Language, Religion, Tradition

[MMS]

@Koichos

I know you told me I should not look into this but I couldnt help myself

Question: Is Rahab (or Rachab) the original Golem?

Bible Gateway passage: Joshua 2 - King James Version

And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of shyttim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there. And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, Behold, there came men in hither to night of the children of...

www.biblegateway.com

Joshua 2:9-14

9 And she said unto the men, I know that the Lord hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.

10 For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed.

11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the Lord your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.

12 Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the Lord, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father's house, and give me a true token:

13 And that ye will save alive my father, and my mother, and my brethren, and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death.

14 And the men answered her, Our life for yours, if ye utter not this our business. And it shall be, when the Lord hath given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with thee.

A "true token" or a Truth Token?

In some tales (including certain stories of the Chełm and Prague golems), a word such as אמת (emét, 'truth') is inscribed on the golem, sometimes on its forehead. In this example, the golem could then be deactivated by removing the aleph (א),[12] thus changing the inscription from "truth" to "death" (מת, mét, 'dead').

What's interesting is that it can mean "Broad space" or "blusterer" as a reference to Egypt? So assuming you were moving into nothing at all, would you need a golem to be the absolute boundary between yourself and the unexplored?

this is why I changed this post here:

We are living in a world of illusion

me and @MMS building peace to the other gods as well though Light is Wavy We are living in a world of illusion Post "23" the world is deep but it's not scary when you know where you stand

www.thecoli.com

instead of the original post dwelling on "Tannaim"(Teachers) instead grinding on several rabbinical eras (Chazal)

"I will divide them in Jacob, and Scatter them in Israel"

 

[Koichos]

@MMS, I tend to lean towards the ‘golem’ story being a myth and refer you to Dr. Shnayer Leiman’s fascinating lecture on the matter. Consider, also, page 222, column I of Marcus (Mordochai) Jastrow’s excellent Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Talmud Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature where גולם golem is defined as:

rolled up, shapeless mass, whence

1) lump, a shapeless or lifeless substance,
2) unfinished matter, wanting finishing, opp. פשוט plain surface, forming no receptacle.

As far as I'm aware, its earliest use in our midrashim can be found in reference to the sequence of God’s creation of the adam. For example, there is a midrashic ‘baray'ta’ (this word just means ‘external [to]’ or ‘not belonging [to]’ and denotes a non-mishnaic teaching dating from the period of the Mishnah) in the g'mara bavlit that explains:

R' Yohanan bar Hanina taught: There were twelve hours in that day... At the 1st hour (i.e., at 6 a.m.), his dust was gathered; at the 2nd hour (i.e., at 7 a.m.), it was formed into a mannequin; at the 3rd hour (i.e., at 8 a.m.), his limbs were stretched out from it; at the 4th hour (i.e., at 9 a.m.), a n'shamah was blown into him; at the 5th hour (i.e., at 10 a.m.), he stood up on his feet; at the 6th hour (i.e., at 11 a.m.), he gave names to all the animals; at the 7th hour (i.e., at 12 noon), Havvah was prepared for him; at the 8th hour (i.e., at 1 p.m.), they ascended to bed as two¹ and descended as four²; at the 9th hour (i.e., at 2 p.m.), he was commanded not to eat from The Tree; at the 10th hour (i.e., at 3 p.m.), he sinned; at the 11th hour (i.e., at 4 p.m.), he was sentenced; and at the 12th hour (i.e., at 5 p.m.), he was banished from the Garden and went on his way, as it is written— ‘But as for man, he will not abide³ in honor...’ (Tillim 49:13)

---א"ר יוחנן בר חנינא: שתים עשרה שעות הוי היום ;שעה ראשונה - הוצבר עפרו ;שנייה - נעשה גולם ;שלישית - נמתחו אבריו ;רביעית - נזרקה בו נשמה ;חמישית - עמד על רגליו ;ששית - קרא שמות ;שביעית - נזדווגה לו חוה ;שמינית - עלו למיטה שנים וירדו ארבעה ;תשיעית - נצטווה שלא לאכול מן האילן ;עשירית - סרח ;אחת עשרה - נידון :שתים עשרה - נטרד והלך לו; שנאמר '...וְאָדָ֣ם בִּ֖יקָר בַּל־יָלִ֑ין'​

_______________________________
¹ Adam and Havvah
² with Ḳayin and his twin sister
³ יָלִין yalin also has the sense of ‘to stay overnight’ (as in B'reshyt 28:11); i.e., ‘But as for man (אָדָם adam), he will not pass the night (יָלִין yalin) in honor’.

Notice the adam itself is not being referred to as a ‘golem’ (which I translate here as ‘a mannequin’), but rather its unfinished, inanimate humanoid form. So, to answer your question: No, Rahav could not have been the first ‘golem’ because (i.) g'lamim are not human beings and (ii.) they do not possess n'shamot or ‘souls’ for they are man made.

 

[MMS]

@MMS, I tend to lean towards the ‘golem’ story being a myth and refer you to Dr. Shnayer Leiman’s fascinating lecture on the matter. Consider, also, page 222, column I of Marcus (Mordochai) Jastrow’s excellent Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Talmud Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature where גולם golem is defined as:

As far as I'm aware, its earliest use in our midrashim can be found in reference to the sequence of God’s creation of the adam. For example, there is a midrashic ‘baray'ta’ (this word just means ‘external [to]’ or ‘not belonging [to]’ and denotes a non-mishnaic teaching dating from the period of the Mishnah) in the g'mara bavlit that explains:

Notice the adam itself is not being referred to as a ‘golem’ (which I translate here as ‘a mannequin’), but rather its unfinished, inanimate humanoid form. So, to answer your question: No, Rahav could not have been the first ‘golem’ because (i.) g'lamim are not human beings and (ii.) they do not possess n'shamot or ‘souls’ for they are man made.

thanks for the reply

the reason i considered that is because Judges is considered one of the oldest books because of "The Song of Deborah"

who is stated to not be able to be "disturbed from her place" which is interesting language for a "living" being with a soul

when God said to Moses "I will be what I will be" does that disqualify God from anything manmade by your statement?

It's interesting the meaning of your name with context to this

 

[Koichos]

thanks for the reply

the reason i considered that is because Judges is considered one of the oldest books because of "The Song of Deborah"

who is stated to not be able to be "disturbed from her place" which is interesting language for a "living" being with a soul

when God said to Moses "I will be what I will be" does that disqualify God from anything manmade by your statement?

It's interesting the meaning of your name with context to this

I don't understand your question, can you give an example?

 

[MMS]

I don't understand your question, can you give an example?

Ok so back to the beginning of Genesis

so If God created (or fashioned) the dry land and seas, then green herb, then whales birds beasts etc

then on the second page he says "these are the generations when the LORD God made the heaven and earth"

could God use his name as a golem between the first page and the third page?

because remember it says on the third page "who told you that you were naked?" implying the second page does not actually represent God speaking to them because it is only on the second page that the phrase "one flesh" is introduced. While on the first page it says they were made in God's image but not "Gods flesh"

I'm trying to understand how to view characters in the text, are they persistently alive without anyone speaking about them? or just synthetically remembered (thus the oral torah)?

 

[MMS]

@Koichos here is another example using the lense ive just presented

are these two figures real people or Golem? Please consider the chinese vs japanese accts to see why I say this.

Himiko - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We are living in a world of illusion

www.thecoli.com

 

[MMS]

@Koichos @Marks One more: this story I had saved awhile back because I found it peculiar a war between Egyptians and Goths and the fact this character was revered as a "God"

so I considered how would this read theosophicaly if you changed the name of the king to "Lies"

According to the Getica, he was the Gothic king who halted the advance of the Egyptian armies of the Egyptian king Sesostris (whom Jordanes calls Vesosis). At a battle on the banks of the river Phasis, Tanausis routed the Egyptian king who had already conquered the Ethiopians and the Scythians.[4][5]

Some historians have said that the War of Vesosis and Tanausis may not have happened and is combination of transcription errors or fantasy.[1]

The Getica states that Tanausis then pursued the Egyptians all the way back to the banks of the Nile, where the mighty river and the fortifications dissuaded him from slaying Sesotris "in his own land". The territory Tanausis had conquered in Asia was then bestowed upon his close friend Sornus, king of the Medes. Some of Tanausis' followers remained in the conquered lands, and Jordanes cites Pompeius Trogus as saying these were the origin of the Parthians, stating that in the Scythian language "Parthi" means "deserter" (5.48).

"Lies pursued the Egyptians all the way back to the banks of the Nile, where the mighty river and the fortifications dissuaded Lies from slaying Sesostris "in his own land".



and ironically the name Sesostris (Senusret) means "Man of Feminine Power"
Senusret
S(j)-n-Wsrt
Man of Wosret

are the images of man his firstborn or the things he says? or neither? Does this potentially mean that Jacob's "sons" are only male because of Joseph I find it interesting that he gathered his sons but Dinah (Judgment) is absent from that scene

 

[Koichos]

Ok so back to the beginning of Genesis

so If God created (or fashioned) the dry land and seas, then green herb, then whales birds beasts etc

then on the second page he says "these are the generations when the LORD God made the heaven and earth"

could God use his name as a golem between the first page and the third page?

Oh that is far, far too abstruse a concept for me! Maybe in 10 years time when I am permitted to delve into our esoteric tradition I will revisit this thread.

because remember it says on the third page "who told you that you were naked?"

Hmm... I must be missing something here, because the bolded (3:11a), preceded by ‘Where are you?’ (3:9), shows how the adam was given ample opportunity to come clean, for only upon eating of the Tree was it suddenly understood that being nude in public is shameful—do you think God didn’t know where they were?

Of course He did, but He was giving the adam a first opportunity to admit what he had done. Even after being asked directly ‘Have you eaten from the Tree that I told you not to eat from?’ (3:11b), he doesn’t own up to it. Instead, he blames God Himself (3:12) for pairing him with Havvah, who entices him with the fruit.

implying the second page does not actually represent God speaking to them

The ‘first page’ and ‘second page’ are two iterations of the Creation narrative; not ‘different’ per se, but certainly told from differing points of view:

1. the first account (1:1-2:3) begins with the origins of the universe in general and the Earth in particular, culminating briefly in the creation of mankind;
2. the second account (2:4-4:26) focuses on the creation of mankind, enlarging upon B'reshyt 1:26-27’s bald statements that God had created mankind with a particular form which had been specifically designed for it by Him, hence ‘in God’s image’ (v.27).

In particular, there are two main titles:

1. ‘Elοhim’ signifies His quality of strict justice, while the
2. Explicit Name signifies His quality of mercy.

This is why He is called ‘Elοhim’ (strict justice) throughout the first Creation account (B'reshyt 1:1-2:3); however, as soon as Man appears (in B'reshyt 2:4), this changes abruptly to ‘Adοnai Elοhim’ (justice tempered by mercy, with ‘mercy’ taking precedence) because Man, having been created liable to err and go astray, cannot exist in an environment based on strict justice alone.

because it is only on the second page that the phrase "one flesh" is introduced.

Speaking of the adam, a composite androgyne, it is written in B'reshyt 1:26-27 that God created them male and female (in the same body), later separating the two parts into independent beings (see 2:22); B'reshyt 2:24 only says ‘..and they will become one flesh’ because each of them is part of any child they produce together

לְבָשָׂ֥ר אֶחָֽד. הַוֶּלֶד נוּצָר עַל יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם, וְשָׁם נַעֲשָׂה בְּשָׂרָם אֶחָד׃​

As one flesh. A fetus is formed from parts of both of them and there, in the child, their flesh becomes one. (Rash"i ad loc.)

While on the first page it says they were made in God's image but not "Gods flesh"

The adam was fashioned in a form that was ‘of God’ in the sense that God ‘had drafted it’—hence ‘in God’s image’.

I'm trying to understand how to view characters in the text, are they persistently alive without anyone speaking about them? or just synthetically remembered (thus the oral torah)?

I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on either. Why? For us, anyway, Judaism is not a belief system based on individuals: take a look at the Haggadah-service that we shall be reading in a few weeks’ time on `Erev Pesah and see if you can find Mοsheh’s name mentioned in it even once, apart from one incidental mention in a Biblical quotation of Sh'mοt 14:31. Judaism is not dependent in any way on his existence and one reason why God kept the precise location of his grave a secret.

 

[MMS]

Oh that is far, far too abstruse a concept for me! Maybe in 10 years time when I am permitted to delve into our esoteric tradition I will revisit this thread.


Hmm... I must be missing something here, because the bolded (3:11a), preceded by ‘Where are you?’ (3:9), shows how the adam was given ample opportunity to come clean, for only upon eating of the Tree was it suddenly understood that being nude in public is shameful—do you think God didn’t know where they were?

Of course He did, but He was giving the adam a first opportunity to admit what he had done. Even after being asked directly ‘Have you eaten from the Tree that I told you not to eat from?’ (3:11b), he doesn’t own up to it. Instead, he blames God Himself (3:12) for pairing him with Havvah, who entices him with the fruit.


The ‘first page’ and ‘second page’ are two iterations of the Creation narrative; not ‘different’ per se, but certainly told from differing points of view:

1. the first account (1:1-2:3) begins with the origins of the universe in general and the Earth in particular, culminating briefly in the creation of mankind;
2. the second account (2:4-4:26) focuses on the creation of mankind, enlarging upon B'reshyt 1:26-27’s bald statements that God had created mankind with a particular form which had been specifically designed for it by Him, hence ‘in God’s image’ (v.27).

In particular, there are two main titles:

1. ‘Elοhim’ signifies His quality of strict justice, while the
2. Explicit Name signifies His quality of mercy.

This is why He is called ‘Elοhim’ (strict justice) throughout the first Creation account (B'reshyt 1:1-2:3); however, as soon as Man appears (in B'reshyt 2:4), this changes abruptly to ‘Adοnai Elοhim’ (justice tempered by mercy, with ‘mercy’ taking precedence) because Man, having been created liable to err and go astray, cannot exist in an environment based on strict justice alone.


Speaking of the adam, a composite androgyne, it is written in B'reshyt 1:26-27 that God created them male and female (in the same body), later separating the two parts into independent beings (see 2:22); B'reshyt 2:24 only says ‘..and they will become one flesh’ because each of them is part of any child they produce together



The adam was fashioned in a form that was ‘of God’ in the sense that God ‘had drafted it’—hence ‘in God’s image’.


I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on either. Why? For us, anyway, Judaism is not a belief system based on individuals: take a look at the Haggadah-service that we shall be reading in a few weeks’ time on `Erev Pesah and see if you can find Mοsheh’s name mentioned in it even once, apart from one incidental mention in a Biblical quotation of Sh'mοt 14:31. Judaism is not dependent in any way on his existence and one reason why God kept the precise location of his grave a secret.

I find it interesting that you consistently say "The" Adam when in christian circles he (or they) is often titled that implying it is a first name, but you use the term like saying

the bear, or the chicken etc

in greek myth "The" Zeus had to become a cuckoo to get close to Hera