very interesting, and definitely fits.
strong stuff
I have often wondered about this connection myself. The myth of the Fisher King, who is wounded in his genitals (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fis...ki/Fisher_King)
plays an important role in the Arthurian legend, the Grail legend, Parsifal, and in 20th century literature (T.S. Eliot's masterpiece The Wasteland). Perhaps all these relate back (in part) to these midrashim? Sounds like an interesting idea for a Masters/PhD thesis.
Hogwash!
"Ken Wilbur, at the beginning of A Brief History of Everything, relates how the male hormone testosterone induces men to divide the world in to two basic categories: Things that are objects of sex, and things that are objects of violence." Some day people will look back on late 20th century-early 21st century writers and ask themselves how such seemingly sophisticated people could create such primitively esentialist rhetoric about men and masculinity.
Intressante. The sexual imagery doesnt scare me. anyone who doesnt see such iamgery in Esther touching the tip of Achashveirosh's sceptre, for example, doesnt belong in this century. But the conclusions seem too much of a stretch.
Keep in mind the imagery comes from chazal, not the Torah itself. Thus, to the extent chazal were intending at all to imply an overall theme, it would have to be something in their milieu. Ken Wilbur's dichoomy would not have been something they would have envisioned in their wildest fantasies.
It's probably much simpler. The story revovled around a sexual episode, so chazal dressed it up in sexual terms. There need be nothing deeper than that.
which word for "weapon" are you referring to?
zayin.
I like this. This idea of group identity also fits in with the explicit comparison that the author of Macabees I makes between the action of the priest who slays the idol worshipper and Pinchas.
WHO POSTS THE MOST???
"The phallic symbolism employed by the Midrashic expansion . . ."
But the word zayin only came to be associated with the phallus in the 20th century. I can think of a half-dozen words used in Shakespeare [and Mother Goose] that today have some rude or foul meaning - that doesnt mean the Bard himself intended such meanings. Likewise, the sages were not thinking of the phallus when they innocently used the word "zayin".
It's one thing to read into the Torah itself. One can argue the Torah text is timeless, and that even if a certain word did not mean something 3300 years ago, it was divinely written that way then, so that it would have meaning to us today. I know some people seem to think we can use the same principle for chazal. Surely you dont buy that, though.
I agree that the double entendre didn't exist in the times of Chaza"l. The association of the phallus with "weaponry" may have, though.
Think about it - in those times in that part of the world, the god of war was often the god of male sexuality. Just take a look at the symbol for Mars/males. Very often the spear was (is?) interchangable with the penis, and HaZa"L may simply be reflect the dominant (so to speak) milieu.
Interesting perspectives. Especially in terms of the motivations of their actions coming from different aspects of the same drive.
Youre quite into this idea. You had a similar idea with Esther and Achashveirosh, didnt you?
I think chazal were a bit more kadosh than you give them credit for. Perhaps you should see someone about your constant looking at things with these glasses on.
oh my gosh, oy vey. you're (that's the correct way to spell it) right! i had totally forgotten about the king's scepter. you have a really good memory for this kind of thing. maybe you should get that checked out.
as for me, i don't think that noticing 2 phallic symbols over the course of 1.5 years is much to get worked up about. i certainly wouldn't call it "constant".
also, i don't think that chaza"l were as prudish (my translation of what you seem to mean when you say "kadosh"; can i recommend the book "carnal israel" to you on this issue?) as you make them out to be.
are you still in the states? any chance we can shmooze while youre here?
as far as the topic, i hear what youre saying but ill reserve comment keshem shemkablin schar al hadrisha...
also in the mix, there is a kabbalah from the arizal linking besod hagilgul shechem and dina, zimri and kozbi, and r' akiva and eishes turnus rufus, which may also have to do with themes of sxuality and endogamy
It isn't about group identity, it's about mida c'neged mida.
In other words, the kannaus is a combination of shfichus domim and arayos-- G-d, kviyachol, allowed the instantiation of appropriate justice in the hands of the zealot. Yes the spear is a phalic symbol, but it represents the rape (sodomizing) and killing of zimri and cozbi just like their sex was causing the death of the Jews.
Commenting by HaloScan
