What is the story on the Jewish Goddess?

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I was reading a post in the Comparative Studies forum called The Feminine Face of G!D and the posters are using terms which they seem to understand very clearly such as Kavod, Shechinah, Asherah. I only have a very vague notion of what Shechinah and Asherah actually are, and Kavod is entirely new to me. From what I am getting out of the posts, there is even a chronological development in the use of these terms. Elsewhere I have also come across the term "Elath" as a name for "Mrs. God," as someone phrased it. Can someone please straighten me out as to when, why, in what context these terms were used? Was there ever actually a goddess worship within Judaism parallel to worshipping G!d? I understand the idea that G!d incorporates both male and female aspects, but is that something the ancient Hebrews thought as well, or is that a more modern interpretation, or were there differing camps?
Thanks a lot. I am coming to realize that I know an awful lot less about Judaism than I'd like to, and not just in this question, but let's start here.

[dauer]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

I was reading a post in the Comparative Studies forum called The Feminine Face of G!D and the posters are using terms which they seem to understand very clearly such as Kavod,

kavod means glory. It's used biblically to refer to God's presence as in "The whole world is filled with His glory."

Shechinah,

Shechinah means indwelling presence. In Kabbalah it came to be regarded as a feminine aspect of God which is passive, recieving, and still indwelling presence. God's presence in the world.

Asherah.

Possibly Asherah was God's consort. That's not a Jewish belief, more of a modern scholarly interest. Another interest along those lines is Chochmah, wisdom. It is a feminine word (the words are gendered in Hebrew) and see what Proverbs says about it.

From what I am getting out of the posts, there is even a chronological development in the use of these terms.

Yep. First came kavod and then shechinah. That's as much as I cantell you for evolution.

Elsewhere I have also come across the term "Elath" as a name for "Mrs. God," as someone phrased it.

I'm not familiar with that.

Was there ever actually a goddess worship within Judaism parallel to worshipping G!d?

I am aware there have been kabbalists who regarded the Shechinah as separate from God but generally I don't think this was the case. If the asherot were being smashed, I would say yes in that case. Kavod is not feminine.

I understand the idea that G!d incorporates both male and female aspects, but is that something the ancient Hebrews thought as well, or is that a more modern interpretation, or were there differing camps?

The medieval philosphers bring the idea that God is neither male nor female. Originally in the bible there's an idea that God lives on a throne above the dome of the sky and is definitely male. This changes over time.

Dauer

[dauer]

Oh, and in the modern day Jewish feminism is attempting to reclaim the Divine Feminine in some form or another. But this is not a widespread movement, or at least I don't think it is.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Thank you very much, dauer. Your posts are always very erudite, and I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions - you cleared things up for me a bit. If anyone has anything else to add, I'm interested in it.

[dauer]

Oh, there's one other I forgot about. The left side of the sefirotic tree of life is feminine:

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Sefirot/Sefirot.html

This is another theology some modern Jews are trying to reformulate in a way that's not quite so negative about the feminine.

[bananabrain]

i have to say that this is a particularly complex and misunderstood area within judaism. for a start, it must be understood that it is unacceptable to directly attribute gender to the Divine - any concept we have that appears to suggest it is a concession to our way of understanding things, not to the actual reality of the Divine.

with that said, there is a long and reputable tradition of using gender to understand the "interface" that the Divine has with Creation; but within this there are *acceptable* ways of understanding this and *unacceptable* ways of understanding it. the concept of a separate "goddess", or of a "mrs god", or more particularly the popular goddess names of the canaanites, especially "asherah" and so on, are extremely offensive in traditional terms, whereas the idea of treating the Shekhinah, or Divine Presence, as almost (but not) a separate entity is perfectly OK. basically this area is a minefield and best not ventured into without some extensive knowledge. i am aware that there is a large body of scholastic opinion that holds that all female expressions of the Divine are the same and that therefore, "ashera" and the Shekhinah are different aspects of the same thing - this idea is not only disgusting to the traditionally minded, but is not supported by the mystical tradition, which knows a *lot* about this area.

with this said, it is absolutely clear that the biblical israelites worshipped "ashera" and thought of "her" as a sort of "mrs god" to HaShem - this is due, however, to their own sinfulness, wickedness, lack of understanding and their general bad character. in fact, it's exactly what the prophets were so upset about and, moreover, the Torah states that G!D explicitly commands us not to worship this entity and to destroy its shrines, so it must have been something that went on, or it wouldn't have made sense to prohibit it.

the thing that is very confusing is that G!D's relationship with the jewish people is constantly described in [hetero]sexual terms - G!D as the bridegroom and the jewish people as the bride (this is the theme of the "song of songs") and that this was made extremely explicit within the context of the Temple and, indeed, the Holy of Holies. where the people went wrong was in simplifying this relationship to make it no different to that of the contemporary popular fertility cults, where the male sky-god fertilises the female earth-god and so on (therefore, goes this thought, we must all publicly shag each other in public at harvest time in a temple, G!D forbid). a proper understanding of this relationship does not make this mistake, but it's hardly surprising, seeing as the biblical israelites were such fecking eejits and as it's extremely subtle, complex and sophisticated to start with. the best book on the subject i can suggest is raphael patai's "the hebrew goddess"; although i don't agree with his conclusions, it contains most of the relevant material, while not really understanding how it fits together. basically, if you don't want to piss off traditional jews, steer clear of associating forbidden names (including ashera, elath, anath, inanna, ishtar, astarte and all those mother goddesses) with the jewish concept of the Divine Feminine; if you know what you're looking at, many of the commonly used Divine Names imply femaleness, such as "ShaDaY" (connected to breasts) and "Ha-Rahaman" (connected to the womb).

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Originally Posted by dauer

Oh, there's one other I forgot about. The left side of the sefirotic tree of life is feminine:

What I find particularly interesting about that is that the left, feminine side is associated with "power and strict justice," and the right, masculine side is associated with "mercy" and "unity, harmony and benevolence". That's a division of power I've not encountered before.

bananabrain, thank you for your contribution. I think I'm starting to get it. I'll have to see if I can rustle up Patai's book from anywhere.

[dauer]

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

What I find particularly interesting about that is that the left, feminine side is associated with "power and strict justice," and the right, masculine side is associated with "mercy" and "unity, harmony and benevolence". That's a division of power I've not encountered before.

That's what some modern Jews are trying to change. While the mythos can be compelling, it's also sometimes offensive to the modern reader, especially to the feminists of which there are many in Judaism. This explains some feminist reinterpretation here:

http://www.ohalah.org/seidenberg.htm

among other things.

[bananabrain]

that's a really interesting article, dauer. i would say i pretty much agreed with it. inevitably, there are people who find the idea of associating male and female with any particular characteristics "offensive" - but the point is really that these characteristics are not in fact *really* male and female - that's just a way of us understanding it. if it fails to instruct us properly, it is our understanding that must be changed and we must come up with new paradigms. i'm sorry to say that i've found very little in the supposedly "liberated" and "enlightened" discourse that approaches the level of human insight displayed by the traditional sources when properly understood. i suppose what bugs me is that the agenda tries to be so worthy and yet manages to be so small-minded.

the secret of the Tree for me, at least in terms of gender, is that it contains multidimensional relationships. it is not possible to say it portrays a macho male and a submissive female, any more than it portrays an amazonian female and a submissive, scholarly male. the point is that all these characteristics are present in their own way and the flows between them create a whole through judicious integration. what i think these commentators fail to appreciate is that the receptive/passive "woman" in this supposed relationship is in fact the jewish people as a whole, whereas the active principle, or "man" if you must, is G!D. to insist that the "woman" must have "diagrammatic" equality with the "man" is to insist that humans are equal to the Divine, whereas we are a part of it. it is not that the "woman completes the man" but that "humans complete G!D" i think we are wasting our time if we are offended by a metaphorical structure.

scarlet pimpernel - of course you should go ahead and read patai if you want, but i would encourage you to balance your reading with other texts, otherwise you will inevitably come to conclusions that i would regard as misleading. i personally would suggest baring and cashford's "the myth of the goddess" as a better all-round introduction to the comparative religion of the Divine Feminine, although what they understand about judaism could probably be written on the back of a matchbox. patai is very involved and quite scholarly and is what i would call more "added value" than a primary text.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[dauer]

BB,

I think the difference is for them that there is no understanding that the kabbalistic paradigm is from God, so when they look at it they see a model coming from a patriarchal society which used the female as a model for the submissive, powerless, and also of the harsher side of the tree. I don't think, if these same people held your beliefs about the origin of Kabbalah, that the same issues would arise, or at least not in the same way. The other issue is that Renewal is often pantheist, which also I think effects the model a little. I'm not familiar enough with it.

I think it is also in the same way some have rejected the idea of God as King, for one reason or another. I've been opting for Reb Zalman's Gaian theology lately.

There was actually an Orthodox woman who tried to show a feminist foundation using the texts alone that you can see here. I haven't read it but it seems like something I'll end up reading:

http://www.amyisrael.co.il/smallvoic...cwritings.html

Dauer

[dauer]

When I say it's not from God, that's not right to say. Rather, from God but not immutable and just one part of an ever-giving revelation received through man as part of that era's paradigm shift. Changing partzufim for each generation.

[bananabrain]

I think the difference is for them that there is no understanding that the kabbalistic paradigm is from G!D, so when they look at it they see a model coming from a patriarchal society which used the female as a model for the submissive, powerless, and also of the harsher side of the tree.

you see, that's what i don't really get - how can they be saying that "patriarchal society" is saying that the female should be the paradigm of harshness as well, when they are reacting against the stereotype of woman as submissive and powerless? not only does it fly in the face of the actual sources but also against similar models; for example, there are numerous pagan goddesses of war and death, as well as goddesses like athene who are associated with both wisdom and battle. it just doesn't seem to make much sense.

The other issue is that Renewal is often pantheist, which also I think effects the model a little. I'm not familiar enough with it.

i've never considered renewal pantheist. a tad on the hippyish side perhaps, but no more so, theologically speaking, than some of ther early chasidic masters.

I think it is also in the same way some have rejected the idea of G!D as King, for one reason or another.

oh, well, that sort of thing just makes me roll my eyes. perhaps they'd prefer G!D as president, or chairperson. pheuuww.

Changing partzufim for each generation.

now this is a much more interesting idea, if only it were backed up with sources. after all, the "Torah speaks in the language of humans".

b'shalom

bananabrain

[dauer]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

you see, that's what i don't really get - how can they be saying that "patriarchal society" is saying that the female should be the paradigm of harshness as well, when they are reacting against the stereotype of woman as submissive and powerless? not only does it fly in the face of the actual sources but also against similar models; for example, there are numerous pagan goddesses of war and death, as well as goddesses like athene who are associated with both wisdom and battle. it just doesn't seem to make much sense.

But the goddesses of wisdom and battle or war and death are not the only goddesses, nor are they the only somehow negative-to-human-perception gods. 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've never considered renewal pantheist. a tad on the hippyish side perhaps, but no more so, theologically speaking, than some of ther early chasidic masters.

This is an answer to this and also the king issue. God tends to be viewed as organismic. Melech HaOlam is rendered "organismic intelligence" of the world, the conciousness of the living planet, or something similar. It gets rid of a heirarchy completely. Yah instead of Adonai for the Tetragrammaton. Everything is seen as a part of God, cells, as it were, that build up to create organs. So a religion could be an organ. In order for it to be healthy it needs the vitamins from the other organs. It can't become cancerous or harden up. It also has to maintain invidivuality. It's looking at the world as groupings of interacting systems instead of as a hierarchical pattern. This is not the only theology but there's a lot that's similar to this. Also, no finite revelation.

now this is a much more interesting idea, if only it were backed up with sources. after all, the "Torah speaks in the language of humans".

1. I looked up that quote in berachot when I was there with Daf Yomi and Rambam's interpretation leaves the pshat. Why is it treated as anything more than drash? The gemara only mentions repetitive language spoken by a human being.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. Also, unless I'm mistaken, isn't this statement aggadah?

2. And yet kabbalah presented another face for another generation. So did the medieval philosophers. So did Hazal. I thought I saw something about different ages of the world mentioned in midrash although I could be completely wrong, but this is the best I can do right now, and you can surely object to the translations I have:

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.

Midrash Rabba Leviticus 13:3

Said Rabbi Avahu bar Kahana: The Holy Blessed One said, "A new Torah will emanate from me" (Isaiah 51:4), meaning that the renewal of Torah will emanate from me.

Midrash Rabba (Margolius) Leviticus 13:3

I found another reference but I can't follow it myself. 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.

That suggests to me that each age can potentially have a different partzuf or combination of partzufim as the otiyot are redistributed. But in our age we are now conscious of this process.


Dauer

[dauer]

One more thing. I don't know anything about aramaic. But couldn't it also be translated as "The Torah was speaking according to the language of men"?

Now it's in the past tense anyway, which seems to support what I was saying that this is dealing with when a person is speaking. And whether it's "was speaking" or "spoke" I suppose is mostly inconsequential. So maybe this post is unnecessary. Just see the one above.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i personally would suggest baring and cashford's "the myth of the goddess" as a better all-round introduction to the comparative religion of the Divine Feminine, although what they understand about judaism could probably be written on the back of a matchbox.

Hmm, thanks for the tip. I've already read quite a bit (for an amateur) about the Divine Feminine in different religions and cultures - I've encountered Patai's book before, but it looked drier and more scholarly than I had time to get into at the time. I've not seen Baring and Cashford's book, at least not that I recall. As I said, Judaism is one religion I'm less familiar with than I'd like to be. Is there another book you would suggest that is more accurate or thorough as regards Judaism, that perhaps might balance Patai?

Originally Posted by dauer

I found another reference but I can't follow it myself. 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...

That makes two of us.