Genesis 2:24.

Genesis 2:24. johndbrey@gmail.com Copyright 2023, John D. Brey. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his woman: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2:24. The adverb ‫“( על–כן‬therefore”) begins this verse, and a conjunction follows it. Which implies it's situated between two statements that are context for its proper meaning. The verse that precedes it reads: And the human said, this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man. The "therefore," implies that the verse above (verse 23) is the reason for what follows in verse 24 (because of verse 23, therefore verse 24). A man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his woman ---because she's ---bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. The adverb in verse 24 ("therefore"), taken literally, means that because the woman is taken out of the man, the man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his woman and they shall be one flesh (once again). But how can the human leave his father and mother when the human was created from the dust of the earth so that the human had no umbilical cord, no father, and no mother? 1 And if the woman is bone of the man's bones, and flesh of his flesh, then she's either a clone of some sort (see, Notre ADam[e]2) or else his daughter? The fatherless, motherless, genderless, first human (this father to us all), is either a homosexual (if Eve is the same flesh), or incestuous (if it’s his daughter). Is our founding father gay or incestuous? If the former, how did we get here? If the latter, perhaps that's why we have what the biologist Margulis called a sexually transmitted disease (our senseless senescencing and dying). We're all products of a gay or incestuous founding father and or a senseless tradition of reading the holy writ. The conjunction starting verse 25 leads from where we've just been, into something darker still than a gay or incestuous founding father; it leads us directly into Genesis chapter 3. But first we learn that the man and his clone or daughter were both naked and weren't ashamed about it (yet). What we learn through retroactive exegesis of all these things, with chapter 3 as our guide, is that our founding parents engaged in something that makes a garden variety homosexuality, or incest, holy and sanctified in comparison; they engage in not just cross-dressing, or breeding (say mixing wool and linen) but crossspecies breeding (or worse). In the essay on Isaiah 57:4-10, focus was directed to the "seed of transgression" as come from the "zachar" ‫( זכר‬male) since the idol Isaiah associates (v.8) with this "seed of transgression," is called a "zacharon" ‫זכרון‬. It’s the diminutive ‫ ון‬of the male ‫זכר‬, i.e., the flesh symbolizing maleness in miniature. Brey Genesis 2:24 2 This is important to the internal consistency of where this is going since "building" (banah) can only be "cloning" unless something new or newfangled is added to the mix. In numerous threads and essays3 it’s been argued, using scripture, that Eve is cloned as an identical twin of the first human (ha-adam), manufactured directly from the DNA, so that she’s truly bone of the human’s bone, and flesh of ha-adam’s flesh. The Hebrew text implies that the place where the flesh that becomes Eve is removed is closed-up ‫ סגר‬with a natural suture. The scripture mentioning that nuance is important since the largest and most obvious suture on the male body is where the labial flesh of the female body sutures shut if enough of the poison of the asp, testosterone, floods the default female fetus such that the labial flesh deforms (shuts) to form the fleshly-serpent, the zacharon ‫זכרון‬. The "seed of transgression" is the seed that transforms the default human body (in the womb) into a zachar (male) replete with the zacharon that the phallic-cults idolize such that it’s in the crosshairs, crucified, in Isaiah 57:4-10. DNA material is taken from the human's body to clone Eve. But before she's cloned (made, banah), the opening the DNA is removed from is sutured shut forming the world's first zacharon. It's that idolatrous flesh that's itself the anomaly whereas the traditional reading of the text implies it’s the female organ, the nukveh ‫נקבה‬, that’s new and anomalous. The dastardly deed of manufacturing or producing the zacharon is done without Eve even knowing that she's an identical twin of the original human but for the skin pulled over his nukveh and her eyes. It's for this reason Dante rightly reckons the phallus the central pillar in hell. It's for this reason father Abraham takes a blade to the flesh that broke the first covenant between God and the first human by rejiggering God's original, perfect, body, as it existed prior to Genesis 2:21. What was added in Genesis 2:21, is removed, ritually speaking, in Genesis 17:24. Which is where Genesis 17:17 comes in; except that the literal Hebrew is too literal for Jewish tradition. Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed saying in his heart, Shall a hundred year old be born and shall Sarah, barren ninety years, do the bearing? . . . How can a man be born when he's old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? . . . "Marvel not that I said you must be born again" . . . [For] circumcision is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but . . . marks the second, higher birth . . .. Genesis 17:17; John 3:4-6; The Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23. Abraham is as confused as the Jewish sages reading the literal text of Genesis 17:17 when God tells Abraham that he's going to be born again (Abraham is) and his mother is going to be Sarah (see Exegeting Genesis 17:174). The sages are confused since they don't realize that what God is telling Abraham (and later Nicodemus) is what is supposed to have happened to ha-adam in the garden. Ha-adam, when he still had a nukveh, was supposed to birth the firstborn of humanity in order that that firstborn would be the first groom of humanity, making the first human (ha-adam) not the husband but the wife of the first "born" human. This is how the firstborn of the human can leave his father and his mother---i.e., haadam (who would truly be both father and mother ---to a virgin conceived son) to cleave to his father, mother, bride, since he possesses the natural mechanism God designed before Brey Genesis 2:24 3 the gall nuts sprouted from his father and mother (ha-adam, Gen. 2:21). Throughout his exegesis of the verse Abarbanel keeps coming back to the fact that the oneness expressed in Genesis 2:24 is between the offspring and the parent[s], and not genuinely between the two parents since one is, after Genesis 2:21 “male” flesh, and the other is “female” flesh. But why aren’t Adam and Eve the same flesh? She's a clone, or a daughter, so why is she not the same flesh? She has to be unless there something hidden deep within the narrative, that we can get to with help from other parts of the Tanakh, that explain how Eve can be different flesh than Adam? Why is it forbidden for them to become one flesh? Understanding that, requires exegesis come, so to say, from some other part of the puzzle God gave us to work on. It might be appropriate in the case of Adam and Eve that "a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh" (v. 24), but why would this make sense for the men and women born every day in the natural way? In all subsequent generations, a child is "one flesh" with the parents, not the future spouse. Abarbanel. "So that they become one flesh." The fetus is formed by both of them. That is where "they become one flesh." Rashi. The firstborn is the one who is supposed to be one flesh with the parent. Adam and Eve don't really become one flesh even when the phallus is used as a make-shift umbilical cord connecting the two different kinds of flesh (male and female). Cain is not one flesh with the human that God created. He’s sired by the serpent ala the Talmud. The firstborn whom God intended must be one flesh with the original human prior to Genesis 2:21; he'd have to be virgin born so that he's a clone, same flesh, as the first human. He'd have to be a second Adam, or the son of man, where the man is non-gendered and able to be father and or mother. The statement that a man leaves his father and mother doesn’t appear to be a decree or commandment, but a statement of what should be, or happens to be, the case. And it doesn’t seem to be stating that it has now happened with Adam and Eve. It reads as a parenthesis added to the natural flow of the narrative. As a statement of fact, or a parenthesis stating how things should be, it's neutral. It's not a command or sanctification of the process nor a diminution of the process, but merely a notation that it's occurring, has occurred, or will occur. In context it definitely looks like a parenthesis not a natural part of the chronological narrative it interrupts since Adam doesn't technically speaking have a father or mother. Which all makes it appear that the human was a virgin betrothed or married to God at the point of creation. Which is why there's no "help meet"---- just like Israel wasn't supposed to have a king (since God was their king). As Scholem implies, if not for Genesis 2:21, and the original sin, King Messiah would have been born on the first sabbath after creation with no intervening history in between. King Messiah would have Brey Genesis 2:24 4 been the firstborn of humanity, the husband of the first human, and the two of them would have been one kind of flesh uniting without gender or the need for temporary recoupling. Heterosexual bonding is the mark of partial and temporary redemption in an unredeemed world . . .. Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, p. 165. The exegesis of Genesis 17:17 is similar to the exegesis of Genesis 2:24. In both, the surface, or traditional interpretation of the text appears to be sound except for some serious anomalies (like in the earlier part of Genesis where eating fruit allegedly makes someone ashamed of being naked, or causes painful childbirth, or makes them cover up their genitalia with clothing). In Genesis 17:17, Abarbanel points out some of the anomalies. He says, wasn't Abraham already promised to have a son through Sarah in Genesis 15? He points out other anomalies that make Genesis 17 appear to be speaking of something and someone other than Isaac (though Isaac's birth is acknowledged there too, thoroughly confounding the reading). The literal Hebrew of 17:17 implies that Abraham is flabbergasted that God says a child, i.e., Abraham, will be born at the age of 100 years old, and that Sarah will give re-birth to her husband Abraham (as well as his firstborn son Isaac). Rabbi Hirsch tells us that the Hebrew doesn't claim that Abraham fell on his face laughing. He says (and Rabbi Elie Munk concurs) that the statement is that Abraham was as shocked and offended by the statement as was Nicodemus latter in the narrative when the same person tells Nicodemus the same thing. All of these strange exegetical nuances, if addressed, tie together into a reading of the Tanakh that solves many of the problems sages like Abarbanel wring their hands about while the protectors of orthodoxy pretend they don’t exist. The exegesis of Genesis 17:17 is a necessary adjunct to the exegesis being done here in Genesis 2:24 since understanding that God told Abraham he would be born again, at 100, and to his wife, sets up the retroactive exegesis necessary to untangle the fact that the firstborn of the first human is supposed to be the husband of the first human, and the husband of you and me too. He’s the one who will leave the body of his mother and father (who are the same person, ha-adam) and cleave to her since they’re the same flesh. If a human was born, if the cells of the seed of the woman began dividing on their own, apart from the anomalous flesh that memorializes the male, i.e., a virgin conception and birth, then that flesh would be one with ha-adam as he existed prior to Genesis 2:21 (immortality). They would then represent ----both would ---the original cultivars of humanity such that any part of their flesh and blood, even the blood itself, can be used to create identical offspring of the original cultivar so that the offspring, not being subject to sexual mixing, will be identical clones of the immortal cultivars and not bastards like Cain and the rest of us who are born of the kind of mixing that produces mongrel fruit and mongrel animals. Cultivars (short for "cultivated varieties") are plants you buy that often have been propagated not from [sexual] seed, but rather vegetatively (for example, via stem cuttings). With this method of propagation, you can be sure that the offspring will Brey Genesis 2:24 5 retain the characteristics of the parents for only that one generation. That is, plants grown from the [sexual] seeds of cultivars may disappoint you, failing to stay true to form. What to Know About the Difference Between Cultivars and Varieties.5 The plants grown from the sexual seeds of a cultivar won't retain the desired characteristics of the cultivar and can thus be thought of as bastard offspring of the cultivar. The term "cultivar" implies that the cultivated-variety was arrived at through careful cultivation (Isaiah 60:21). In God's case, he plants the perfect scion-cultivar cultivated from the earth into the garden so that there's no mixing involved, no need for experimentation, or variety selection, natural selection, or evolution. It's the later mixing (later in Genesis chapter 2) that defames and distorts God's cultivar producing the bastard Cain. Cain, produced through sexual mixing, is not the true firstborn son of the first human. He is, like Pharez, a breacher, or usurper of the firstborn's role. Cain comes from the sexualized seed of the cultivar so that his birth disappoints. He failed to stay true to the perfect DNA of his parents so that God rejects his offering until he's made right (see, Cain's Sanctification6). Rashi's comment makes no sense to me. Male and female animals, too, "become one flesh." Nachmanides on Genesis 2:24. Isaiah calls the enlarged breast of the Jewish virgin the ornament of ornaments, the quintessential ornamentation found throughout the natural world. And their glory is not that they're meant to entice the viewer to a unification with the owner of the breast but to entice the viewer to want to be unified with the offspring of the Jewish virgin's pre-sexual pregnancy since on some level it's appreciated that if this Jewish virgin is indeed pregnant (ala the enlarged breast and the ithyphalllic nipples) then her offspring is the true firstborn of humanity (born without gender-division and its temporary unification---phallic-sex) such that unification with him, sexual or otherwise, would produce a person immortal like Adam before the fall, which is an enticement far more alluring than a temporary unification (phallic-sex) of what was once already unified in the holy of holies: "When Eve was still in Adam, death did not exist. When she was separated from him death came into being. If he enters again and attains his former self, death will be no more" [Gospel of Philip (68:22-25)]. In a second passage from this work (70:10-20), it is again emphasized that the cause of death in the world was the separation of female from male, a remarkable rendering of the scriptural narrative of the sin of the first couple in the Garden of Eden. The task of Christ, accordingly, is "to repair the separation which was from the beginning" by joining together male and female in the bridal chamber. Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, p. 166. Brey Genesis 2:24 6 Importantly, Professor Wolfson says in another place: Significantly, the virginal womb of Mary is referred to as the "bridal chamber." Ibid. p. 504. All of this implies Genesis 2:24 isn't speaking of Adam and Eve's unification (phallic-sex as a temporary and impotent fix of the breach of unity) but the unification that occurs when a woman is found out pregnant, that is she has enlarged breast, prior to the temporary unification of the breach in singular-gender momentarily repaired through phallic-sex. In effect, when a male is gestating in a female prior to any reason for her breast to be enlarged, or her belly to protrude, then what God intended before the breach in his perfect plan (the desecration found in Genesis 2:21) is being victoriously proclaimed by large breast where there should be none, and a protruding belly, where there is no cause for it (Isaiah 49:21). Philo expresses the idea that all manifestation is female, and all invisible spirit is male (so that the female manifests the invisible male). There’s one singular "manifestation" of pure masculinity, which is not the phallus, but the Personage the phallic-cults sought out as the divine-Priapus (called Yesod or, and, Tiferet, in Jewish mysticism). He represents the singular, unique, only one in all creation, male-manifestation, who’s the source of all eternal life. Which is why there's initially no "help meet"---- just like Israel wasn't supposed to have a king (since God was their king). As Scholem implies, if not for Genesis 2:21, and the original sin, King Messiah (the singular legitimate manifestation of maleness) would have been born on the first sabbath after creation with no intervening history in between. King Messiah would have been the firstborn of humanity, the husband of the human, and the two of them would have been one kind of flesh uniting without gender. When the serpent came upon Eve, he infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination remained in all human beings. When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai their contamination ceased, whereas with regard to gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, their contamination never ceased. A couple keys here are the fact that the text says the contamination of Eve infected all human beings (Jew or Gentile). So whatever the serpent's seed is in the physical sense, it's passed on to the entire human race as a birth-rite. Margulis calls it a sexually-transmitted death sentence. But the chazal and sages focus on a moral contamination, and Yevamot 103b even discusses how words themselves, just like contaminated physical seed, can contaminate a righteous person: As it is stated by God to Laban: “Take heed to yourself that you speak not to Jacob either good or bad” (Genesis 31:24). Granted, speak no bad; this is rightly so, i.e., understandable. But speak no good? Why not? Rather, learn from here that even something that would be a good benefit to the wicked like Laban, is a disadvantage for the righteous. Brey Genesis 2:24 7 This commandment that a non-righteous person not speak good or bad to a righteous person enters directly into the discussion if we change "bad" to a more connotative "evil" since then we're being informed that though the tree of the knowledge of good and bad/evil indeed contains good with the bad, nevertheless, for the righteous man, it's not appropriate at all since the binary elements of good and bad have become one, are married so to say, in the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. Added to this is the fact that Jewish tradition relates that the tree of the knowledge of good and bad grows from the same root as the tree of life. One is the cultivar of the original root (the tree of life), come from God, indigenous to the garden, and the other is a branch cultivated outside the garden (perhaps in Genesis chapter one) and brought into the garden where it's grafted onto the root of the tree of life so that the two branches grow out of the same root intertwined. This creates the problem reverberating throughout the Bible since if the tree of knowledge of good and bad is grafted onto, married to, the root of the tree of life, then, as Yevamot 103 seems to be pointing out, we can't access the "good" (righteous) life without being contaminated by the bad, evil, branch/fruit, since they're intertwined in the very two scrolls through which the two kinds of life in Yevamot 103b flow: the zacharon, and the Torah scroll. All men are contaminated by the zacharon until a new kind of conception and birth arrives at the Passover, a birth that frees Israel from the evil-inclination associated with the first birth, and then God speaks directly, unmediated, to Israel, at Horeb, freeing Israel from the branch of commandments come not from the root of life, but which was grafted onto the root rather than growing out of it as its indigenous fruit. HE WASHETH HIS GARMENTS IN WINE, intimates that he [the Messiah] will compose for them words of Torah6; AND HIS VESTURE IN THE BLOOD OF GRAPES---that he will restore to them their errors.7 R. Hanin said: Israel will not require the teachings of the royal Messiah in the future, for it says, Unto him shall the nations seek (Isa. xi, 10). but not Israel.8 Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, (Vayechi) XCVIII. 9. The notes above are all important. Note 6 says: Propound new meanings and interpretations of the Torah. Note 7 says: He will point out where they have misunderstood the Torah. V. infra, XCIX on this verse. Note 8 says: For Israel will receive its teaching direct from God. The implication is that Messiah is required for the nations to have their evil-inclination removed while Israel has it removed directly from God, at Horeb. Except that they didn't. They were afraid of the fiery revelation come from God's tongues (or language) of fire. They sent Moses to fetch the written-writ of what God has otherwise said orally. That written-writ is the writing on the scroll not the heart. Only what God burns into the heart with his tongues (or language) of fire is free of the evil-inclination. All written revelation that comes from what the pen-is that writes it, is contaminated with evil, though it comes wrapped up in outwardly good-inclinations and intentions. Resh Lakish said, "Satan, the evil impulse, and the Angel of Death are one and the same" . . . That angel served in three capacities: as scribe, executioner, and High Priest. Brey Genesis 2:24 8 Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 16a, Midrash Rabbah, Lamentations, II, 3. The angel mentioned in Bava Batra 16a, and Midrash Rabbah, Lamentations, II, 3, is both the angel of death at the Passover, and the angel coming out of the most holy place in the narrative of the second Passover as related in Ezekiel 9. Furthermore, he's the angel who gave Moses the written tablets of the Law on Mt Horeb, and who has God's Name inside him (Exodus 23:20). He's scribe (Mt. Horeb), executioner (the Egyptian Passover) and high priest (Ezekiel 9:3). But what's most telling is the fact that this scribe, executioner, and high priest, is also thought ---by some ---- to be the Torah scroll itself: It is worth noting that the words of ibn Ezra in the two versions of his commentary to Exodus 23:20-21 may be interpreted as referring to an equation of Torah with the Active Intellect. In the long version, on 23:20 we read: "There are those who say that the angel is the Torah Scroll, for the verse states `My name is within him' [ibid. 23:22]." Ibn Ezra indeed does not accept this idea, but if it be accepted, the words `for my name is within him' may easily be construed as an allusion to Metatron, who came to be known as the personification of the Active Intellect. Professor Moshe Idel, Language, Torah, and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia, chapter two, note #33, on page 163. Rabbi Abraham Abulafia, whom Professor Idel is writing about in the book quoted above, was ambivalent concerning the entity he labeled the "Active Intellect." At times it serves God, while at times it becomes an example of harsh judgement as occurred at the two Passovers mentioned above, and which occurred throughout the exodus when this divineelement at times sought to exterminate Israel, and sometimes did see to the death of thousands of Israelites. The entity is clearly the angel of death (executioner), and since it gives Moses the tablets, is God's scribe, and since he has access to the most holy place of the tabernacle and temple (Ezekiel 9:3) which represents heaven itself, we’re left with little doubt he's an angelic high priest. We could almost ask for a drum-roll while asking if anyone can think of any emblem in the written law that fulfills all of these qualities attributed to this angel of the Lord/Torah scroll? And it wouldn’t be wise to hold one’s breath until someone was found who knew that all of these attributes were attributed to Moses' rod, which shared duties as Aaron's rod, and which cursed water, killed Egyptians, cured cursed water, protected Israel, cursed Israel, brought water from a rock, commanded Israel's victory over Amalek, was made into an altar (Yahweh Nissi), and was eventually known as the angelic-serpent-embellished rod aka Nehushtan. It would probably raise Moses from the dead to reveal that this angelic friend and foe of Israel, this father of the Jew, was, and it can hardly be said, a wasp in Genesis chapter 2, with emphasis on verse 21, by way of Numbers 21:8, as exemplified by Genesis 3:22. According to law, the preparation of gevil must include salt, flour and mey afatzim (wasp residue/gall-nut water). (Shabbat. 79b). . . Gall nuts—rich in tannic acid—are a tree's reaction to an invasive parasitic wasp's egg; the pure black tint of the ink Brey Genesis 2:24 9 used on Torahs results from the reaction between the tannic acid and iron sulfate (a powder used to make the ink). Wikipedia, Gevil. In Jewish tradition, the Tree of Knowledge and the eating of its fruit represents the beginning of the mixture of good and evil together. Before that time, the two were separate, and evil had only a nebulous existence in potential. While free choice did exist before eating the fruit, evil existed as an entity separate from the human psyche, and it was not in human nature to desire it. Eating and internalizing the forbidden fruit changed this, and thus was born the yetzer hara, the evil inclination. Wikipedia, Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Let him study the Torah, as it says, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life; and the tree of life is nought but the Torah, as it says, She is a tree of life to them that lay hold on her! Berakhot 32:b. Oh the gall of the Masoretic text to make the text–water water down the meaning of Moses' rod Nehushtan. The naked text (pre-Masoretic) treats the serpent-rod as precisely what it is, an emblem of the unification of the tree of life, which is good, with the outer branches, the tree of knowledge of evil, i.e., death (which "death" is no doubt evil). The fact that "evil" rhymes with "gevil" leads into the wasp-water that's the text-water that baptizes the gevil (parchment). "Text water" is gall-water, which is what the parchment that presents the outer knowledge of death (if you break the first commandment) implants in one's thoughts. This death, upon breaking a commandment (the first, don't eat the fruit of the outer branches), is the outer foliage of the tree in its midst that (the inner part) imparts perpetual life. The tree is both life, and if the fruit of the orlah (the outer branches) is eaten it's death too, making it the tree of both: knowledge of life lived, and the death that will soon ensue if the fruit of the outer part of the tree has been ingested. Not only is the tree of life intertwined with the tree of death, but their undeniable biblical analogue is both the phallus (as tree of life and death) and Moses' rod (the other one, the wooden one) otherwise known as Nehushtan. And the Lord said to Moses, Make thee a divine-wasp like a fiery-flying-serpent and nail it to your rod and it shall come to pass that everyone who's willing to bite it when he looketh upon it shall live perpetually [John 3:14; 6:53]. And the angels of the Lord said, Behold that mankind has eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and is now married to ---united with us---has become one flesh with us [‫]הנפלים‬--- now, lest he also bite and swallow the blood of the tree of life at our root and live perpetually . . . Brey Genesis 2:24 10 As audacious as it might sound, the second verse above is the key to the entire existence of fallen mankind in this fallen Aeon. It's not until he eats of the forbidden fruit (dangling on the outer branches of the tree of life) that the angelic-lords become concerned that mankind might sink their teeth deep enough into the nature of these things to live perpetually. It seems man must learn of death, gain access to the knowledge of death, before he'll know to seek knowledge of how to overcome death once and for all. Prior to the knowledge of death, the experiential knowledge of death, come, as it were, from the gall nuts dangling attached to the outer branch of the tree, man lives a life innocent of the fact that death swarms all around him, invisible to him, but seeking at all times to enter him into the wasp's nest of death, slavery, and sheol. Only the slightest miss-step, exhibit one, Eve, renders the innocent life-lover a slave to the fiery flying angelic wasps whose gall and bile is death itself. Nevertheless, only by succumbing to death does Adam gain knowledge that death has been there all along. He gains that knowledge from eating the forbidden fruit, such that only then do the angelic wasps realize the danger that now, now that man knows they're there, he might, god forbid, come upon a way to exterminate the wasp's nest and therein end up better off than he was before he became their slaves. God forbid that as Moses freed Israel from the angelworshiping Egyptians, some would-be second Moses come along and try to do for all mankind what Moses did for Israel; or worse; free all mankind not from the angelworshiping slaves of the angels (Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans, and modern man), but pass around a plate and a chalice, the eating and drinking of which frees one ultimately from the angels being worshiped by one's innocent life-loving peers in the guise of the pleasures the flesh doth surely hold. Notes: Abarbanel notes that the first human has no traditional father and mother: “Because just as the man, there did not remain to him the love with the ground, which is his mother, and not with the rain that came down on him and mixed with it in the matter of his production, which was in the level of the father who begat, and he forsook your (their) love and clung to his wife, similarly all who come out of his loins should leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife as if they were one flesh in remembrance of their first father and his wife Chavah who were from one flesh” (Hal Miller’s translation). 2 https://www.academia.edu/40821743/Notre_ADam_e_. 3 https://independent.academia.edu/Johndbrey/Gender-Metaphysics. 4 https://www.academia.edu/40747210/Exegeting_Genesis_17_17. 5 https://www.thespruce.com/cultivars-vs-varieties-how-do-they-differ-2132281. 6 https://www.academia.edu/38524047/Cains_Sanctification. 1