What is the story on the Jewish Goddess?

[bananabrain]

In the Jewish system the appearance of the divine feminine is one of complete submission in one case and in the other case it is like one says, "Pssst. The woman is the source of the evils of the world. Pass it on."

i can't agree with that - the Shechinah is certainly represented as arguing with her "husband" for mercy at certain points, which is really not a very submissive thing to do. as far as the other case is concerned, i think you're oversimplifying. the feminine is not seen as the "source" of evil; i'd consider it more of a chain of associations. evil, kabbalistically speaking, is derived from a) the exercise of free will and b) Divine rigidity and sternness - there are plenty of masculine associations there too, "ish milhamah" from the song at the sea for a start. in fact, this is rather like the nature of being "cancerous" or hardening up, as you put it.

Why is it treated as anything more than drash? The gemara only mentions repetitive language spoken by a human being.

umph. i think it is a [technically aggadic] statement which provides a fundamental principle for halacha, namely that just as the Torah uses human language as its intermediary, we can engage with it at that level. it is basically supporting our right to work with the language itself and use that in deriving things which are in the domain of humans.

edited to add "in nach" although I'm not sure if Hazal ever said Torah to refer to something outside of "the Torah", excluding it.

i believe "Torah" can be a *very* wide area. (rather like what constitutes "halacha le moshe'me'sinai"

Rabbi Avin bar Kahana said: The Holy Blessed One said that "a new Torah will emanate from me;" namely, a renewed Torah will emanate from me.

arg. this is unfortunately a statement that is adduced to support many things which aren't really Torah at all - it is (as far as i am aware) strictly limited to the messianic age and not to be taken, as it has been many times, as sanction for everything from christianity to shabbetai tszvi and jacob frank.

According to this, in Sefer ha-Temunah it says the universe is made of the otiyot of the aleph bet which are the otiyot of Torah and every once in a while the system collapses, as it were, and the letters are shuffled and then redistributed. Each time it is still the Torah that is received but the combinations will be different so the Torah will read differently.

like the previous quote, as far as i am aware this is a much more "macro" measure than it is presented as being. in other words, this isn't something that happens every time someone comes up with a new religious idea; it's linked to far more fundamental events, such as the "death of kings" idea about G!D creating universes and destroying them. as i said before, the next time this is really possible is with the coming of the Messiah. i think i do see what they mean by the otiyot of the alephbet, incidentally, but i don't think i can explain it here.

Is there another book you would suggest that is more accurate or thorough as regards Judaism, that perhaps might balance Patai?

there's no one book that i could recommend happily. as i said, it's a complex subject and if you need more of an entry-level guide then i'd recommend starting with less controversial material to start with.

and what's that revolting garlic smell?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[dauer]

Arguing for mercy isn't a very glamorous role either. Sounds like the role for the lesser in a relationship. Maybe for the wife of an abusive husband.

Isn't divine rigidity and sternness associated with the divine feminine in the tree?

I am definitely oversimplifying. My point is to show that the symbology time and again denigrates women. Clearly the symbols are more complex, but at their root they are still very negative symbols incorporating the feminine.


Who is the earliest person to understand the statement from Berachot 31b the way Rambam does? And how did they make the leap beyond the pshat of the gemara?

[bananabrain]

Arguing for mercy isn't a very glamorous role either. Sounds like the role for the lesser in a relationship. Maybe for the wife of an abusive husband.

umph. well, we are always the lesser in a relationship with G!D.

My point is to show that the symbology time and again denigrates women. Clearly the symbols are more complex, but at their root they are still very negative symbols incorporating the feminine.

i don't really see how one can prevail against symbolic claims that are this aggressive. i don't have the same associations and i can't accept them as a given.

Isn't divine rigidity and sternness associated with the divine feminine in the tree?

not totally. nor are they the only things associated. plenty of "pejorative" things are also associated with the masculine if you want to look at it that way, too! i just don't see this stuff as any more "denigrating" than anything else!

as for brachot 31b, i dunno. you probably need to look in sa'adia gaon or someone else like that.

b'shalom

bananabrain