Posts
Shalom:
Ms. Schechter has some interesting points about Judah and Tamar. And while the word play in Hebrew is humorous the sages took it seriously and found themselves being apologists for Judah's behavior with his daughter- in- law, going so far as to say that G!D ordained Satan to convince Judah to have sexually relations with Tamar, playing the harlot, as she was destined to be the matriarch of the Davidic Kingship and Messianic line as she was the daughter of Noah's son Shem. (B.Rabah 85:8-10). And hence her twin son Zerah, the patriarch, who's name means 'breach' to remind us how the moon waxes and wanes, and why when the sages declared the new moon (hence the new month) they used the code :Dovid melech yisro-ayl. chai v'ka-yom. David, King of Israel, lives forever.(Talmud Tractate Rosh ha Shana Daf 25a).
Is this foreshadowing King David's son Amnon raping his half-sister, also Tamar? (Two Samuel 13).
Now how old this makes Judah's Tamar, I cannot fathom to calculate. But without sounding horribly misogynistic, with emphasis on 'sogy' (soggy), perhaps this is why Onan didn't want to fulfill his levirate duties, as while they were all anti-diluvian , Tamar, whom the Talmud does record as beautiful, may have been old and waterlogged.
Of course if there is any proof text in the Tanach of Dovid Melech being lampooned, it is by he himself, playing the mad man, in front of the king of the Gaths: One Samuel: 13 David ... became very much afraid of Achish, king of Gath. 14 So, as they watched, he feigned insanity and acted like a lunatic in their hands, drumming on the doors of the gate and drooling onto his beard. 15 Finally Achish said to his servants: "You see the man is mad. Why did you bring him to me? 16 Do I not have enough madmen, that you bring in this one to carry on in my presence? Should this fellow come into my house?"
One of my favorite Tanach puseks:
Shalom, Dr. Arthur Segal
By Cathy S
What is the distinction between latzim (the scornful) and a jester? How
do the Talmudic sages make or show this distinction?
This is timely to me because in my Bible: Text & Context class at Hebrew
College, we read an article by Gary Rendsburg ("David & His Circle in
Genesis XXXVIII," Vetus Tertamentum XXXVI, 4 1986), in which he deconstructs
the insertion of the Judah narrative in the Joseph story as foreshadowing of
the succession of David to the throne. He concludes (in error, I believe),
that the author's motive in telling the Judah story is to "poke fun at the
royal family." He identifies the author as a commentator who sought to
entertain his audience. The only way he could do this during the reign of
the king is to hearken back to the ancestors of the king, and lampoon their
behavior.
BH
Judy:
Oy! Not in a million years do I buy that theory!
Indeed, the punning in the Judah story is ingenious, as it is throughout the
Joseph story. But in my opinion, wordplay and punning is a more subtle form
of humor ... it this considered scornful?
The stories to illustrate the honor bestowed upon jesters indicate that
juggling (Rabbi Gamaliel), or magic tricks (or one might imagine, slapstick
in the vein of the 3 stooges) is more appropriate than wordplay, punning (in
the vein of the Marx Brothers) ... as indicated by the best and worst things
presented by jesters to the king are a tongue!
Or would that be tongue in cheek humor...(sorry, but I really think punning
is as organic a part of being Jewish as guilt ... which is probably why we
are always being PUNished...) Sorry.
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
