HOME
johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2016 John D. Brey.

The sages, and I often have Rabbi Hirsch in mind when speaking of the sages, consider the Hebrew language (and script) to be divinely ordained, God's very language; God's very script. As such, the Hebrew script must possess a unity and purpose, an integrity and wholeness, distinct from other languages:

Since God's Torah must be studied in order to understand the details and minutia of Mitzvot, the language in which God gave the Torah must first be analyzed and fully understood. Hirsch reasoned that there must also be an internal integrity and wholeness to the language of the Torah. . . Hirsch also asserts that the Hebrew, as a Divine language, contains within it deep concepts that are woven into the language fabric. He identifies the conceptual meanings in Hebrew by analyzing the etymological root, of individual words. . . Hirsch bases his etymological analysis of Hebrew roots on the premise that each letter/consonant has a meaning of its own.

Introduction to Rabbi Hirsch's, Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew.

The introduction to Rabbi Hirsch's, Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, points out that Rabbi Hirsch was of the opinion that the separate letters within a given word contain meaning distinct from the word itself, and that the particularity of the letter's meaning actually feeds, since there’s a divine unity in the biblical text, into the overall meaning of the word, and thus the overall meaning of the larger narrative. Although Rabbi Hirsch's life and times brought him in a different direction, it's been pointed out, from his own words, that he considered the kabbalistic sages, and the mystical works of the Jewish kabbalists, to be a completely authentic approach to the deeper meaning of Jewish scripture.

Within the thinking and practice of the kabbalistic sages, the letter is far from the lowest common denominator of a word's meaning. The letter itself often breaks down into hieroglyphic pictograms (combined as ligatures) which have distinct meaning which feeds not only into the meaning of the letter itself, but into the very word, and thus the sentence, and thus the narrative, of which the pictographic element is part and parcel.

The question the foregoing leads to concerns the issue of how seminal (so to say), the deconstructed elements of the text, and the letter (i.e., the hieroglyphic element), are, in relation to the meaning of the larger text? In a demotic text, a text used in a general way, the meaning of the sentence, or larger narrative, is considered to have nearly complete control over the words used, the letters in the words, and so forth. There's a top down, or asymmetrical, direction that starts from the author's general thought, to the sentence, or narrative, down to the word, and thus the letters, such that the letters are merely good foot-soldiers for the author and his intended meaning.

This tends to make the letters, and the form or composite element of the letters, stiff, so far as meaning is concerned. The letter is dead, so far as generating meaning. It has no voice other than to voice the intent of the author.

Contrary to this demotic, or general understanding of words, authors, and meaning, the kabbalistic sages imply that the Jewish God, the monotheistic God, inhabiting as he does the netherworld of mediated meaning, and purpose, could not easily be served by any mediator, or mediated system of communication. The mediator, be it man or angel (or demotic text), would inevitably be either incompetent in the light of God's un-mediatable light and purpose, or would become inflated, ithyphallic, stiff, with the pride associated with being filled with God's very blood, His Passioned meaning and seminal purpose.

Thus, for the kabbalistic sages, God must hide his Passion in order that the inflated mediator of his Passion not become too stiff, erect, and forceful, i.e., that he not corrupt the very birth of the message God would send from the netherworld outside of communicative mediation. . . God must, if he's to be somewhat faithfully served by mediation, both hide and reveal himself in one act of revelation: the revelation must hide aspect of God's highness, from those subject to becoming inflated by God's Passion, his blood, and yet on the other hand he must reveal himself to those capable of being filled with that blood without trying to possess it as an idol, not becoming filled with it, to the point of trying to impregnate others with it, as though it were the mediator's soul possession.

From this vantage point, the sages imagine that contrary to giving the amanuensis, or mediator, the full authority over his sacred text, i.e., rather than allowing the mediatorial scribe (be it man or angel) the full authority over the text, and the text's message, God, on the other hand (he's actually ambidextrous), sends his least seminal revelation through the scribe (be it angel or man, or both) and then sends his most seminal revelation not through the general narrative constructed of the demotically employed script, but through the hieroglyphs that the uninitiated and spiritually unenlightened reader has yet to even consider a viable vehicle for divine revelation.

The torah kelulah [as distinct from the written or oral Torah] is truly a torah min ha-shamayim: a Torah from heaven. It is given by God, and God alone. It is a holy hieroglyph----a divine scripture encoding patterns and forms of every sort. It is God's seal of truth stamped into our universe.

Michael Fishbane, Sacred Attunement, p. 159.

In his book, Sacred Attunement, Michael Fishbane speaks of three Torah's (a trinity of Torahs). The written-Torah is obviously the written-text thought of as a demotic narrative from God. But since the text is initially delivered as a string of consonants, no vowels or punctuation, it can legitimately be considered DOA, dead-on-arrival; that is, without the oral-Torah, that resuscitates a meaning derived through the intercourse between God and his chosen mediator (be it angel, man, or both). Nevertheless, as Fishbane points out, there's a third Torah. Torah-kelulah, a holy hieroglyph: the secret meaning God has hidden for those who can receive it. An "unmediated" Torah --- no man or angel stands up erect claiming to be the organ of God, filled to breaking point with God's seminal testemony, looking to impregnate those desirous of a union, intercourse, with God, but without the attractiveness God desires in a mediator, an attractiveness related to a particular ornament, associated with a particularly cutting ritual.

This unmediated Torah can only be received by those willing to sacrifice. Sacrifice both the offspring of the mediated Torah, the meaning derived when oral-Torah is impregnated by the written-Torah, and or willing to sacrifice even the organ used to impregnate the meaning derived from intercourse between the written and oral-Torah, i.e., the scroll. This is to say that the uncircumcised followers of God receive the seminal testemony of God through the mediation of the written-Torah, and the oral-Torah, oblivious to the unmediated-Torah, Torah-kelulah, which is not arrived at through the more literal mediation of the scroll and the oral-Torah.

The text of Biblical Hebrew is hieroglyphic. It doesn’t function exclusively as a demotic text or script. This means the letters themselves carry a message that goes deeper than the dialogue they're being used to discuss. Take for instance the Ktav Ashuri tav ת. It' not just a letter used to form a word in a demotic sentence. It's a ligature made up of two hieroglyphs. The two hieroglyphs that make up the Ktav Ashuri tav are the "door" dalet (ד) and the "serpent" nun (ן). ---- Together, these two hieroglyphs are a picture of a "door" or "veil" or "covering," covering up a serpent (un-circumcision if you will). ------Deconstructed into its constituent parts, its hieroglyphs, the tav spells the word "din," דן (dalet-nun). The Hebrew word "din" means "judgment," and since the tav is the final letter in the Hebrew alphabet, the tav represents the "final judgment." After that final judgment God says "enough" --- "It is finished." The age of judgment, begun at the Fall, is over. The final payment, the final sacrifice, has been paid, rendered, once and for all, once for all.

With this background, and a knowledgeable Jew will naturally confirm that nothing so far is false within a Jewish framework (every iota can be shown to be taught by the sages) one has only to point out another oddity of the Hebrew alphabet in order to show how important it is to go deeper than the mere surface of these things, why it's important to cut all the way through to the bone of the truth, not withstanding the blood and crying and some measure of suffering. . . . The Ktav Ashuri tav ת is not really a Hebrew letter in the truest sense. It's a Gentile script Jews adopted when they adopted their captivity as though it would be never-ending. They put an end to the Ktav Ivri script, the sacred script, when they resolved to accept their captivity as a natural and everlasting state of being, sort of a national, permanent, case of the Stockholm syndrome.

In the sacred script, the tav is not constructed of a dalet-nun, as is the case in the Assyrian script. It’s a cross. -----A cross is the original sign of the final judgment, the final sacrifice, the sacrifice whose acceptance causes God to say "Enough" --- "It is finished." The payment has been received, the crime has been paid in full, the commandments designed for sinners are no longer in effect.

Just as the Ktav Ashuri script is made up of ligatures composed of hieroglyphic elements of the script, so to is the Ktav Ivri script composed of sacred-glyphs, hieroglyphs. The Ktav Ivri tav, which is a "cross," the hieroglyphic (sacred glyph) of the "final judgment," breaks down into two hieroglyphs of its own. It's constructed of the coronal horizontal line, intersected by the suture known as the penile-raphe (forming a cross). . . . The "mark" of God, which the sages equate with a theophany of God, a mark that suggests you're looking right at God, is the mark of circumcision. Circumcision is the erection, or creation, of a letter, or mark, which is emblematic of a "seeing," that is an actual "seeing," of God, in his most naked element. The very word "mark" (associated directly with the mark of circumcision) in Hebrew is the letter tav. It means "mark," and the letters that spell tav are an anagram of the word "mark" אות vs. תאו.

The sages speak of the act of circumcision cutting the serpent, the nun, ן down to size. Circumcision transforms a nun ן into a yod י. The yod י is the nun ן cut down to size, so to say. . . And when is the serpent cut down to size? At circumcision; where the "mark" of the serpent being cut down to size is the yod י (which is a tiny nun, bent over rather than extended and erect). Rabbi Hirsch confirms the non-Jew's (and the yawning Jew's) worst fear ---- that these things can go even deeper ----when he notes that the letters associated most intimately with bris milah, ritual circumcision, are the letters dalet-yod די.

Rabbi Hirsch claims that the letters dalet-yod די are literally cut into the flesh at the ritual-circumcision; that these letters are the "mark" of circumcision found at every ritual event.

As fate, or God, or a feted sage, might point out, the letters dalet-yod די seem to be divinely designed for the task Rabbi Hirsch puts them up to. ----Why? ----Because as just noted, the sages fancy the cutting down of the extended nun ן (and yes there is an ithyphallic nun in the script), as the eventuality of the covenant cutting that is bris milah. In other words, when the nun (serpent) is cut down to size, becoming a yod י (a tiny nun un-extended, bent) the word for "judgment" dalet-nun (דן) din, becomes the word for "It is finished" or "enough" (final payment on judgment is made), which is the word "di" dalet-yod (די).

The word "di" די which is obviously a phonetic blood-brother of the English word "die," means "enough," --- "It is finished." ---- And the word "It is finished" די, is created when the word "din" דן (judgment) is transformed, by cutting the ending-nun (extended-nun) down to size, making it a yod י (a tiny nun) rather than an erect and extended nun: the word דן (“judgment”) becomes the phrase "judgment paid in full, it is finished," i.e., "di" די "enough" ----when the final judgment (represented by the tav -- which is din דן), the cross in the sacred script, is cut into the very fleshly organ representing both the serpent, and the letter nun (thereby revealing the corona as the horizontal mark, and the penile-raphe as the vertical) for the first time.

. . . This is not to forget that Rabbi Hirsch is explicit that "It is finished" די is literally cut into the flesh at ritual circumcision, which is the final sacrifice, the "enough," or "it is finished" of the sacrificial system, the system of substitutionary atonement, the very day yom, of the final atoning sacrifice kippur, the day the sages claim Abraham cut די into his flesh; the day synonymous with the day the phallic-bull's blood becomes the final sacrifice of the year, the it is enough of all the sacrifices and repentance occurring throughout the year.

Lastly, but not yeastly, everyone should be put into remembrance of the fact that the sages, the good Jewish sages, are, of a man, convinced that all this covenant-cutting, this cutting down of the letteral serpent, the nun, the transforming of "din" into "di," judgment into It is finished (judgment is finished), is said, to a man, if the man is a great Jewish sage, a feted Hebrew, to present a visual theophany, an actually seeing, of God, the Presence of God on earth, in His most naked from.

One is said to see the Holy One from the sign of the covenant inscribed in one's flesh, the letter yod. As we have seen, in the case of the Zohar the letter yod is not understood simply as a sign of the covenant between God and Israel but is the very sign of the Holy One himself. . . Here we meet a convergence of anthropomorphic and letter symbolism: the physical organ in its essential character is interchangeable with the letter, and the letter with the physical organ.

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

Circumcision is not simply an incision of the male sex organ; it is an inscription, a notation, a marking. This marking, in turn, is the semiological seal, as it were, that represents the divine imprint on the human body. The physical opening, therefore, is the seal that, in its symbolic valence, corresponds to an ontological opening within God. . . The opening of circumcision, in the final analysis, is transformed in the Zohar into a symbol for the task of exegesis. . . The uncovering of the phallus is conceptually and structurally parallel to the disclosure of the text.

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, The Circle in the Square, p, 30.​

In the basic, or general, sense, a "demotic" text is a text used by common folk for common purposes. A hieroglyphic text is something else. It's a text, who's very letters, are sacred glyphs, sacred symbols. What makes them sacred? The fact that they're spiritually alive. They can perform acts akin to magic. They can do things that are extra-ordinary, extraordinary. Take the Hebrew tav for instance ת. It really is a ligature made up of a nun נ and a dalet ד. -----If ones imagination is up to snuff, they can picture the nun נ slid next to the dalet ד, forming the letter tav ת=דנ.

As already stated, before the two letters (dalet-nun) become one, the separate words spell "judgment" דן din. -----After the union of the two, making the ligature tav ת, you have the "final" letter in the Hebrew alphabet. You have the "mark" (as the letter signifies) of "final judgment." The tav, which is a "mark" (and the very name tav is an anagram for the word "mark" תאו=אות), "marks" the "final judgment" of all human history; the final sacrificial-atonement paying off mankind's debt to God originally acquired at the original sin. This makes it pretty significant that this glyph marking the final judgment was ---in the sacred script, a "cross."

It's not an epispasmic stretch of the imagination, not a stretch at all, to say that this same word דן "din" (judgment) ---- which when condensed becomes a tav ת (the final "mark" of "judgment") ----possesses other quasi-miraculous properties when placed in the hands of a sage like Rabbi Hirsch. It’s not an exaggeration to say that the sages claim ritual circumcision cuts the serpent down to size. And the extended-nun (the ending-nun, the final-nun) is nothing if not an extended serpent ן. . . So in Rabbi Hirsch's hands, and he's nothing if not a linguistic-mohel, circumcision cuts the nun down to size, making it a yod, a mini-nun, such that the very word for "judgment" דן, the ligature for the "final judgment" ת, becomes the letters Rabbi Hirsch, in his capacity as linguistic-mohel turns into the word די. The extended-nun will never extend again (so to say); it's been bled to death, leaving nothing but the mark of circumcision, the yod ׳. It is finished.

The very word that Rabbi Hirsch claims is cut into the flesh at circumcision, is a word meaning "It is finished" (2 Chron. 30:3). Enough has been paid: the final payment rendered. And this very word, cut into the flesh at circumcision, is directly related to the "cross" that in the sacred glyphs, the sacred text, the Ktav Ivri script, was itself a "cross." ----The final hieroglyph in the Hebrew script is a "cross." And this final letter in the Hebrew alphabet spells "judgment" in the Ktav Ashuri script.

So when a Jew sees the די cut into the flesh at the covenant-cutting, what he's really seeing is a "cross," hidden under the flesh, that was covering all this up prior to the cutting of the covenant.

Imagine if it were the case that for those not la di da about brit milah, there really was a "cross" uncovered underneath the flesh removed in the covenant cutting? What if, as Professor Wolfson suggests, Judaism acknowledges an important interrelationship between the letter and the flesh, such that all the uncovering of the letter in the foregoing (so to say) is a fair facsimile of what's found in the actual fleshly ritual? ----What if the very persons ordained to show all these things to the world, didn't even know what they saw when the flesh was removed, or that they were suppose to have a theophany of God, were supposed to see the most naked emblem of God in the bloody cross at the bris, were supposed to leave the bris glowing as though they'd seen God face-to-face, been face-to-face with his very Presence?
 

Hearing talk like this, a demotically inclined Jew might (in fact has), protest that the word “din” includes a yod י between the dalet ד and the nun ן , din = דין?

Matres lectionis suggests that a Hebrew consonant is sometimes used as a vowel. The yod is one of the consonants used as a vowel. The original Torah scroll did not use matres lectionis. The Masoretic Text incorporated the use of consonants as vowels onto the text. The word dalet-nun means "judge." ---- In Genesis 30:6, Rachael says ’God hath judged דן me, and hath also heard my voice and hath given me a son: therefore called she his name Dan דן .’ ----Genesis 15:14 uses the consonants dalet-nun דן for "judge." There are a number of places even in the MT where just the dalet-nun are used without the vowel yod. Lexicons remark that dalet-nun, though a proper name, means "judge."

The two component letters [of the tav], dalet (ד) and nun (נ), read דן "to judge."

Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, The Alef-Beit, p. 327.

The prototype "judge" is adon, אדן. ----The alef-prefix א–דן, attached to the prototype word for "judge" דן , makes the dalet-nun דן a first person singular "I will." -----So "adon" א (prefix "I will") with din דן, ("judge") means "I will judge." ---- Adon means the "lord/judge," the person, angel, or deity, with the title of "judge." The word used to speak of "judging" or used for a generic "judge" may add the yod as a vowel, to distinguish between the proper name "Dan" and the generic word for "judge" or "judging," but the prototype of the "judge" is adon, and that word combines the dalet-nun, with the first person singular prefix alef א. If dalet-nun דן is read as a verb ---to "judge," then using the alef as a prefix would change it to "I will judge," or perhaps, "I'm the one who's going to judge," I am the Lord --- adon אדן.

The same demotically inclined Jew who protests the missing yod in din, might protest that di די means “enough” (or “sufficient”) and not, as it were, “It is finished.”[1] -----But in 2 Chronicles 30:3, di די is used in a manner compatible with saying it means "It is finished." 2 Chronicles 30:3 can be read to say that the priests hadn't "finished" sanctifying themselves.

In his Against Apion, 2.190, Josephus uses the root of the Greek word tetelestai, the very word used for "It is finished," in the Gospels, to say that God is self "sufficient," and sustains all things through his "sufficiency." Josephus uses the root of the very word used in the Gospel for, "It is finished," to speak of God's "sufficiency," God is "enough" or "sufficient." God says "enough" to the debt acquired through the original sin. “Enough” of the angel of death's glad-handing of souls. “Enough” of applying death-sentences to each and every human being born only the first time --- natural-born, i.e., through phallic-sex. “Enough” to the entirety of this fallen realm.

The very etymology of the Greek tetelestai, relates to a debt being paid. Tetelestai was stamped on a bill saying it was paid in full. Enough had been received to lay the bill to rest.

The New Testament book of Hebrews says that although the ancient Jews slaughtered hundreds and thousands of sacrifices, with the sacrifice of his own Son, God said "enough" די, tetelestia --- It is finished, the debt is paid, the blood of Christ is "enough." No more is needed, nothing else need be paid, nothing more can suffice: it (that blood) is sufficient, enough.

On the cross ת, being judged דן, Jesus cried out his last words די, "It is finished."

די  דן  ת --- a letter, (tav), two words (din and di), all connected etymologically, logical, theologically, in such a way that the natural-born Jew squirms and wiggles denying that it appears the hieroglyphs have themselves converted to Christ. Demotically inclined Jews deny that the tav (originally a cross) is a ligature of דן (din--judgment). They deny that the nun is a hieroglyphic-serpent[2], and that a yod י, the mark of circumcision, is a nun ן cut down to size. They deny that when Jesus was "judged" דן, on the "cross" ת," the final letter, signifying the final judgment, he said די: "It is finished—finalized," the judgment is over, the debt has been paid, enough has been rendered, the final payment is sufficient.

Rabbi Hirsch says די is engraved in the Jewish flesh as a hieroglyph from God. The very letters די are, by Rabbi Hirsch's reasoning, engraved at ritual circumcision, as the hieroglyph of God, made to live in Jewish flesh. The first two letters in din "the final judgment,”: are די, the letters engraved as a hieroglyph in the flesh. ----- And what’s the last letter (in din דין), which apparently represents the flesh where the letters די are engraved? Well as fate, or a feted sage, would have it, it's the very letter that represents the ithyphallic-organ[3] that's engraved in ritual circumcision, the extended-nun ן.

Surely it doesn't take someone of the caliber of Rabbi Hirsch to see what's going on here? די is engraved in the flesh as a hieroglyph from God (R. Hirsch). It's engraved in the extended-nun ן, which is a pictograph, an emblem, of the extended-serpent (see endnote 2), who is the first real, and the last and final (alef-tav) sacrifice, of the ritualistic sacrificial system.

די-ן means "apply final judgment" (R. Hirsch). And in a hieroglyphic sense, we have the letters "engraved into the flesh" (R. Hirsch), די, being engraved (making a hieroglyph) into the fleshly serpent, the extended nun ן, forming the word for "final judgment," דין. -----Well for believing Jews, circumcision represents the sacrifice of the firstborn. Which means the yod י (fancied the mark of circumcision) is the Jewish analogue to the Christian crucifix, which is the Christian mark of the sacrifice of the firstborn of creation, the Lamb of God.

Admittedly Rabbi Hirsch is very forthcoming about the incredible relationship between די (the final judgment, the sufficient judgment, the it is enough), and its relationship to circumcision, judgment/sacrifice of the firstborn. In this vein judgment די–ן, represents, prototypically, the first and last real sacrifice (since it applies to the firstborn). But a Christian wants to go still deeper beneath the pshat meaning. He want to go deeper into the Spirit of the hieroglyphs, the Spirit of the Akedah, the Spirit related to the first, and final, judgment of the firstborn, the Lamb of God?

Consequently the Christian notices that in his discussion of the first and last sacrifice, the first and last “judgment,” the one associated directly with “Shaddai” שדי, Rabbi Hirsch places a mark (-) between the shin ש and the dalet-yod די, in the Name “Shaddai,” such that we see ש–די, when in point of fact, most great Jewish sages speak primarily of a yod alone י being engraved as a hieroglyph into the sacrificial flesh of the firstborn? In other words, not withstanding the fact that dalet-yod די represents the “final judgment,” the “final sacrifice,” the “It is finished,” of the sacrificial-system (used as temporary payments applied toward a huge debt), it’s the case that the yod י itself is generally taught to be the letter engraved (singularly) into the flesh; the letter representing the “enough,” or “it is finished,” of the entire debt associated with the sacrificial-system.

So a Christian tends to side with the other sages, against Rabbi Hirsch, on this one, since if the singular yod י is favored over the dalet-yod די (and there’s reason to think it should be), then we have a wholly other kind of hieroglyph, one closer to a Christian spirit שד–י.

The reason this rendering is closer to a Christian spirit is because the Christian yod י (the Christian mark of the sacrifice of the firstborn of creation) is the crucifix dangling between the Christian's breasts שד. -----Which is to say, if the Jewish mark of circumcision is transformed into the Christian mark of the sacrifice of the firstborn, the crucifix, and we imagine that crucifix (that yod) dangling, as it does, between the breasts (שד) of the believer (squarely between his eyes), we have the bizarre transposition of symbols whereby the yod י between the breasts, שד, spells "Shaddai" שד–י, which is the very Name associated with Abraham's circumcision, the Akedah, and thus the sacrifice of the firstborn:

This "די," the stamp of Sabbath in creation, is the stamp of God on heaven and earth. . . Heaven and earth were created by א–ל ש–די . . . He inscribed [engraved] this "די!". . ..

Hirsch Chumash, Bereshith.

Imagine Shaddai dangling between the breast of the Christian, as the sacrifice of the firstborn, known in Christianity as the "alpha and omega," the first real sacrifice . . . and the last sacrifice ever needed, since his sacrifice is sufficient די since he is the yod of God, the sufficient sacrifice of God, the lamb God himself would provide. This would-be Lamb of God  becomes the "Lamb" שה, of God שדי, precisely when the yod of circumcision, the mark of the sacrifice, is seen, because of the pulling back of the fleshly veil, or door, ד (dalet, Heb. "veil" or "door") in the ritual sacrifice. In other words even as די (final, finished) is engraved in the flesh (nun) at circumcision (forming the word דין: final judgment) so too, in the pulling back of the dalet (the veil) to reveal the mark of circumcision, the yod, the word "lamb" as in "lamb of God" is transformed into the word שדי, which is to say שה becomes שדי.

. . . But there's more. . . . If you pull the dalet (Heb. "veil," "door") away to spy the yod beneath, or in-between, the dalet and the nun ד–י–ן, if you remove the veil (the dalet), something the sages are wont to do, and if the yod is in fact engraved right into the nun, as Rabbi Hirsch implies is the case, at the ritual engraving, then oddly enough you end up with the letter tsaddi צ (the Tsaddik). A careful Jewish eye can spy out the fact that the tsaddi צ is a humbled, bent over, nun (which was formerly ithyphallic, extended) . . . and that its humbling came about when the yod, the divine thorn (R. Ginsburgh), the mark of circumcision, and its cutting, its leaving a "mark," is engraved, or impaled, in the side of the formerly ithyphallic (extended) nun: the extended nun ן becomes the humbled bent over yod-impaled nun, the tsaddi צ, precisely when the dalet ד in דין (the final judgment) is pulled away, as the bloody final judgment/sacrifice (imaged in bris milah), allowing anyone at the bris to spy the yod י now engraved as a hieroglyph in the side of the flesh, impaled in the side of the nun, the tsaddi צ.

---

[1] Dictionary of Biblical Languages (emphasis mine): 1896 דַּי (dǎy): n.[masc.]; ≡ Str 1767, 4078;—1. LN 57.22–57.24 enough, sufficiency, necessary supply, plenty, as much, i.e., an amount that is necessary to meet a need, imply even a little more (Ex 36:5); 2. LN 4.47–4.50 unit: דַּי אַרְבֶּה (dǎy ʾǎr·bě(h)) swarm of locust, formally, plenty of locust, i.e., a large assembly of locust (Jdg 6:5); 3. LN 38.14–38.20 unit: ךְּ־ דַּי (k- dǎy) deservedly, formally, according to sufficiency, i.e., pertaining to a punishment which is proper and corresponding, implying an equal but not excessive amount (Dt 25:2); 4. LN 89.39–89.54 unit: בְּ־ דַּי רִיק (b- dǎy rîq)2 for nothing, in vain, for no reason, i.e., a marker of not having a proper result (Jer 51:58; Hab 2:13); 5. LN 67.17–67.64 unit: מִן דַּי (min dǎy) whenever, as often as, i.e., a marker of an indefinite point of time in relation roughly simultaneous with other points of time (2Ki 4:8); 6. LN 67.17–67.64 unit: בְּ־ דַּי (b- dǎy) whenever, as, at, i.e., a marker of an indefinite point of time in relation roughly simultaneous with other points of time (Job 39:25); 7. LN 67.118–67.135 unit: מִן דַּי (min dǎy) from, i.e., a marker of the extent of time from a point of time in the past, implying a sufficient amount of time (Isa 66:23); 8. LN 57.152–57.171 unit: נָגַע יָד דַּי (nā·ḡǎʿ yāḏ dǎy) afford, formally, reach the hand of sufficiency, i.e., not have the economic means to purchase an item (Lev 5:7); 9. LN 57.152–57.171 unit: מָצָא יָד דַּי (mā·ṣā(ʾ) yāḏ dǎy) afford, formally, find the hand of sufficiency, i.e., not have the economic means to purchase an item (Lev 12:8).

[2] Daniel Matt, The Zohar, Pritzker Edition, Vol. 9, p. 751, “Extended נון (nun) . . . The normal, bent נ (nun) symbolizes Shekhinah, whereas the final (or extended) letter ן (nun) symbolizes the union of male with female.

[3] Daniel Matt, The Zohar, Pritzker Edition, Vol. 9, p. 751, “Extended נון (nun) . . . The normal, bent נ (nun) symbolizes Shekhinah, whereas the final (or extended) letter ן (nun) symbolizes the union of male with female.