מול does
not generally mean: to cut, to circumcise; only in connection with ברית מילה
does it occur in this sense. מול means "opposite," as in והוא ישב ממלי
(Bermidbar 22:5). בשם ה כי אמילם (Tehillim 118:10): "In
God's Name, I will oppose them." As a verb, then, מול means: to oppose, to
the limit. To be sure, מול in connection with ערלה; means "to cut
off"; witness ותכרת את ערלת בגה . . .אז אמרה חתן דמימ למולת ; . . . (Shemos
4:25-26). The cutting, however, is merely a means, whereas the end and the
intention is to oppose, to the limit the ערלה, or more precisely: to oppose the
הערלה, to restore it to its proper limits by removing the ערלה. Initially, the בשר
is בשר ערלה; once the ערלה is cut off, the בשר becomes מול: its power is
limited, and it retreats because of the power that opposes it.
The covenant God establishes
with Abraham is a covenant of “opposition to the flesh,” opposition to a
particular flesh, the flesh of the serpent. God's covenant with Abraham is
about a new spiritual species born not by the will of any father, but by faith
alone in Christ alone. Christ is the paragon of this faith since he was himself
born of God, and not of a human father.
According to Rabbi Hirsch, the root of the word milah מילה, mul מול, means "oppose" . . . and since brit ברית means "covenant," brit milah ברית מילה means "covenant of opposition."
Unfortunately, the word milah מילה has come to be translated in English as "circumcise," because of the fact of God telling Abraham that the "token" of the actual brit milah (“covenant of opposition”) will be cutting off the foreskin of the male reproductive organ. Now, instead of reading about the “covenant of opposition,” i.e., the covenant of cutting off --- in opposition to . . . we instead think of the covenant of removing the foreskin of the male reproductive organ as though the “token” is in fact the full reality. But removing the flesh of the reproductive organ is only the "token" of the covenant of opposition to the flesh of the male reproductive organ. It's completely wrong to think of cutting off the flesh of the penis as the covenant of circumcision. It's only the "token" of the covenant of opposition to the flesh. Unfortunately, it’s become the whole idea thought about when brit milah is thought about.
According to Rabbi Hirsch, the root of the word milah מילה, mul מול, means "oppose" . . . and since brit ברית means "covenant," brit milah ברית מילה means "covenant of opposition."
Unfortunately, the word milah מילה has come to be translated in English as "circumcise," because of the fact of God telling Abraham that the "token" of the actual brit milah (“covenant of opposition”) will be cutting off the foreskin of the male reproductive organ. Now, instead of reading about the “covenant of opposition,” i.e., the covenant of cutting off --- in opposition to . . . we instead think of the covenant of removing the foreskin of the male reproductive organ as though the “token” is in fact the full reality. But removing the flesh of the reproductive organ is only the "token" of the covenant of opposition to the flesh of the male reproductive organ. It's completely wrong to think of cutting off the flesh of the penis as the covenant of circumcision. It's only the "token" of the covenant of opposition to the flesh. Unfortunately, it’s become the whole idea thought about when brit milah is thought about.
The actual covenant of milah,
the true covenant God made with Abraham, was about the blood of the flesh of
the male reproductive organ. And unfortunately for those who want to believe
that the “token” of brit milah is the actuality of the covenant,
"blood" is a primary signifier of “death” in Hebrew idiom, such that
whenever blood is drawn, with a knife, in ritual, it always signifies death to
the flesh where the blood is drawn (lamb, limb, bull, turtledove, etc., etc.).
It doesn't require a Jewish sage to understand that the actual covenant made between God and Abraham was about the death of the flesh through which men father offspring. It’s about the "seed" that will come about through a pregnancy where the flesh that would normally bring it about, is opposed by God, made to bleed, cut off, which is all to say that it's dead to rites. . . dead in the rites . . . and rightly dead in the pregnancy of the "seed" through which Abraham's signature offspring will be born; and without the sexual congregation that began with the original sin.
It doesn't require a Jewish sage to understand that the actual covenant made between God and Abraham was about the death of the flesh through which men father offspring. It’s about the "seed" that will come about through a pregnancy where the flesh that would normally bring it about, is opposed by God, made to bleed, cut off, which is all to say that it's dead to rites. . . dead in the rites . . . and rightly dead in the pregnancy of the "seed" through which Abraham's signature offspring will be born; and without the sexual congregation that began with the original sin.
In this vein the Jewish groom wears his death attire under
the chuppah (the chuppah signifies the consummation of his
betrothal to his bride). When he kisses the bride under the chuppah,
signifying the sex that will birth his firstborn son, he's wrapped in his death
attire (kittel), signifying the role he’ll play in the consummation of
the pregnancy of his virgin bride. Also, Jewish law states that the man plays
no role in the Jewish identity of the child. The father is as good as dead so
far as a "Jewish" child is concerned.
In Jewish midrashim, the Jewish bride is considered the "home" of her groom (Yoma 2a; Shabbat 118b). ---- She's his “house,” or temple. ----- In the Passover, two bloods are placed on the entrance to the bride, the house, the temple. The Jewish sages tell us that along with the blood of the lamb, the blood of circumcision was smeared on the doorposts (doorposts which represent the entrance to the bride, or temple, or Jewish home).
In Jewish midrashim, the Jewish bride is considered the "home" of her groom (Yoma 2a; Shabbat 118b). ---- She's his “house,” or temple. ----- In the Passover, two bloods are placed on the entrance to the bride, the house, the temple. The Jewish sages tell us that along with the blood of the lamb, the blood of circumcision was smeared on the doorposts (doorposts which represent the entrance to the bride, or temple, or Jewish home).
Actual circumcision blood was
probably not smeared on the doorposts at the Passover. But
the sages know what's being signified by the lamb's blood. They know this
because they know that the Jewish groom wears his death attire, his kittel,
at the consummation of his engagement to his bride. The Passover blood
represents the groom being circumcised on his wedding night, rather than at
birth, such that the blood of circumcision gets smeared on the sides of the
entrance to his home when the actual Jewish firstborn is conceived. The angel
of death passes over the Jewish bride, the Jewish home, because the person
inside the house is not subject to the authority of the angel of death in this
singular case. In this one instance the angelic serpent passed on his right to jus primae noctis.
We’re told that the blood that
comes from any Jew's circumcision scar is so potent that if placed on the
doorpost of bride or home, the death-angel will not enter. Which in the case of
the birth of their sons and daughters signifies that they’re not subject to the
authority of the death-angel (who otherwise practices jus primae noctis in
every single case of sexual congress). A child born from a bride with blood on
her doorposts is not subject to death; he (or she) is immortal. The angel of
death is not the father, and has no right to imposed death on any child born apart
from his services.
Mary is the only historical account of a woman who actually had circumcision blood on her doorposts. ----- Which is to say two bloods were on her doorposts at the birth of the "seed" of Abraham (the "seed" of the circumcision): the blood of her hymen being torn, and the blood of His placenta being torn. The blood of the hymen being torn is "circumcision blood" since it's never on a woman's doorpost unless her pregnancy is a virgin pregnancy. The serpent had no part in the pregnancy where the hymen is intact. The blood of the hymen is the blood of circumcision since the same membrane that develops into the hymen when a daughter is growing in the womb, develops into the membrane cut at periah when a son is circumcised on the eighth day (the x chromosome determines if this membrane develops into the hymen or the membrane under the foreskin). In many orthodox circumcision rituals, the membrane must be tore with a Jewish fingernail. Which is to say that when the mohel draws blood from the membrane under the flesh, he's tearing the very membrane that Jesus’ strong hand tore when he was thrust out of the womb on Passover. Which is to say he’s born of an intact mem-brane: a "closed-mem" which is a woman's intact hymen.
Mary is the only historical account of a woman who actually had circumcision blood on her doorposts. ----- Which is to say two bloods were on her doorposts at the birth of the "seed" of Abraham (the "seed" of the circumcision): the blood of her hymen being torn, and the blood of His placenta being torn. The blood of the hymen being torn is "circumcision blood" since it's never on a woman's doorpost unless her pregnancy is a virgin pregnancy. The serpent had no part in the pregnancy where the hymen is intact. The blood of the hymen is the blood of circumcision since the same membrane that develops into the hymen when a daughter is growing in the womb, develops into the membrane cut at periah when a son is circumcised on the eighth day (the x chromosome determines if this membrane develops into the hymen or the membrane under the foreskin). In many orthodox circumcision rituals, the membrane must be tore with a Jewish fingernail. Which is to say that when the mohel draws blood from the membrane under the flesh, he's tearing the very membrane that Jesus’ strong hand tore when he was thrust out of the womb on Passover. Which is to say he’s born of an intact mem-brane: a "closed-mem" which is a woman's intact hymen.
[1]
