Homoerotic Poetry - The Myth
toi...@my-deja.com
of homo-erotic poetry amongst Jewish scholars of Spanish extraction.
The only problem with the various conjectures is that these poems do
not exist. The Lord has blessed me and I have in my possession Ibn
Gabirol's corpus of secular poetry as well as R' Judah Halevi's
complete works and a fine selection of Moses Ibn Ezra's writings, I
believe these are the 3 names that have been mentioned in relation to
this subject, in not one of these books despite strenuous searching
have I found anything that could be remotely classed as erotic, never
mind homoerotic!
The roots of this misconception lie, as usual, in the ivory towers of
academia. Though there is no question that these above mentioned poets
speak of their love for their male friends, however there is no hint
that this goes beyond the love of David for Yonason. Homosexuals
obviously interpret David and Yonason's relationship as homosexual,
this is because they can not or will not admit to true platonic love.
This is true of universtiy professors too, who prefer to paint the
sages as no better and frequently worse than the common man rather than
the saints they actually were. These academics when faced with a poem
dealing with the love of one person for the other will then
deliberately misinterpret it as erotic rather than simply love.
That is the beginning and end of it all. To speak of homoerotic poetry
when the more prosaic is obviously true, is intellectually dishonest.
As to the homoerotic imagery of the Zohar, the foremost exponents of
this school is Yehuda Liebes and Eliot Wolfson, neither of whom seem to
be able to publish an article without sex forming an integral part of
that article.
As an example of the possibilities of misinterpretation due to lack of
knowledge I will quote the Vilna Gaon who explains that the pasuk in
Shir Hashirim 'yishakeini mineshikos pihu' He shall kiss me, the kisses
of his mouth, refers to the joining of the midah (attribute) of chochma
(intelligence) and chessed (lovingkindness). Chochma and Chesed are 2
male midos. Even though most 'joinings' are a fusion of opposites, i.e.
of male and female in this particular case it is a joining of the same,
actually more an extension than a joining. Were a secular scholar to be
faced with these pieces of data, viz. kissing and male, he would
immediately mention homoeroticism. A classical Jewish scholar would
never think along those lines simply because he would understand the
differences between the different classes of 'joinings'.
Let this be a warning to those amongst us who seek truth and have been
mislead, never rely on secondary sources, especially when it is likely
that you are more capable than the author of assessing the material
under question.
toichen
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
toi...@my-deja.com
Micha Berger
: The Lord has blessed me and I have in my possession Ibn
: Gabirol's corpus of secular poetry as well as R' Judah Halevi's
Hmm, who should I go with, your books' claim of completeness, or my
Jewish history professor and R' Marc Angel? (RMA is the Rabbi of the
Spanish Portugese synagogue, and a staunch supporter of preserving
Sepharadi [not Eidot haMizrach] heritage and uniqueness in the US.)
You hit three books on a subject numerous theses have been written on. It
would take finding the poems (which have been quoted in these papers)
and showing they aren't from the paytanim in question to prove it.
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Noach
will make my Shabbos more peaceful and serene.
Thank you so much for posting this. Tragically, though, many, if not most,
will reject it but what can we do?
<toi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:91tmto$m7t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
--
Wishing you seemly serenity, true tranquility, decorous delights, righteous
requiescence, beneficent bougainvillea and magnificent magnolias.
___________________________________________
Get rebates for shopping at many online stores
http://www.ebates.com/index.jsp?referrer=ocean...@mybizrate.com
Micha Berger
: Bless your heart Toichen!! Thank you so much, you have truly made my day and
: will make my Shabbos more peaceful and serene.
: Thank you so much for posting this. Tragically, though, many, if not most,
: will reject it but what can we do?
Of course the majority will. Toichen is relying on a book's claim to
completeness to prove something that is pretty well known. I've
even seen English translations of snippets of these non-existant
poems.
Nor is the claim that they were expressing their own feelings toward
some male. There are two general approaches, depending on the poem
and poet.
1- That they're using homoerotic imagery to express a love of G-d.
Possible, but still implies that such imagery is acceptable. (Much
like the opposite point made about Solomon's Woman of Valor -- even
if it's about G-d, it's a complement to women to be compared to Her.)
2- That they needed to eat, and therefore accepted a contract. This is
actually fine if and only if Noachides are allowed to engage in
homosexual practices. It would still be permissible (but I wouldn't
call it "fine") if there is no prohibition of "placing the stumbling
block before the blind" if the "blind" person is a non-Jew).
It is therefore unlike the David and Jonathan thing.
:> These academics when faced with a poem
:> dealing with the love of one person for the other will then
:> deliberately misinterpret it as erotic rather than simply love.
Particularly when the poem speaks of sharing a bed. Or when they have
other reasons to believe that the contractor who paid for the poem
was homosexual.
:> As an example of the possibilities of misinterpretation due to lack of
:> knowledge I will quote the Vilna Gaon who explains that the pasuk in
:> Shir Hashirim 'yishakeini mineshikos pihu' He shall kiss me, the kisses
:> of his mouth, refers to the joining of the midah (attribute) of chochma
:> (intelligence) and chessed (lovingkindness). Chochma and Chesed are 2
:> male midos.
See my statement WRT "Eishes Chayil" (the Woman of Valor) above.
There is a real problem here. Please don't try to whitewash over it
without even bothering to learn what it is you're trying to dismiss.
:> Let this be a warning to those amongst us who seek truth and have been
:> mislead, never rely on secondary sources, especially when it is likely
:> that you are more capable than the author of assessing the material
:> under question.
Such as your editor. Perhaps you have "the complete collection of non
erotic works of"...
Susan Cohen
toi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Though there is no question that these above mentioned poets
> speak of their love for their male friends, however there is no hint
> that this goes beyond the love of David for Yonason.
Friends of mine (of all religious "persuasions") and I discussed this,
and all of us thought the same way: that it was a combination of
the times, and "male bonding". The one "suspect phrase" -
"surpassing the love of women" was well-put by one such friend
who said that far from confirming the suspicions, it allayed them:
her very words were "better than sex, man!" That in their day,
women were for sex, either illicit or sanctioned, but men could
have "true relationships."
Yes, you'll find lots of whacko intelligentsia - they aren't hard to
find. But not every bookish person is whacko :-)
Susan
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
I was looking for a good place to "snip", but couldn't find one. This
is an excellent and very important post.
> Let this be a warning to those amongst us who seek truth and have been
> mislead, never rely on secondary sources, especially when it is likely
> that you are more capable than the author of assessing the material
> under question.
Another very important lesson. Thanks.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
(mailed & posted)
toi...@my-deja.com
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2000 15:54:07 GMT, toi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : The Lord has blessed me and I have in my possession Ibn
> : Gabirol's corpus of secular poetry as well as R' Judah Halevi's
> : complete works and a fine selection of Moses Ibn Ezra's writings...
>
> Hmm, who should I go with, your books' claim of completeness,
Considering my book was edited by Chaim Brody and Chaim Sherman the 2
greatest scholars of classical hebrew poetry, I would tend to give
greater credence to their book. On the other hand I might have missed
something, why don't you supply a source and I'll check it up.
> or my
> Jewish history professor
Who was?
> and R' Marc Angel? (RMA is the Rabbi of the
> Spanish Portugese synagogue, and a staunch supporter of preserving
> Sepharadi [not Eidot haMizrach] heritage and uniqueness in the US.)
I am sure RMA is a big talmid chacham but perhaps he did not do
original research into this topic?
> You hit three books on a subject numerous theses have been written
on. It
> would take finding the poems (which have been quoted in these papers)
> and showing they aren't from the paytanim in question to prove it.
>
> -mi
I'll bli neder do some more research and see what I come up with.
Russell Steinthal
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>1- That they're using homoerotic imagery to express a love of G-d.
> Possible, but still implies that such imagery is acceptable. (Much
> like the opposite point made about Solomon's Woman of Valor -- even
> if it's about G-d, it's a complement to women to be compared to Her.)
Can you please expand on the midrashic interpretation of Eshet Chayil
to which you refer?
As it happens, this past Friday night, I heard R. Hillel Noory
(Cong. Shaarei Tzedek, NYC) give a drash concerning Eshet Chayil. In
it, he described the Eshet Chayil as referring to B'nei Yisrael,
"married" to God (with the Torah as Ketubah). He cited the Midrash on
Mishlei as his source, IIRC.
That would seem to be the reverse of the image you referred to, in
that the respective roles of God and Israel are reversed.
(Ironically, it would be the Conservative rabbi who would be taking
the more "traditional" image of God as a male figure.)
Just curious...
-Russell
--
Russell Steinthal Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
<rm...@columbia.edu> Columbia College, Class of 1999
<ste...@nj.org> UNIX System Administrator, nj.org
Micha Berger
:> (Much
:> like the opposite point made about Solomon's Woman of Valor -- even
:> if it's about G-d, it's a complement to women to be compared to Her.)
: Can you please expand on the midrashic interpretation of Eshet Chayil
: to which you refer?
I was repeating something I learned in early grade school. (Which is why
I mentioned it as an aside, it was something I knew "forever", and took
for granted.) So, I do not recall a primary source. ArtScroll takes "Aishes
Chayil" this way.
: That would seem to be the reverse of the image you referred to, in
: that the respective roles of God and Israel are reversed.
: (Ironically, it would be the Conservative rabbi who would be taking
: the more "traditional" image of God as a male figure.)
No irony. Or, to put it another way, it's a good thing you put "traditional"
in quotes. What you're really illustrating is that our notion of "traditional"
is stereotyped. The image of G-d and gender are more subtle than most
people realize.
After all, the same author, Solomon, switches G-d's gender back and forth
throughout the metaphor of Song of Songs.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> toi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : The Lord has blessed me and I have in my possession Ibn
> : Gabirol's corpus of secular poetry as well as R' Judah Halevi's
> : complete works and a fine selection of Moses Ibn Ezra's writings...
>
> Hmm, who should I go with, your books' claim of completeness, or my
> Jewish history professor and R' Marc Angel? (RMA is the Rabbi of the
> Spanish Portugese synagogue, and a staunch supporter of preserving
> Sepharadi [not Eidot haMizrach] heritage and uniqueness in the US.)
>
> You hit three books on a subject numerous theses have been written on. It
> would take finding the poems (which have been quoted in these papers)
> and showing they aren't from the paytanim in question to prove it.
Micha, I think you misunderstood what toichen wrote. IIUC, the point
was not that the works were falsely attributed to these paytanim.
The point was that the charge of homo-eroticism against these poems
was false. You snipped toichen's post where he makes this clear IMO.
toi...@my-deja.com
fla...@his.com wrote:
>
>
> toi...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Though there is no question that these above mentioned poets
> > speak of their love for their male friends, however there is no hint
> > that this goes beyond the love of David for Yonason.
>
> Friends of mine (of all religious "persuasions") and I discussed this,
> and all of us thought the same way: that it was a combination of
> the times, and "male bonding". The one "suspect phrase" -
> "surpassing the love of women" was well-put by one such friend
> who said that far from confirming the suspicions, it allayed them:
> her very words were "better than sex, man!" That in their day,
> women were for sex, either illicit or sanctioned, but men could
> have "true relationships."
A contemporary example is the male bonding that goes on in the Israeli
army, where fantastically close relationships are formed, that are not
in the least bit homosexual.
> Yes, you'll find lots of whacko intelligentsia - they aren't hard to
> find. But not every bookish person is whacko :-)
>
> Susan
That I agree with.
Noach
news:3A43B19F...@his.com...
[snipped a lot]
>That in their day,
> women were for sex, either illicit or sanctioned,
I don't think this was true among righteous ancient Jews such as Dovid and
Yehonoason, that women were for nothing more than sex.
>but men could
> have "true relationships."
I think men had true relationships with their wives.
Micha Berger
: Micha, I think you misunderstood what toichen wrote. IIUC, the point
: was not that the works were falsely attributed to these paytanim.
: The point was that the charge of homo-eroticism against these poems
: was false. You snipped toichen's post where he makes this clear IMO.
As I tried to say, he doesn't. What I saw was a statement that the poems
don't exist, and if they do exist they must be... (Itself a contradition.)
In any case, when one man writes about sharing another bed with his love,
a second man, it's a tad blatant.
toi...@my-deja.com
Prodding this comment gingerly with a long stick. Mulling it over and
examining it with great caution, 'tis in truth a compliment! Never seen
one of those before, and so close up too!
> > Let this be a warning to those amongst us who seek truth and have
been
> > mislead, never rely on secondary sources, especially when it is
likely
> > that you are more capable than the author of assessing the material
> > under question.
>
> Another very important lesson. Thanks.
>
> Moshe Schorr
It is my pleasure, toichen, ending with a small bow.
Susan Cohen
Noach wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
> news:3A43B19F...@his.com...
>
> [snipped a lot]
>
> >That in their day,
> > women were for sex, either illicit or sanctioned,
>
> I don't think this was true among righteous ancient Jews such as Dovid and
> Yehonoason, that women were for nothing more than sex.
Yes, I overstated (or mis-stated) that. The point was that women
had a specific place in a man's life, and that "true friendship" could
only be had between men.
Susan
Michael Shimshoni
"Noach" <add...@reply-to.is.accurate% writes:
%"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
%news:3A43B19F...@his.com...
%
%[snipped a lot]
%
%>That in their day,
%> women were for sex, either illicit or sanctioned,
%
%I don't think this was true among righteous ancient Jews such as Dovid and
=====
%Yehonoason, that women were for nothing more than sex.
I suggest that you read the Tanakh what it says about your righteous
"Dovid" and his women. Perhaps he also allowed women to *serve* him
in other aspects outside the bed.
%>but men could
%> have "true relationships."
%
%I think men had true relationships with their wives.
This depends what is meant by "true".
Michael Shimshoni
Noach Shmaryahu
news:16B8C24...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il...
> I suggest that you read the Tanakh what it says about your righteous
> "Dovid" and his women. Perhaps he also allowed women to *serve*
him
> in other aspects outside the bed.
I suggest that you read the classic commentators on the Tanach. Not
doing so leads to distorted and inaccurated impressions.
--
"It is worthwhile to live 80 years just to put tefillin on once"- R'
Avrohom Kalisker, z'l, a disciple of the Mezritcher Magid
Michael Shimshoni
"Noach Shmaryahu" <azur...@mindspring.com% writes:
%
%"Michael Shimshoni" <MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il> wrote in message
%news:16B8C24...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il...
%
%> I suggest that you read the Tanakh what it says about your righteous
%> "Dovid" and his women. Perhaps he also allowed women to *serve*
%him
%> in other aspects outside the bed.
%
%I suggest that you read the classic commentators on the Tanach. Not
%doing so leads to distorted and inaccurated impressions.
I beg to differ. IMnHO if a commentator gives a distorted view
of the straightforward meaning of the text, I will stick with
the text. If the text is not clear I am ready to listen to
a commentator who explains the difficulty.
Michael Shimshoni
docf...@my-deja.com
"Noach" <azur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
> news:3A43B19F...@his.com...
>
> [snipped a lot]
>
> >That in their day,
> > women were for sex, either illicit or sanctioned,
>
> I don't think this was true among righteous ancient Jews such as Dovid
and
> Yehonoason, that women were for nothing more than sex.
>
Yeah, "righteous ancient Jews" like David, who committed adultery with
Bathsheba and then sent her husband off to the front to get him killed.
I don't know what impresses me less, David's sin, or the twisting
sophistry of the Rishonim (medieval rabbinic commentators) who use all
sorts of specious arguments to "prove" that David's actions are
justified and he was righteous, whent he fact was that David our King
was a far sleazier character than Bill Clinton.
As to Yonaton's sex life, I don't recall reading _anything_ about it in
the book of Samuel.
> >but men could
> > have "true relationships."
>
> I think men had true relationships with their wives.
Wives were solely for sex and for producing offspring so that men could
pass their property to someone who shared common DNA. I don't know why
this desire to keep one's property in the family is so strong.
Personally, I think it's an evil characteristic of humanity. Once
you're dead, you're dead, and why should you care what happens to your
property? You can't take it with you, and it's pretty arrogant to
expect that you should have any say in its disposition after your death.
As for the kids, they can amass property on their own, rather than wait
for me to die so they can inherit something.
Anyway, "relationships" is part of that wimpy 20th century
pshychobabble. Our marital "relationships" are strictly a business
matter.
So it is likely that men of that time did find emotional closeness
(without sex, as sex is nothing more than an animalistic urge and has
nothing to do with emotional closeness) through relationships with other
men.
>
> --
Michael Shimshoni
docf...@my-deja.com writes:
%In article <923al8$mai$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
% "Noach" <azur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
%> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
%> news:3A43B19F...@his.com...
%>
%> [snipped a lot]
%>
%> >That in their day,
%>
%> I don't think this was true among righteous ancient Jews such as Dovid
%and
%> Yehonoason, that women were for nothing more than sex.
%>
%
%
%
%Yeah, "righteous ancient Jews" like David, who committed adultery with
%Bathsheba and then sent her husband off to the front to get him killed.
% I don't know what impresses me less, David's sin, or the twisting
%sophistry of the Rishonim (medieval rabbinic commentators) who use all
%sorts of specious arguments to "prove" that David's actions are
%justified and he was righteous, whent he fact was that David our King
%was a far sleazier character than Bill Clinton.
%
%As to Yonaton's sex life, I don't recall reading _anything_ about it in
%the book of Samuel.
%
%
%> >but men could
%> > have "true relationships."
%>
%
%
%Wives were solely for sex and for producing offspring so that men could
%pass their property to someone who shared common DNA. I don't know why
%this desire to keep one's property in the family is so strong.
%Personally, I think it's an evil characteristic of humanity. Once
%you're dead, you're dead, and why should you care what happens to your
%property? You can't take it with you, and it's pretty arrogant to
%expect that you should have any say in its disposition after your death.
% As for the kids, they can amass property on their own, rather than wait
%for me to die so they can inherit something.
%
%Anyway, "relationships" is part of that wimpy 20th century
%pshychobabble. Our marital "relationships" are strictly a business
===================================================
%matter.
======
Although I agree with much of what you said above about David
etc. you do not seem to know what you are missing with such a
pure business POV.
%So it is likely that men of that time did find emotional closeness
%(without sex, as sex is nothing more than an animalistic urge and has
%nothing to do with emotional closeness) through relationships with other
%men.
Michael Shimshoni
Eliyahu
<docf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92i4gd$a5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Anyway, "relationships" is part of that wimpy 20th century
> pshychobabble. Our marital "relationships" are strictly a business
> matter.
>
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Sheldon Glickler
> pshychobabble. Our marital "relationships" are strictly a business
> matter.
This last sentence makes me feel very sorry for you. Of course, you will
reject that as just that much more psychobabble. However, if you can write
such a sentence, then you obviously have not experienced a true, long term,
marital "relationship" (such as I have been extremely fortunate to have
enjoyed). You are much the poorer for it.
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t4v2bqb...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <docf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92i4gd$a5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > Anyway, "relationships" is part of that wimpy 20th century
> > pshychobabble. Our marital "relationships" are strictly a business
> > matter.
> >
> You realize, of course, that what you've just defined is "prostitution."
In one sense yes and in another no. There is also "convenience". (Note: I
am trying to get into his head here). There is the aspect of "you take care
of this and I'll take care of that". It isn't necessarily limited to sex
which is the sole component of prostitution. However, what is missing is
the emotions and in the end, that is what it is all about.
Shelly
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>Wives were solely for sex and for producing offspring so that men could
>pass their property to someone who shared common DNA.
That isn't what Proverbs says.
-Naomi
meirm...@erols.com
<lro...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
><docf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92i4gd$a5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>> Anyway, "relationships" is part of that wimpy 20th century
>> pshychobabble. Our marital "relationships" are strictly a business
>> matter.
>>
>You realize, of course, that what you've just defined is "prostitution."
Cynics about marriage have tried to compare and even equate marriage
and prostitution. I think it is playing with words, and frankly their
cynicism is corrupting a word whose meaning used to be clear.
I think there are many better thangs than a marriage taht is just a
business matter, and I think that situation is rare, but it precisely
not prostitution, BY definition. That's one of the differences
between marriage and living together. Someone living with another and
providing sex in return for other tangible things could in some cases
be prostitution. Once they get married, it is not that.
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me only, please say, so I won't
e-mail by removing QQQ wait forever for a post and then forget to
answer the email at all. If you post &
mail, please say, so I will wait for the post.
docf...@my-deja.com
Oh, yes, they're also useful to help run the family business, so that
the good Jewish men can go off, male-bond, and learn Torah.
DFR
--
I'm a firm believer that God, the master of everything has a sense of
humor.
Look at some of the people He created.
-Rabbi Benjamin Blech, author of "The Complete Idiot's Guide to
Understanding Judaism,"
quoted at http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7272-2001Jan1.html