In a move that took fashion industry pundits by surprise, LoBa Kippa today announced its entry into the lingerie market. Noticing a spike in sales of its popular Loba Kippa 3-pack the Loba Google analytics team realized that women were buying one loba Kippa for their husbands and keeping two for themselves. A closer reading of Megillat Esther confirmed what women have known for over two thousand years… That “Lo” means “Lo” and when a woman says she’s not coming she means Lo Ba.. I’m not coming! Taking the LoBa message to feminists and cross-dressers, the LoBa Bramulke supports an individual’s inalienable right to stand up to sexual exploitation and to anointed kings and saviors.
The king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought before him, but she came not (Esther 1:17)
The LoBa spokesperson would not reveal any further details relating to the bramulke other than to say that due to the organization’s aversion to magical thinking Loba intimate wear would provide a stark alternative to the Miracle Bra™ and would provide consumers with extra support and lift using hard work, sustainable materials and other natural means.
Furthermore the bra like the loba movement itself will reveal universalism and visions of eschatological harmony as no longer fashionable. The loba bramulke will lift up the related parties while enthusiastically preserving and accentuating the natural contours and healthy cleavage necessary for independent movement and divergent activities.
Asked if there is any competition, the spokesperson recalled that in the’60s there was a lobra movement, but that today LoBa is in a world unto itself.
About LoBa Kippa – LoBa is the next big movement in Judaism. It’s a growing group of thought leaders who believe that while the idea of a Savior and Final Redemption have played a role in the past, in today’s world of religious fanaticism, Messianism has become the most destructive concept shared by the world’s monotheistic religions.
LoBa (לא בא) is Hebrew for “not coming” and the LoBa store is for those of us who are not waiting. We’re not waiting for the Mashiach, the Messiah, the Second Coming, the Caliphate, the hidden Mahdi, hidden Imam or any other end-time magical solution.
Based on lyrics from a popular Israeli song our products proclaim that the Mashiach isn’t coming, he’s not even calling… משיח לא בא – משיח גם לא מטלפן
LoBa customers reject any theology or ideology that wishes to change the world with a bang.
We’re not a negative group, we just reject those who feel empowered to disregard the rules of society and rights of others in order to bring a new age or end-time. Rather than wait, we engage in making the world a better place one step at a time and for its own sake.
Our products make a great gift for a loved one.. including yourself. And you don’t have to be Jewish to love LoBa. It’s just that we Jews introduced the world to Messianism, so it’s only fair that we lead the way in getting rid of this unhelpful and oh too many times, destructive idea.
You don’t hear of Jews blowing up giant Buddhas. It’s not as though their sacred texts don’t rail against such graven images. In fact, we invented idol smashing. You remember. It was Abraham, the founder of those so-called monotheistic religions who, when left alone in his father’s idol shop, slashed inventory.
3rd -4th century A.D, 37 meter high,(Shakyamuni) Buddha demolished by Taliban with 50,000 kilograms dynamite on March 12, 2001 in Karachi, Afghanistan.
The midrash is so well known that most Hebrew-School graduates think it’s part of scripture and not simply a literary fiction of the Midrash (B’reishit Rabbah 38:13). The Midrash is so well known that it appears in the Quran (Qur’an21:51-70). Both renderings have Abraham leaving the largest idol untouched to support his claim that “the big guy did it”. (see comparison of the midrash and Quranic accounts here).
So why don’t Jews smash idols?
It may be that we have bigger problems and it’s just low on our punch list. It may be that smashing idols beloved by billions is not prudent for those whose numbers are counted in decimal points…
It may also be that Jews don’t believe that these images represent real idols and correspondingly, that Jews don’t believe that worship as practiced by Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists etc, corresponds to the idol worship portrayed in the Bible. This last approach is the one offered by Classical Rabbinic texts. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 102b) which argues that the idolatry referenced in the Bible had a force and efficacy that no longer exists and which we moderns have no way of comprehending. “The drive for idolatry was so strong in my [ancient] time that, had you been there, you yourself would have caught up the skirt of your garment and done the same!” (see) Mosts Buddhists and Hindus will tell you that they are worshiping the spirit through the lens of a visual image.
A variation on this view is echoed by iconic Hebrew University Biblical scholar Yehezkel Kaufmann (1889 -1963) who argued that the Ancient Hebrew’s paradigm shift to monotheism was so complete that: What idol-worship the Scriptures speak of was only “vestigial fetishistic idolatry,” and not a genuine attachment of the people to such forms of worship… (see)
So why don’t Jews blow up Buddhas? Is it because they have more pressing matters? Is it because we would prefer not to antagonize billions of believers? Is it because the worship of images of Buddha, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, etc do not constitute the Idol worship of ancient Old Testament times?
Or, is it because we actually don’t take our monotheism that seriously?
Let’s face it, Jews (and Christians, for that matter) may wail against graven images, but whether it be widespread reference to God’s human features (outstretched arms, face, image etc.) and emotions (anger, jealousy etc) or calling the Godhead by different names (as in El, Yahweh, Shadai, or respectively; Father, Son, or Holy Ghost).. there are plenty of images in our texts and liturgy to go around.
I admit that in our daily speech, we Jews don’t refer to God by any of His given names. We use a moniker: “Hashem” in the daily vernacular, but by the familial way we use it, you’d think that “Hashem” was a Jew’s best friend.
If you want to take the no-name approach seriously, you should follow our Abrahamic brothers and sisters in Islam.
Muslims do not use “Allah” the way Jews use the “Hashem”, in fact proper muslim practices suggests that one should use the word “Allah” only when speaking Arabic. When one speaks English one should use the word “God”. “Allah” is simply the Arabic word for “God”.. not the name of the Muslim God.
It is surprising to notice that many Muslims do not realise that the word “Allah” is simply the Arabic word for the word “God”. Many of them believe that “Allah” is the actual name of the Muslim God! They do not realise that it is wrong to “personalise” God as He is not a person. God is much greater than to be confined to a single name.
Neither do they realise that the word “Allah” does not belong exclusively to the Muslims and that it has always been used before (and after) the revelation of the Quran by the Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians when they speak about God.
Talking to English speaking people about God using the word “Allah” is very much the same as speaking to Arabic speaking people about “Allah” using the word “God”. It makes better sense to use the equivalant word of each language. (see)
So if we Jews took our no-name approach more seriously, we would say “The Name” instead of “Hashem” when speaking English.. But let’s face it “Hashem” is so much more personal and Haimish.
So let’s be real…. we Jews don’t take our Monotheism that seriously… Baruch Hashem.
Our’s is a monotheism, full of anthropomorphisms and warmth. It is what I like to call “Monotheism with a wink”.
As the author of a book on the Big Ideas responded when asked by a NY Times reporter what was the single worst idea in history?
Without question, ethical monotheism. The idea of one true god. The idea that our life and ethical conduct on earth determines how we will go in the next world. This has been responsible for most of the wars and bigotry in history. (see)
Monotheism with a wink, maintains that duality in thought (if not in action) is not only possible, but to be encouraged. According to the Talmud in Eruvin 13b the Schools of Hillel and Shamai argued the law for three years until a voice from heaven issued announcing, “These and these are the words of the living God … but the practical law follows Hillel
(אלו ואלו דברי א-להים חיים הן, והלכה כבית הילל (ע’ש
Monotheism with a wink supports a radical pluralism of opinions and interpretations.
The Midrash said it this way: there are 70 “faces” to the Torah (Bamidbar Rabbah 13:15 and Talmud Sanhedrin 34a see)
שבעים פנים לתורה . מה פטיש זה מתחלק לכמה ניצוצות – אף מקרא אחד יוצא לכמה טעמים
Jewish humor summarized it this way:
Max and Isaac come to the Rabbi’s study to settle a dispute. The Rabbi’s wife is also seated in the room.
Max explains his complaint to the Rabbi: …. The Rabbi declares, “You’re right, Max.” Next, Isaac presents his side. He speaks with such passion and persuasion that the Rabbi says to him, “You’re right, Isaac.” After they leave, the Rabbi’s wife is distraught and says to her husband, “.. How can you say that both of them are right? … The Rabbi thinks long and hard and finally says to his wife, “You know, you’re also right.” (see)
Monotheism without a wink is a most dangerous thing.
But monotheism with a wink leads to humor, caricature, satire, curiosity, experimentation, innovation, invention, accommodation, conciliation, compassion, compromise and probably mixed dancing… and Baruch Hashem for that.
May the memory of those killed in the name of a monotheism without a wink, be forever a blessing.
Thoughts on religious iconography from Cambodia and Vietnam
There is an impressive and seamless continuity between texts, mythologies, art, ritual objects, and architecture within Hinduism and Buddhism. A perfect example is the lotus. In mythology and sacred Hindu texts the lotus grows from the navel of Vishnu, the sleeping god whose dream is the universe. Brahma sits on the lotus, the symbol of divine energy and divine grace.
Reclining Vishnu at Valley of 1000 Lingas, Cambodia
This theme of the lotus growing from the navel of the deity is echoed in Buddhist literature. Siddharta dreams that a lotus tree rises from his navel up through the worlds to the Heaven of the “Final Limit of Form” and the very summit of the cosmos of formal manifestation… In this symbolic formula the flowering of the lotus is the attainment of Enlightment: the petals open to disclose the Buddha seated on the lotus, and in the “lotus position”. (see The Symbolism of the Stupa, By Adrian Snodgrass pp 205
Brahma sitting on Petals, at Mỹ Sơn, Vietnam
Brahma sits on Lotus flower, Valley of 1000 Lingas, Cambodia
In fact, the design of the Temples at Angkar follows the pattern of the lotus flower (un-open) emerging from a base representing the lotus petals.
Banteay Prei Temple in Angkor Cambodia
The complex Angkor Wat with it’s central lotus surrounded by four lotuses is no exception.
Layout of Angkor Wat
Angkor Wat Temple, Cambodia
At its core the image of the lotus plant arising from the navel and the flowering of the lotus is the essence of creation and sexual in nature. The phallic nature of the temples at Angkar are oblivious.
In its most minimalistic form the lotus flower/petal motif takes the shape of the linga and includes the mountain iconography most noticeable in the structure of the Angkar temples. The lingam is often represented alongside the Yoni, a symbol of the goddess or of Shakti, female creative energy.
Linga assembled into square Yoni at Mỹ Sơn Vietnam
Round Yoni at Mỹ Sơn Vietnam
The yoni is the creative power of nature and represents the goddess Shakti. The linga stone represents Shiva, and is usually placed in the yoni. The lingam is the transcendental source of all that exists. The linga united with the yoni represents the nonduality of immanent reality and transcendental potentiality.
Buddha on Yoni, at Mỹ Sơn, Vietnam
The Yoni represents the petals out of which the Linga emerges and rests and more ancient specimens from matrilineal societies are square, while later versions, have their power reduced by rounding.
Square Yoni with multiple Lingas at Valley of 1000 Lingas, Cambodia
Round Yoni with multiple Lingas at Valley of 1000 Lingas, Cambodia
In fact this combination of Famale petals and male lotus flower is the brand of Buddhism and I might add, a lot of Cambodian and Vietnamese companies.
This brand is called the Linga and nowhere more apparent than at the River of A Thousand Lingas a 40 minute drive from the temples at Angkor.
Judaic Iconographic Tour 1.01
So I get it. Judaism does not condone images. It hardly has a brand mark. Unlike the menorah, the Lion of Judah, the shofar and the lulav (our lotus?), the Star of David, considered by most to be the Trademark of Judaism, was never a uniquely Jewish symbol.” Our ancient art is limited and mostly derivative of other pagan cultures in the neighborhood (see: signs of the Zodiac).
But certainly there must be some iconography which a tour guide of Judaism could point out. Are there primal and seminal shapes and messages hidden in our texts and rituals, that we just ignore or have left buried under the surface?
So here’s a stab at giving such a tour…
Enter the SQUARE…
I have always been intrigued by the ambiguous relationship of the Hebrew Bible to corners and squares.
The word in Classical and Modern Hebrew for square is ribu’a (ריבוע) which really just comes from the word 4. This word, along with the word for Circle (עיגול) do not to my knowledge appear in the ancient biblical texts. Geometry was not the Bible’s favorite subject… But we do have the word for corner “Payah” (פֵּאָה) which not only appears, but appears to play an important role.
Keeping the “corners” of the beard is the source for Jewish beards and side curls.. called Payot (corners).
You shall not round off the corner of your head, and you shall not destroy the edge of your beard.(Leviticus 19: 27)
The word for “round” used in the verse is (נָקַף ) which means to go around, surround, encompass, enclose, to make the round, complete the circuit.  (Compare: Hakafa הקפה “[to] en/circle” or “going a/round” in Hebrew, referring to the times when celebrations in Judaism have its adherents dance or walk or celebrate by moving in circles.)
For the Torah, the corners seem to be holy or consecrated, which means that they need to either be dedicated to God or to his chosen on earth… the poor and the stranger. The biblical editor establishes an obvious thematic link between the corners of the beard and the corners of the field. Just a few verses earlier in Leviticus 19 we read:
When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not fully reap the cornerof your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. .. You shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. I am the Lord, your God. (Leviticus 19: 9 – 10)
And of course, what discussion of sanctifying the square or corner would be complete without mention of the four-cornered garment and the requirement for fringes. The word Kanaf (כָּנָף) usually means wings as in the Cherubs in Exodus 25:20
who shall spread out their wings on high, screening the ark-cover with their wings, ….
and the spirit of God was hovering: The Throne of Glory was suspended in the air and hovered over the face of the water with the breath of the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He and with His word, like a dove, which hovers over the nest, acoveter in Old French, to cover, hover over.
ורוח א-להים מרחפת כסא הכבוד עומד באויר ומרחף על פני המים ברוח פיו של הקב”ה ובמאמרו, כיונה המרחפת על הקן אקוביטי”ר בלע”ז] לכסות]
Similarly, the bird hovering/fluttering metaphor is used for both the Exodus and Revelation myth as well:
He [God] found them in a desert land, and in a desolate, howling wasteland. He encompassed them and bestowed understanding upon them; He protected them as the pupil of His eye. As an eagle awakens its nest, hovering over its fledglings, it spreads its wings, taking them and carrying them on its pinions. (Deuteronomy 32: 10-11)
He encompassed them: [Rendered by Onkelos :] “He made them encamp round about His Divine Presence”-the Tent of Meeting [where the Divine Presence rested] was in the middle [of the camp] and the four divisions [i.e., the tribal camps, surrounded it] from all four directions.
hovering over its fledglings: [The eagle] does not impose its [whole] body upon them. Rather, it hovers above them, touching them and yet not quite touching them. So too, is the Holy One, Blessed is He. [As in the verse:] “We did not find the Almighty great in power” (Job 37:23). When He came to give the Torah to Israel, He did not reveal Himself to them from one direction [thus concentrating His power at one point, as it were], but rather, from four directions, as Scripture states, “The Lord came from Sinai, and shone forth from Seir to them, and appeared from Mount Paran” (Deut. 33:2). [This accounts for three directions.] The fourth direction is referred to in [the verse], “God comes from Teman” (Hab. 3:3). – [Sifrei 32:11]
spreading its wings, taking them: When it [the eagle] comes to move [its fledglings] from place to place, it does not pick them up with its feet, as do other birds. Other birds are afraid of the eagle, which soars very high and flies above them. For this reason, it [the other bird] carries them with its feet because of the eagle [above them]. The eagle, however, is afraid only of an arrow. Therefore, it carries its young on its wings, saying, “It is better that an arrow pierce me, rather than pierce my young.” So too, the Holy One, Blessed is He, [says]: “I carried you on eagles’ wings” (Exod. 19:4). [I.e.,] when the Egyptians pursued [the children of Israel] and overtook them at the [Red] Sea, they cast arrows and catapulted rocks [at Israel]. Immediately, “The angel of God moved… [behind them… and the pillar of cloud] came between the camp of Egypt [and the camp of Israel]” (Exod. 14:19-20) [for Israel’s protection]. — [Mechilta 19:4] (see for hebrew text)
Not only does the hovering wings motif include the trifecta of Creation, Exodus and Revelation, but according to the sources that Rashi references, the Biblical hovering “kenafim” wings is a four cornered force field of tenderness and protection.
If we are discussing holy squares and rectangles, we need to mention the Mishkan – Tabernacle (מִשְׁכַּן) and the Beit HaMikdash – Temple (בֵּית־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ ) which, like Hindu and Buddhist temples was to be situated on the top of a hill/mount (הַר הַבַּיִת).
The Mishkan – Tabernacle
The shape of both were rectangular. Of interest for our discussion is that the word used for side is actually our friend corner-Peyah.
And thou shalt make the boards for the tabernacle, twenty boards for the south side southward (Exodus 26: 18)
In addition to corner, Peyah can also mean extremity, edge or border.
As Rashi writes:
for the southern side: Heb. לִפְאַתנֶגְבָּה ךְתֵּימָנָה. [The word לִפְאַת is derived from פֵּאָה, which usually means “corner.”] This [use of the word] פֵּאָה is not an expression meaning “corner,” rather the whole side is referred to as פֵּאָה, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: לְרוּחַ עֵיבַר דָרוֹמָא, to the side toward the south.
לפאת נגבה תימנה אין פאה זו לשון מקצוע, אלא כל הרוח קרויה פאה, כתרגומו לרוח עיבר דרומא
We will conclude our survey of ambiguous sanctification of the corner/square with the one object in Judaism which cries out for a contextual reference, and whose cries have been met with a deafening silence. This ritual object are strange to the extreme. I am referring, of course, to the Tefillin (תפילין )… The fact that this pair of black leather boxes with black leather straps do not really have a name  might point to their ancient origin. In any case, they are so distinctive in the eye of the beholder that they carry a Greek name which has survived until today – phylacteries (from Ancient Greek φυλακτήριον phylacterion, form of phylássein, φυλάσσειν meaning “to guard, protect”). The first use of this name is in Matthew 23:5 in the New Testament where Matthew complains about the Jews: “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacterieswide and the tassels on their garments long;” [2a]
We know that their square shape is ancient since Yigal Yadin found a pair of tefillin in a cave belonging to 1st century Jewish partisans serving under bar Kochba. (see)
For a wonderful scholarly treatment on Tefilin feel free to visit Probing the Earliest Origins of Tefillin (phylacteries) in a blog called Yomin D;min Alma which includes a picture of tefillin found in the Cairo Geniza that are conical in shape (so much for corners and squares!) and look a lot like our Lingas (Lehavdil)…
Whenever I have thought about a context for odd shape of tefillin I have always thought of the Kaaba in Mecca  … not only because they look so similar, but also because the tefillin are also referred to as a Bayit or house… or Battim in the plural. Since the Jewish temple is also referred to as a Bayit, (as in Beit HaMikdash and Har HaBayit), it seemed to me natural to think of it as a miniature temple and to look to our rectangular temple for context.
Fortunately, I am not the only one who has thought of this comparison.
Billy Phillips, in his blog kabbalahstudent.com argues for a connection between tefilin and the Kaaba (here)
His picture is worth a thousand words (or maybe lingas):
Granted that he shows a traditional tefillin box and not uncovered tefilin, but I think his visual comparison is well taken.
He goes on to argue that the Sephardim wrap the tefillin around the left arm seven times, counter-clockwise and compares this to Muslims circumventing the Ka’ba at the end of the Haj. Whether he is guilty of sharing too much detail or not, his point is well taken. There seems to be a tradition of circumvention when it comes to our squares. Today’s Jewish custom of dancing in a circle (Hora dance) and of circling the alter in the Synagogue on Sukkot (Hoshanot) comes from ancinent times. “It was customary to make one procession around the altar on each day of Sukkot, and seven on the seventh day” (Sukkah 4:5)
It may even be that on each of the three Pilgrim festivals, ancient Jews ascended to the temple and completed their pilgrimage, by circling the square Temple.
Think also of a bride circling the groom under the square wedding canopy (Chuppah).
The Female shall circle the male נְקֵבָה תְּסוֹבֵב גָּבֶר Jerimiah 31:21
This post is more of a question than a statement. It is more of a request for further comment and research. But certainly students of Judaism need to explore this interest in sanctifying the corner.
Comments and suggestions are welcome!
 See Rashi
You shall not round off the corner of your head: This refers to someone who [cuts his hair in such a way that he] makes [the hair on] his temples even with that behind his ear and on his forehead [i.e., the front hairline], thereby causing [the hairline] surrounding his head to become a circle, since the main hairline behind the ears is at a much higher level than [the hair on] his temples. — [Mak. 20b]
the edge of your beard: [meaning:] The end of the beard and its borders. And these are five: two on each cheek at the top [edge of the cheek] near the head, where [the cheek] is broad and has two “corners” [i.e., extremities, one near the temple and the other at the end of the cheek bone towards the center of the face]-and one below, on the chin, at the point where the two cheeks join together. – [Torath Kohanim 19: 74; Mak. 20b]
לא תקפו פאת ראשכם זה המשוה צדעיו לאחורי אזנו ולפדחתו, ונמצא הקף ראשו עגול סביב, שעל אחורי אזניו עקרי שערו למעלה מצדעיו הרבה
פאת זקנך סוף הזקן וגבוליו. והן חמש שתים בכל לחי ולחי למעלה אצל הראש שהוא רחב ויש בו שתי פאות, ואחת למטה בסנטרו מקום חבור שני הלחיים יחד
The ultimate origin of Hebrew “tefillin” is uncertain. The word “tefillin” is not found in the Bible, which calls them ṭoṭafot. The Septuagint renders “ṭoṭafot” ἀσαλευτόν, “something immovable.” Some believe it refers to a charm, similar to the Hebrew neṭifot, “round jewel.” The Talmud (Sanhedrin 4b) explains that the word ṭoṭafot is combination of two foreign words: Tot means “two” in the “Caspi” language and Fot means “two” in the “Afriki” language, hence tot and fot means “two and two”, corresponding to the four compartments of the head-tefillin. Menahem ben Saruq explains that the word is derived from the Hebrew Ve’hateif and Tatifoo, both expressions meaning “speech”, “for when one sees the tefillin it causes him to remember and speak about The Exodus from Egypt.”
The first texts to use “tefillin” are the Targumim and Peshitta and it is also used in subsequent Talmudic literature, although the word “ṭoṭafah” was still current, being used with the meaning of “frontlet.” “Tefillin” may have derived from the Aramaic palal, “to plead, pray,” a word closely related to the Hebrew tefillah, “prayer.” Jacob ben Asher (14th century) suggests that “tefillin” is derived from the Hebrew pelilah, “justice, evidence,” for tefillin act as a sign and proof of God’s presence among the Jewish people.
The only instance of the name “phylacteries” in ancient times occurs once in the Greek New Testament (Matthew 23:5) whence it has passed into the languages of Europe. “Phylacteries” derives from the Greek phulaktērion – φυλακτήριον, “defences,” and in late Greek, “amulets” or “charms.” Neither Aquila nor Symmachus use the word “phylacteries.” see
[2a] Interesting to note that the Jews are identified by two square shaped “cornered” wearable objects… the Talit and the Tefillin. This charge of the demonstrative nature of the commandment is, in fact, confirmed by the rabbis, who interpret the verse “and all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon thee” (Deut. 28:10) to refer to “the tefillin of the head” (Ber. 6a). (see Encyclopedia Judaica Tefilin). Imagine a Jew walking by wearing talit, tefillin and sporting a beard and/or payos… that would make three sanctified squares all identifying the individual as a Jew!
For more on tefillin see: Yonatan Adler, The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin: A Reexamination of the Early Rabbinic SourcesIn Light of the Evidence From the Judean Desert
The Arabic word Kaaba comes from the Arabic ka’bah meaning “square house,” which in turn comes from ka’b meaning “cube.”… According to tradition the Kaaba was built by Ibrahim (Abraham). It is stated in the Qur’an that this was the first house that was built for humanity to worship Allah (God).
In her book, Islam: A Short History, Karen Armstrong asserts that the Kaaba was at some point dedicated to Hubal, a Nabatean deity, and contained 360 idols that probably represented the days of the year. In Guillaume’s translation of Ibn Ishaq, an early biographer of Muhammad, the Ka’aba itself was addressed using a feminine grammatical form. Circumambulation was often performed naked by men and almost naked by women, and linked to ancient fertility rites.
Also of interest, is that reference is not made to the four sides of this cube, but rather to its four corners: Corner of the Black Stone (East), Corner of Yemen (South-West). Corner of Syria (North-West). Corner of Iraq (North-East).
When I walk down a city street, find myself in a crowd, an over-filled subway car or visit a foreign land…. my favorite activity is not people watching, but face watching. There’s nothing like looking at the face of a stranger.
I am drawn to the fact that I have never, and most likely never will again… see that face. I am fascinated by the infinite diversity. I imagine a story, background and trajectory of each face I view. If there is a G/god, and if S/he creates every human being then the infinite variation of our face is the only proof I need.
Of all the anthropomorphisms in the Hebrew Bible, the least bothersome to me, is the first… God’s image . Twenty six verses into the Bible we hear God say: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;
נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ
Writes Rashi on the next verse:
And God created man in His image:In the form that was made for him, for everything [else] was created with a command, whereas he [man] was created with the hands (of God), as it is written (Ps. 139:5): “and You placed Your hand upon me.” Man was made with a die, like a coin, which is made by means of a die, which is called coin in Old French. And so Scripture states (Job 38:14): “The die changes like clay.” – [from Letters of Rabbi Akiva , second version; Mid. Ps. 139:5; Sanh. 38a]
ויברא א-להים את האדם בצלמובדפוס העשוי לו, שהכל נברא במאמר והוא נברא בידים, שנאמר (תהלים קלט ה) ותשת עלי כפכה, נעשה בחותם כמטבע העשויה על ידי רושם שקורין קוי”ן בלע”ז [מטבע] וכן הוא אומר (איוב לח יד) תתהפך כחומר חותם
“in the form that was made for him” literally means with a [printing] press that was [specifically ] made for him [each individual wo/man] or a one-off die. God’s printing press was the first on-demand digital press where every image was unique.
Although it doesn’t specifically say it, the metaphor of the coin-press conjures up the image of the “heads’ side of the coin. I have always assumed that what makes each wo/man unique was first and foremost their face.
If Jews have an image of nirvana or dharma where a human achieves oneness with the godhead, it is in Moses who sees God “face to face”.
And the LORD spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. Exodus 33: 11
The one molten image permitted, nay commanded by Biblical law (Exodus 25: 18) was the two golden cherubimּ facing each other on top of the ark of the covenant…. According to Rashi, the face of the cherubim was the face of an innocent child.
cherubim: Heb. כְּרֻבִים. They had the features of a child. — [from Succah 5]
כרביםדמות פרצוף תינוק להם
That image (דמות) that is referred to relates to the face (פרצוף) of a child.
Similarly, in Ezekiel’s mystical visions of the Chariot of God (see Merkabah mysticism), the first of the four divine “image” that he imagines, is a human face. (Ezekiel 1: 10)
As for the likeness of their faces, they had the face of a man; and they four had the face of a lion on the right side; and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four had also the face of an eagle. Thus were their faces; and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies.
It is in the face that both the mystics and doubters can find God.
As seen in Ezekiel, it was not beyond ancient and classical Jewish thinkers to put an animal’s face on a divine or human being.
After all… the Hebrew word for face “panim” is found only in the plural… no being (divine, human or animal) has only one face.
While the Rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud did not count years as the Chinese do, with animals, it was not beyond them to characterize a generation or age with the face of an animal.
Characterizing the evil generation that will precede the coming of the messiah, the Rabbis write:
“The face of the generation will be like the face of the dog, the son will not feel ashamed before his father (alt. will not be embarrassed by his father)…” (Mishnah Sotah, 9: 16, Talmud Sotah 49b)
(בן מנוול אב בת קמה באמה כלה בחמותה אויבי איש אנשי ביתו פני הדור כפני הכלב הבן אינו מתבייש מאביו ועל מי יש לנו להשען על אבינו שבשמים” -מסכת סוטה, פרק ט’, משנה ט”ו.
In latter Jewish tradition, it was a new face (פנים חדשות) that is required in order to have the quorum necessary to bless a newlywed couple.
תנו רבנן: “מברכים ברכת חתנים [“שבע ברכות”] בעשרה כל שבעה. אמר רב, והוא שבאו פנים חדשות“.
I’d like to think that a new face could contain within it both the evil of a generation, but also the possibility of the presence of the divine. Like a visitor at a Sukkah or a guest at a meal of thanks, a new face represents a placeholder for the divine presence.…
It was coming form this context that I was able, nay driven to connect to the many faces of god that I have seen in the Far East. Nowhere was this more powerful than at the Face towers at Bayon temple at Angkor in Cambodia.
The Bayon Temple, constructed in the late 12th – early 13th centuries stands at the near-exact center of the Angkor Thom complex. Symbolically, it represents the center of the universe, the point at which the worlds of the divine and living intersect.
The decorations in this temple, as in all the other temples at Angkor have undergone significant alterations over its history. The original decoration was Mahayana Buddhist, consistent with the original builder-king’s; Javayarman VII’s beliefs. Decoration was then altered to meet Vaishnavite Hindu religious requirements. As part of this scheme, all of the temple’s Buddhas were converted into rishis (Hindu ascetics) and Shiva lingas. Decorative elements were given a Buddhist makeover in the 16th century to suit the new requirements of Theravada Buddhism, which prevails in Cambodia today. As you might expect, the Buddhists similarly scratched out the rishis and lingas.
The only images that were not touched… were the most striking…
Nearly 200 faces — up to 1.8 meters (6 feet) tall — grace the towers rising above the Bayon. While most towers hold four faces, oriented toward the cardinal directions…. [ cf Ezekiel’s Chariot]
The positions of these face towers are shown with red highlights; those that are missing or destroyed are shown with white highlights. Their position emphasizes the cardinal four directions.
The faces’ decoration and iconography — virtually identical throughout the temple — are minimal, yet there are some distinctive features
Open eyes. Unlike many of Jayavarman’s earlier Buddhas who have downward-looking eyes, with lids that cover most of the pupil, the eyes on the Bayon’s faces are wide open and look directly outward.
Headband. Interestingly, the ornate floral headband lacks an image of Amitabha, which would have immediately identified the image as being that of Avalokitesvara, the bodhisattva of compassion; this has not stopped the image from being identified as such, however.
Smile. It’s infectious… and cherubic
According to my guide book (which I have quoted extensively and italicized: Cambodia Revealed: The Temples of Angkor,David Raezer; Jennifer Raezer (2014-08-11) While there is historical precedent for temple towers with images (even faces) pointed in the cardinal directions, there is something that makes Bayon’s face towers entirely unique. Similar four-faced images in other parts of the Hindu-Buddhist world are enclosed within frames, recreating the concept of an all-knowing god in his mountain home, the temple. This changes profoundly at the Bayon: the absence of a frame around the face has a powerful effect of personalizing the structure by blending sculpture with architecture. At the Bayon, the temple is no longer just the residence of the god, but rather the god itself, a god with 200 faces.
Perhaps what spared the faces the desecration suffered by other Buddhist icons at the hands of Jayavarman VIII was their enigmatic identity: what might have been viewed as the face of a Buddhist figure under Jayavarman VII (Avalokitesvara or Vairocana) could easily be reassociated with a Hindu figure under Jayavarman VIII (Brahma or Sadashiva).
What has always fascinated me about sculptures and paintings of God and gods is the fact that human models were undoubtedly used. In the case of the Bayon faces, scholars speculate that the face is perhaps a portrait of the builder-king himself, Jayavarman VII, assuming the form of Avalokitesvara. If this is the correct interpretation, Jayarvarman is positioning himself as the compassionate gateway to the divine.
Man depicts god by depicting man… depicting god…
The other intriguing aspect of the Bayon is that relief sculptures throughout the temple are exclusively secular in nature with an emphasis on everyday life. There are more scenes depicting everyday life and historical events at the Bayon ; this compares versus a focus on mythological stories, largely from the Hindu epics, at the more famous Angkor Wat.
Of course, the most engaging element of so many of these faces…. is the smile, and that face of Cambodian (Khmer) culture, and their image of the divine, is irrepressible and survives even unto today.
There’s a story of two Hasidic rebbes sitting in a sukkah. In answer to the question of “what’s your favorite mitzvah?”, one rebbe replied that the Sukkah was his favorite commandment, because when you sit in a sukkah, you are surrounded on all sides by the holiness of the commandment. The other rebbe preferred the Sabbath. “You can walk out of a sukkah, but you can’t walk out of the holiness of the Shabbat.” said he.
The Sabbaths are our great cathedrals; and our Holy of Holies is a shrine that neither the Romans nor the Germans were able to burn, a shrine that even apostasy cannot easily obliterate: the Day of Atonement. According to the ancient rabbis, it is not the observance of the Day of Atonement, but the Day itself, the “essence of the Day,” which, with man’s repentance, atones for the sins of man.
Now what was the first holy object in the history of the world? … “And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy.” There is no reference in the record of creation to any object in space that would be endowed with the quality of holiness. …. it seems as if to the Bible it is holiness in time, the Sabbath, which comes first.
But here’s my question… what was the response of the first rebbe? Did he fold his hands and agree that the holiness of time trumps the holiness of things? And what about our cathedrals, our homes, our homelands and our things… can their holiness transcend or at least engage the holiness of time?
It seems to me that while you can’t walk out of the Sabbath, it’s holiness cannot be sustained indefinitely…. When the stars come out, the sabbath is over. You can walk out of the sukkah, but it embodies a holiness that can be sustained.. at least through the complete cycle of a week.
During Sukkot, we add a prayer: “May the All Merciful establish (raise) for us the fallen Sukkah of David”
הרחמן הוא יקים לנו את סוכת דוד הנופלת
The notion of the “fallen Sukkah” come from the prophet Amos (9:11)
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof, and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old;
And I wonder whether “the Sukkah that has fallen סֻכַּת הַנֹּפֶלֶת is best translated as the tabernacle that has fallen, or whether it is the Fallingsukkah. (compare Frank Loyd Wright’s Fallingwater). It seems to me that David’s Fallingsukkah is always in flux and engaged in a permanent dialectic between continuity and renewal, sustainability and disruption. The Jewish Cathedral is a temporary structure, which by definition, can never be permanently destroyed nor can it achieve the stasis of permanence. The Fallingsukkah informs the way we relate with the world of the physical. The Fallingsukkah and it’s notion of holiness of things, continues the discussion begun by the notion of the holiness of time that Heschel began.
Ultimately, it is the Fallingsukkah which represents to culmination of theJwish New Year’s penitential season.
From the first day of Ellul until the last day of Sukkot we read Psalm 27 every day.
One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after:
that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life,
to behold the graciousness of the LORD, and to visit early in His temple. or He concealeth me in His pavilion (lit. Sukkah) in the day of evil;
He hideth me in the covert of His tent; He lifteth me up upon a rock.
It would seem that the choice of this Psalmֹ of David addresses the tension between permanently dwelling in the house of God and being just a transient visitor, the dichotomy of taking refuge upon a rock or in a tent.
Fortunately, one day every sukkot, we get to enjoy both the wonder of the temple built in time and in space… Shabbat Sukkat Shalom
If there’s one Jewish holiday and ritual that is rooted in time, it is Passover. It’s the Festival of Spring that commemorates the night of the Exodus on the 14th of Nisan. As it says in the Torah (Numbers 9 2-3 :
Let the children of Israel keep the passover in its appointed seasonבְּמוֹעֲדוֹ . In the fourteenth day of this month, at dusk, ye shall keep it in its appointed season בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה …
So it comes as a surprise that of all the ordinances in the Torah, the only one that God offers a second chance at a more convenient time, is Passover.
And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
‘Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If any man of you or of your generations shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the LORD;
in the second month on the fourteenth day at dusk they shall keep it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs;
This make-up holiday is called Pesach Sheni (The Second Passover) and it intrigues me.
You see, the Passover Seder is the one holiday when we are asked to not only observe, but to re-enact and imagine we are actually experiencing the Exodus. As the Hagadah says: “In Every Generation One Must Look Upon Himself as if He Personally Has Come Out of Egypt” Mordecai Kaplan said there are three kind of believers: Believers, Non-Believers and Make-Believers…. at the Traditional Seder, we are all make-believers.
This is why this make-up seder intrigues me so. In the second month, at the Second Pesach Sheni Seder, we are make-believers who make-believe that we are at a Seder… making believe that we are leaving Egypt!
To be sure… the Rabbis probably had their fill with Jews who make-believe so they did not want to encourage a new movement of Jews who make believe that they make believe so….. they limited Pesach Sheni to individuals. (Talmud Pesachim 66b from אִישׁ אִיש).
There are groups that nonetheless celebrate the Second Passover, the most prominent being the Chabad Hasidim who view the 14th of the month of Iyar as a celebration of second chances. This is certainly a valuable lesson worth commemorating, but my good friend Frederic Brenner discovered another group who celebrated the dialectic of Pesach Sheni that is less known and embodies a more complex message.
Frederic is currently completing an ambitious project where he invited world renowned photogrpahers to come to Israel for the first time and photograph it. The project which will begin touring the world is called This Place and you can read early reviews here. But in his younger years, Frederic traveled the world photographing vanishing Jewish communities and one community he cataloged were a group of isolated Conversos in Portugal. He published a book called Marranes (in French) and a movie was made based on the book called The Last Marranos Les derniers Marranes.
Despite their deep aversion to the Church, these New Christians who will only choose a mate amongst themselves go to the church and have the local priest marry them publicly after a private secret marriage ceremony. (see: The Last Marranos, Commentary Magazine May 1967 by Anita Novinsky)
Frederic took many pictures of them celebrating Passover which, they celebrated on the 14th of Iyar, Pesach Sheni.
Frederic spent much time with them and even made the aquantance of the local priest who complained that while he liked these people, they should really get themselves a Rabbi.
Needless to say, they did eventually get themselves a traditional Rabbi.
They no longer go to the Priest to get married, no longer light their Shabbat candles in specially designed hidden cabinets, and needless to say, they no longer celebrate Passover a month after the holiday was meant to be celebrated.
This loss of the Pesach Sheni of the last Marranos makes me sad. Their Pesach sheni was a tribute to the commitment of their predecessors for their heritage, it was an artifact of God’s commitment to give second chances and it showed the radical ability we humans have to survive, persevere and to make believe that we can make believe.
I was particularly intrigued by her Seating Charts.
Amy Sillman Seating Charts 2006 and 2011
Sebastian Smee writes in a review in The Boston Globe:
In the process of introducing us to her talents in gouache, watercolor, oil paint, and iPhone app, the show’s first two rooms contain several examples of an ongoing series called “Seating Charts.” Mordant excoriations of social life in New York’s art world, these text-heavy diagrams spell out the kinds of silent assessment we all instinctively make in the social arena.
One person is identified, for instance, as “Frustrated artist who still has her beautiful looks but who also has financial problems that keep her up at night. She can’t reconcile her beauty with her difficult row to hoe.” Another is summed up more bluntly: “Guy who’s really a fraud and just there to suck up to the curator at the next table (keeps looking over . . . ).”
Another “Seating Chart,” this one describing guests at a benefit dinner, is pithier still: “Strange rich woman with snazzy wardrobe and frizzy hair.” “Money guy — can’t wait to leave – keeps checking time — can’t remember if he fed the dog.” And “Plus one — only here by accident.”
The humor is sharp. But it goes beyond humor into a kind of pathos that runs all through Sillman’s work: the pathos of being unable to transpose our own thought bubbles into social life; the fraudulent feeling of having to operate continuously in two registers.
The reviewer hits the mark as to how these works relate to Sillman’s oeuvre, humor and artistic contribution. But since Art is about what the viewer brings to the table (forgive the pun) I can be excused for viewing these works through a more Talmudic lens…
Or if you draw and study Talmud outside of the lines……
Amy Sillman, Untitled (seating chart), 2009 G Stern gloss on Talmud 1970’s
I am not the first to compare Jewish Law to dinnerware, in fact the preeminent code of Jewish law was called The Shulchan Aruch (Hebrew: שׁוּלחָן עָרוּך, literally: “Set Table”) authored in Safed by Sefardic scholar Yosef Karo in 1563. Ashkenazi Jews follow rulings of Moses Isserles whose glosses to the Shulchan Aruch are widely referred to as the mappah (literally: the “tablecloth”). Commentaries on the work include Peri Chadash (“New Fruit”) and Megadim (“Dainty Fruit”) culminating in the early 20th century work Aruch HaShulchan (Hebrew: ערוך השולחן) (“the table is set”) which attempts to remaster the original recipes of the overly processed rulings of the Shulchan Arukh and identify their sources.
With all the wonderful mixed metaphors of tables, fancy cloths and sweet fruits, there’s a bitter irony here.
Remember: Jewish Law was to be a vibrant and dynamic oral law. It should come as no surprise that Karo himself had no very high opinion of his work, remarking that he had written it chiefly for “young students” (Shulchan Aruch, Introduction). Karo wrote the Shulchan Aruch for the benefit of those who did not possess the education necessary to understand the earlier works that included multiple rulings, opinions and ambiguity. We should be thankful that Karo had not lived to see the Sparknotes version of his work; The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (Hebrew: קיצור שולחן ערוך, “The Abbreviated Shulchan Aruch“.
Today, like every day for the next 6 1/2 years, literary critic Adam Kirsch is reading a page of Talmud, along with Jews around the world and trying to make some sense of it weekly in Tablet : Close Encounters With Talmud. It’a a heroic task, but as anyone who has tried to swim in the sea of Talmud will admit, our oral law, committed to writing, like Amy Sillman’s Seating Charts, are tortured endeavors full of the pathos of being unable to transpose our own cultural and religious thought bubbles into social life…
So why bother? Why does Amy still go to these meetings, dinners and receptions? Why do we still study these texts? I guess it’s like the Woody Allen joke “you know, a guy walks into a psychiatrist’s office and says, hey doc, my brother’s crazy! He thinks he’s a chicken. Then the doc says, why don’t you turn him in? Then the guy says, I would but I need the eggs.”
If Amy doesn’t lunch with these choice specimens of social life in New York’s art world… What’s she going to draw about? If we don’t (hopefully) discuss the competing and contradictory texts and ideas of our religious and cultural heritage over the shabbat and holiday table …. What will become of us?
Be honest… What are the alternatives? Schlepping our thought bubbles around with us on a ball and chain like a prisoner in solitary?