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

The word "mezuzah" means "doorpost." Blood of the Passover lamb was placed on the "mezuzot" which is the plural form of the singular (doorpost). The word is singular wherever it speaks of the memorial attached to the doorpost.

To the eye unconstrained by traditional Jewish teaching the mezuzah appears remarkably similar to the blood of the Passover lamb placed on the mezuzot at the first Passover?  This is the case even though the eye not constrained by traditional Jewish teaching may not even be aware that the name "Shaddai" is placed on the mezuzah thereafter placed on the doorpost.

If the name "Shaddai" (placed on the mezuzah) speaks of the "Lamb of God" (see Shaddai: the Lamb of God) sacrificed for the salvation of the world, then it would bespeak the unspeakable for Jews to suggest that the mezuzah with "Shaddai" written on it (and placed on the doorpost) has nothing to do with the Lamb of God. . . Which is to say if "Shaddai" literally means "Lamb of God," then it would say something difficult to say if Jews claim that placing the "Lamb of God" --- Shaddai ---- on the memorial doorpost has nothing to do with the original placing of the lamb of God on the doorposts at Passover.

AND THE LORD SAID UNTO MOSES AND AARON: THIS IS THE ORDINANCE OF THE PASSOVER, etc. Thereupon they immediately offered themselves for circumcision, and the blood of the Passover mingled with that of circumcision.
    
Midrash Rabbah Exodus, XIX, 7-8.

Midrash Rabbah echoes the Talmud, Pirke de Rabbi Eleazer, the Zohar, with a host of other authentic Jewish scriptural references to the idea that circumcision blood mingles with the blood of the Passover lamb. With that said, perhaps no one has said more about the relationship between circumcision blood and the blood of the Passover lamb than Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch:

מליה [milah] is the "די" of  ש–די addressed to our body.

The Hirsch Chumash, Bereshis, 17:10.

According to Rabbi Hirsch, the last two letters of "Shaddai" (dalet-yod די) are the "cutting" of ritual circumcision (milah מליה) addressed to our physical body. The separation (--) of the די from the ש is actually in the text of The Hirsch Chumash:

Scripture here distinguishes between the מליה (milah) act itself and the מליה (milah) 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 . . . (Ibid.).

Rabbi Hirsch claims that the "sign" of milah (ritual cutting) is the letters dalet-yod די inscribed on the child. The exclamation point after the dalet-yod די is in the text of the Chumash. . . Why just the last two די letters of Shaddai שדי? What's so significant about the last two letters of the name Shaddai that Rabbi Hirsch gets so excited he places an exclamation mark at that point in his text?

In Jewish thought, the lamb Abraham sacrificed in the place of Isaac, was created before the foundation of the world. It's God's lamb. Created specifically to be the sacrifice in place of Isaac. And they ate it as the if it was bread from the Tree of Life (which for Isaac, at least, it was). In this Jewish sense, the lamb at the Akedah is the "lamb of God" --- God's lamb, created by God for a specific purpose.

Midrash Rabbah asks why God had them place lamb's blood on the mezuzot at Passover? The sages answer: to remember Abraham's circumcision. And his circumcision is a precursor to the Akedah (according to Jewish teaching). So the blood on the mezuzot is designed to remember Abraham's circumcision blood, thus the alleged mingling of the two bloods, circumcision and lamb, on the mezuzot (the doorposts). But why use lamb’s blood to remember Abraham’s blood? Why not just place the circumcision blood on the mezuzot, the doorpost[s,] to remember Abraham’s circumcision blood:

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" [Nehemiah 9:8]. --- It does not say "for him," but "with him."

Rashi, Genesis 17:24.

Rashi notes that God cuts the covenant with Abraham. Jewish midrashim claims two bloods are placed on the mezuzot (the doorposts) at Passover: "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). 

Two were present at Abraham's circumcision: "HE SHALL SURELY BE CIRCUMCISED: this teaches that the circumciser must himself be circumcised. . . when one is born circumcised, the blood of the covenant must be made to flow from him . . ." (Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, XLVI, 12). If God takes hold of Abraham's foreskin, He, even if He is already circumcised, must let His blood flow with Abraham's since the circumciser must be circumcised. 

And if he is naturally circumcised, the blood still must flow. Two bloods must flow at Abraham's circumcision. His, and the blood of the circumciser. This is where the sages surmise that two bloods are placed on the doorpost at Passover.

The lamb's blood is not the blood of just any lamb. It's the blood of the Lamb of God, the lamb that is God, the lamb whose blood must flow "together with [Abraham]."

Passover is a national memorial to the two bloods (lamb and limb) present at Abraham's circumcision. The Name "Shaddai" is revealed at Abraham's circumcision precisely because the Name "Shaddai" is the word "lamb" שה after the mark of circumcision, the yod י, is pulled out from under the veil that is the dalet ד, covering the mark of circumcision in heh ה which is the second letter in the word "lamb" שה.  The mezuzah, which is emblematic of the Passover blood placed on the doorpost[s], the mezuzot, has Shaddai emblazoned on it for a specific reason, it represents the same blood that flowed with Abraham’s blood at the circumcision, the blood that flowed with, or in place of, Isaac’s blood, at the Akedah, the blood of the Lamb of God.

Exodus chapter 12 says they will strike the lamb's blood on the mezuzot? The name "Shaddai" is struck on the mezuzah. All sacrifices belong to God. Circumcision represents sacrificing the firstborn to God. And firstborn lamb's are sacrificed to God making them belong to God: they're God's lamb, the lamb of God. . . But the first lamb of God, in the Tanakh, is the lamb sacrificed in place of Abraham's firstborn (symbolically sacrificed at his circumcision and thereafter the subject of an aborted sacrifice at the Akedah).

The Lamb of the Akedah is said to have been created by God, at the twilight of the first Sabbath, for that particular day and hour (the Akedah). It's the quintessential "Lamb of God." It’s the Lamb God created specifically as a substitutionary human sacrifice (in place of the human Isaac).

Since in the ancient world animals, when used in representation, represent God, deity, it's fitting that the "Lamb of God" (created on the twilight of the first Sabbath), interpreted according to the time of writing, represented a deity substituting for the sacrifice of a human or humans: Jesus with a crown of horns and a ram with his head in thorns.

"Shaddai" is, in a more watered down symbolism: "Guardian of the doors of Israel." ------But isn't that precisely what the lamb's blood was? ----Didn't it guard the doors of Israel from the death angel? Wasn't it placed on the mezuzot (even as the name Shaddai is placed on the mezuzah)? And if, as stated in the Talmud, a man's bride is his “house,” wouldn't the "guardian of the doors of Israel's brides" too nicely fit circumcision? Which is where Rabbi Hirsch gets excited about finding the dalet-yod engraved ---- on the very organ that would open the doors of Israel if it didn't "Di" at the hand of the mohel? -----The circumciser (father in law: hatan) is the guardian of the doors of Israel's brides.

Someone will think it’s merely being playful to suggest that instead of "enough," dalet-yod means "It is finished." But Rabbi Hirsch ties dalet-yod directly to tamim (tav-mem-yod-mem). And he says of it: " תמים [tamim] stems from the root תמם which generally means ceasing to exist. By extension, it also means: ceasing to do, once the work is finished and the project is completed."

So saying "It is finished," as the fundamental meaning of "Shaddai," lends itself to a ridiculous degree to the Christian idea that Jesus is the Lamb of God "Shaddai" who with his final breath, hanging emasculated (literally and figuratively) cried out "It is finished."

מליה is the די of ש–די addressed to our body. . . Scripture here distinguishes between the מילה act itself and the מילה as a sign inscribed upon our flesh. The community -- or 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. . . With the knife of His "די," His "Enough!," you must apply the מילה, you must set limits to בשר ערלתו, the physical aspects of your body which otherwise you would not control.

Notwithstanding any typos, this is exactly how it's written in the Hirsch Chumash. Which is to say Rabbi Hirsch separates the shin from the dalet-yod ש––די. He focuses on the dalet-yod. He says it's engraved on the flesh at ritual circumcision. Concerning precisely what Shaddai says Enough to, Rabbi Hirsch is outrageously clear. In the context of the statements quoted above Rabbi Hirsch says:

    

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 . . . "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" . . . The cutting, however, is merely a means, whereas the end and intention is to oppose, to the limit, the ערלה . . ..

The "Enough" (or "It is finished") associated with Shaddai is to say "Enough" to giving birth through the serpent and his poison. Enough to the reign of the serpent and original sin passed down through that organ. Enough to phallic-sex. Enough to offspring conceived through the jus primae noctis practiced by the serpent in the Garden, found on every male body to this very day. Wounded, no doubt, through brit milah. But not cut through to the very bone as is fitting and proper.

Brown Driver Briggs says the word די means "enough" . . . but it gives the nuanced meaning: " דֵּי שֶׂה enough for (i.e. to buy) a lamb, 12:8; 25:28 . . .".

Greek lexicons say the word "tetelestai" (translated "finished" as in "It is finished") is a word that was written on bills and invoices suggesting that the debt had been paid. The debtor has paid "enough" (stamped "tetelestai") to lay the debt to rest. He's finished paying. He's paid "enough" to be sure his payment is “sufficient” to feel he's "finished" paying the debt. 2 Chronicles 30:3 use the Hebrew word (dalet-yod) this way: "For they could not keep it at that time, because the priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently [די], neither had the people gathered themselves together to Jerusalem."

The verse could easily and legitimately be translated to say the priests had not yet  "finished" sanctifying themselves. They were not sufficiently sanctified. They weren't finished sanctifying themselves.

Jesus' final word on the cross was to say that his personal sacrifice, his blood, his death, was sufficient. It was the final payment on the sacrificial system. No further sacrifice is necessary. His blood is "enough." No more is ever needed. That realm is "finished." He was clearly . . . as stated throughout the New Testament . . . saying his sacrifice was "sufficient" or "enough." Tamim and di, the two words Rabbi Hirsch draws together to explain bris milah, are faithful and true to what Jesus implied with his last breath. Josephus (Against Apion, 2.190) uses the root of tetelestia (telos) to say that God is "self-sufficient" and sustains all things through his sufficiency.

Enough really is enough . . ..