Judaism and hair

[Mus Zibii]

All through childhood I marvelled and wondered at the payas of the Hassidic Jews, and what they meant, what purpose they served. The first time I asked a teacher I got the utterly insane Christian answer that they represented Moses horns, which--OF COURSE!--Jews have to file down to pass in modern society. I kid you not.

Eventually, I found that it was an interpretation of Leviticus. But from there on, its only become more complicated. Leviticus seems to say simply, don't style your hair in the fashion of the godless, etc. The Hassidic men don't interpret the law that the beard shouldn't be rounded literally. They don't have short perfectly square beards, but rather naturally layered ones.

Then I learned that the Hassidic Jews were naturally at odds with the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox (splits and conflicts are many in every religion, it doesn't stop with just Ultra and Or) and that appearance evolved from Jewish heros, leaders, etc and were maintained as a sign of honor.

But this brings me back to hair. Lev. 21:5 condemns the shaving of the head for the dead (actually, for any reason) even though Nazarite tradition requires this. Moreover the Nazarite tradtions seems to interpret more explicitly the command not to round the hair of the head as literally never taking a razor to it. The word that drives the debate is 'corner' or as some take it to mean 'temple'. Don't round the corners of your hair, or don't cut the hair at the corner of your head? Big difference.

Following this conflict I wonder what's the purpose of any of it. Leviticus seems to say, don't be like your neighbors to which God has not spoken. Distinguish yourself. The Christian and modern Jewish take on the same books says, don't follow trend, rather devote yourself to God wholly. American protestants of course follow Paul (the baldy, ironically enough) and his adherence to the Enoch apocrypha and the tonsure he derived from it.

 

[bananabrain]

The first time I asked a teacher I got the utterly insane Christian answer that they represented Moses horns, which--OF COURSE!--Jews have to file down to pass in modern society. I kid you not.

this old chestnut arises because the word for a "ray" or "beam" of light is the same as the word for "horn", namely QeReN (also possibly related to the latin root "corn", which is where the english word "horn" comes from). when moses came down from sinai "the skin of his face shone" - in other words, it sent forth beams of light. these were then mistranslated as horns, resulting in the famous michaelangelo statue of moses with horns. naturally it was a useful mistake to have made if you were an antisemite, because then of course you could link jews with the mediaeval christian figure of the devil, who was represented as having goat horns.

Leviticus seems to say simply, don't style your hair in the fashion of the godless

to be precise, don't copy the hairstyles of evil idolaters like the canaanites and so on. there was a custom to shave one's eyebrows off in mourning i believe.

Then I learned that the Hassidic Jews were naturally at odds with the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox (splits and conflicts are many in every religion, it doesn't stop with just Ultra and Or) and that appearance evolved from Jewish heros, leaders, etc and were maintained as a sign of honor.

again, to be precise, the hasidim are generally considered part of the ultra-orthodox world, although they differ widely between the different sects, the lubavitch being fairly liberal (at least by ultra-orthodox standards) and the satmar being extremely conservative. when hasidism was in its infancy, it was opposed by the great "mitnagdim" of the talmudic academies in lithuania - basically they thought they were a bunch of drunken hippies. this antipathy continues even today. and, furthermore, the various ultra-orthodox dress codes of black coats and fur hats follow the styles of rich men in the towns they came from.

But this brings me back to hair. Lev. 21:5 condemns the shaving of the head for the dead (actually, for any reason) even though Nazarite tradition requires this.

the nazirite is actually supposed to not shave during his vow and then cut his hair afterwards. the shaving of the head for the dead is "baldness between the eyes", which is different.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Quesocoatl]

I started wondering about that when I realized that my own hair seemed to noticeably curl and spiral downward from the ears if I let it grow long.

I don't think a correspondence of those locks to actual horns is any real misconception, considering that the staff of Amen is, indeed, a horned sceptre.

I imagine it has something to do with certain stargazing Semitic shepherds that populated the Siwa Oasis, near the Oracle of Amen, at the time.

A more accurate picture of Moses?

Hatshepsut Xnem Amen or Tutmosis II

(Ahem...the first, that is.)

 

[Mus Zibii]

Hey, thanks for responding, bananabrain. You've given me a ton of points to read up on that I had no idea existed.

I agree somewhat with Quesocoatl that 'qrn' wasn't simply a mistake of Latin translation. I'm not ruling it out, but there were differiing opnions in Judaism about its meaning as well. Not to mention logistical issues.

It really wasn't until Philo thought up or recorded or defined the theology of Moses catching the glow of God that the episode on Sinai became commonly thought of in that manner. Its his interpretation that led to Jesus glowing in snow white garments, etc during the transfiguration.

The Habakkuk seems to share that view, except that all his exposed flesh 'shrone'. But even in Judaism Moses was referred to mysteriously as the ram of God. And like Quesocoatl pointed out, there were numerous provincial deities that wore horns, leading to the image of the common crown.

Then there's the interpretation that it might've implied 'singing' flesh, like a look of magnificence. But then the logistics come in. How do you not notice glaring skin, how is a glow covered up with a veil, why would anyone be frightened of it after so many sights, etc.

 

[bananabrain]

I don't think a correspondence of those locks to actual horns is any real misconception, considering that the staff of Amen is, indeed, a horned sceptre.

except of course that it doesn't bear any resemblance to the Torah text. nor are the hair rules anything to do with moses' face shining.

I imagine it has something to do with certain stargazing Semitic shepherds that populated the Siwa Oasis, near the Oracle of Amen, at the time. A more accurate picture of Moses?

what are you saying exactly? if this is that old chestnut "judaism is really egyptian, akhenaten's monotheism yada yada yada" it doesn't exactly convince. i really don't like this need that some people seem to have to reduce judaism down to some kind of derivative, unspectacular blend of sumerian and egyptian mythology and customs. what purpose does it serve? to "know the truth", as if that were even possible? it tells me far more about the agenda of the people who appear to want it to be true. and wouldn't it just suit the people who want to deny any uniqueness to judaism to be able to ignore its statistically impossible survival against all the odds of the last millennia?

incidentally, does quesocoatl mean "cheesy serpent" or "feathered cheese"?

I agree somewhat with Quesocoatl that 'qrn' wasn't simply a mistake of Latin translation. I'm not ruling it out, but there were differing opinions in Judaism about its meaning as well.

yes, but none of them mention moses having horns. what opinions are you seeking to adduce?

It really wasn't until Philo thought up or recorded or defined the theology of Moses catching the glow of God that the episode on Sinai became commonly thought of in that manner. Its his interpretation that led to Jesus glowing in snow white garments, etc during the transfiguration.

ahem. philo is not a jewish authority (although he was quite well informed about contemporary judaism) but a community leader who sought to show the commonalities between judaism and greek philosophy, the two principal communities in first century BCE alexandria. he was consequently quite popular with the church fathers in their work in harmonising early christianity with the graeco-roman context, but he is not considered a jewish "sage" from a religious perspective. certainly his take on the theology is not considered in any way authoritative.

The Habakkuk seems to share that view, except that all his exposed flesh 'shrone'.

except that if you mean habbakuk 3:4, that's not actually talking about moses.

But even in Judaism Moses was referred to mysteriously as the ram of God.

where's that reference?

And like Quesocoatl pointed out, there were numerous provincial deities that wore horns, leading to the image of the common crown.

except that the only things with actual horns in judaism was a) idolatrous calf statues and b) altars. wherever you see an actual representation of a deity with horns, that is idolatrous. and the crown in judaism is not an actual headdress, but represents rather the crown of the head - the anointing of a king is done with oil.

Then there's the interpretation that it might've implied 'singing' flesh, like a look of magnificence.

this is the interpretation preferred by the sages, in that when moses came down he started frightening people with the glow.

But then the logistics come in. How do you not notice glaring skin, how is a glow covered up with a veil, why would anyone be frightened of it after so many sights

obviously the glow didn't last for ever! this isn't terribly controversial, you know. no'one's hiding anything.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Mus Zibii]

Well, this goes back to the two other replies I responded to. Its faith versus objectivity. That sounds like a hostile comment, but I swear its not. Finished tradtion (a subjective term) is every bit as legitimate as critical thinking. Just different.

nor are the hair rules anything to do with moses' face shining.

Yeah, we went well off topic here. LOL I just mentioned the horn issue because of the anti-semitism I encountered when I was young.

yes, but none of them mention moses having horns. what opinions are you seeking to adduce?

Well, again with all due respect, interpretation isn't so shallow. In the story of Jacob wrestling with God, Jacob's thigh is wrenched out of place. In the context however, with the detailed description of what part of the thigh is injured a deeper meaning is found. Same with the confusing circumcision of Moses' son. Or circumcision itself. God's backside as he passes.

Its one of those things that at one time might've had clear meaning, but has since taken on either grand yet abritrary importance, or is so confounding that its been passed over.

There's no clear instance in the OT where Qal form of 'qrn' means shining. But many instances where the same three characters referring to horns, like in Daniels cryptic nod toward the kings of Persia and Media.

In Amos horned crowns were worn by great men, but in Numbers Moses is said to have been too humble to wear such a crown. Would it be out of the realm of the possiblity that God gave moses a crown, in the form of the skin of his face 'projecting'.

philo is not a jewish authority

We both made a mistake. I meant to refer to Pseudo-Philo and you thought I was saying Philo of Alexanderia was a great Jewish authority. I was simply saying that the Christian interpretation of Moses' transfiguration, that eventually came to be elaborated on in the Jesus descent from the mountain was borrowed from Pseudo-Philo (anonymous author), who in turn interpreted 'qrn' as 'shining' because of the Habakkuk passage.

except that the only things with actual horns in judaism was a) idolatrous calf statues and b) altars. wherever you see an actual representation of a deity with horns, that is idolatrous. and the crown in judaism is not an actual headdress, but represents rather the crown of the head - the anointing of a king is done with oil.

Well, here's where we'll just have to disagree. Its always been my belief that the molten calf in Exodus was an invention of the Yahwehists to do away with the sacred cow icons of the original Israelites.

obviously the glow didn't last for ever! this isn't terribly controversial, you know. no'one's hiding anything.

I know! LOL I only mentioned it in passing at the opening of my original post. I was just talking about orthodox tonsure and happened to mention anti-semitism. Its not a deal breaker. LOL

if this is that old chestnut "judaism is really egyptian, akhenaten's monotheism yada yada yada" it doesn't exactly convince

Yeah, that's a point of conflict. I still maintain that Moses' legend, regardless of whether he was real or just happened to live a life similiar to these other characters, resembles other hero archetypes too much to be ignored. How many lawgivers came up with tablets identical to Moses before Moses? How many heros were saved as children by providence? Or for that matter, how many were born of virgins like Jesus was supposed?

Sargona, the king of Akkad am I.
My mother was a princess, my father I did not know.
My mother, the princess, conceived me, in difficulty she brought me forth.
She placed me in an ark of rushes, with bitumen my exit she sealed up.
She launched me in the river, which did not drown me.
The river carried me, to Akki the water-carrier it brought me. . . .

 

[bananabrain]

Its faith versus objectivity....Finished tradition (a subjective term) is every bit as legitimate as critical thinking. Just different.

well, i obviously appreciate this openmindedness, but i also suggest that a faith *in* objectivity is just that - faith. i don't believe humans can be objective, so for me subjectivity dressed up as objectivity is objectionable, particularly if it acts to delegitimise other overtly subjective points of view. i state my prejudices up front i hope, so that people can appreciate where i'm coming from.

Well, again with all due respect, interpretation isn't so shallow.

well, that's what i'm saying too - but i'm always happier if i have an actual text to discuss; so which interpretation of QRN are we talking about?

In the story of Jacob wrestling with God, Jacob's thigh is wrenched out of place. In the context however, with the detailed description of what part of the thigh is injured a deeper meaning is found. Same with the confusing circumcision of Moses' son. Or circumcision itself. God's backside as he passes.

yes, this is all discussed at length in the midrash i believe, but, as i say, i like to be specific.

Its one of those things that at one time might've had clear meaning, but has since taken on either grand yet abritrary importance, or is so confounding that its been passed over.

or the meaning is kept mysterious on purpose, because it could be too easily misunderstood (and often is).

There's no clear instance in the OT where Qal form of 'qrn' means shining.

yes, but there's equally no clear instance of a jewish commentator saying that moses literally grew actual horns either. daniel's prophecies are a very different kettle of fish of course, so i don't disagree with you there.

Would it be out of the realm of the possiblity that God gave moses a crown, in the form of the skin of his face 'projecting'.

the classical quote on crowns is from pirqei avot in the mishnah, which speaks of three crowns, that of kingship which belongs to david's family, that of priesthood which belong's to aaron's and, finally that of Torah, which belongs to everyone. i rather like your interpretation though.

We both made a mistake. I meant to refer to Pseudo-Philo and you thought I was saying Philo of Alexanderia was a great Jewish authority.

oh, fair enough. i'm not very familiar with the pseudepigrapha but the salient point about them is that they may very well contradict Torah and Talmud in places and that where they do they are obviously considered to lack authority. incidentally, if you want to discuss philo's theology and its relationship to classical rabbinic positions, there are texts available at http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html

I was simply saying that the Christian interpretation of Moses' transfiguration, that eventually came to be elaborated on in the Jesus descent from the mountain was borrowed from Pseudo-Philo (anonymous author), who in turn interpreted 'qrn' as 'shining' because of the Habakkuk passage.

oh, i getcha. and obviously it would make sense to refer to that habakkuk passage because he (habb) is talking about the Divine and he (the christian interpreter) would want to link jesus with G!D. it's more subtle than shoehorning the poor bloke into the suffering servant passage.

Its always been my belief that the molten calf in Exodus was an invention of the Y-ists to do away with the sacred cow icons of the original Israelites.

then, yes, we will have to disagree on whether it is an "invention" or not, as it's obviously impossible to clarify it 100% either way. the point is that the calf was a bad thing, so whatever happened the doing away with the icons was a good thing. i would also appreciate it if you didn't spell out the Name.

I still maintain that Moses' legend, regardless of whether he was real or just happened to live a life similiar to these other characters, resembles other hero archetypes too much to be ignored. How many lawgivers came up with tablets identical to Moses before Moses? How many heros were saved as children by providence? Or for that matter, how many were born of virgins like Jesus was supposed?

oh, that's fair enough, if you want to get into campbell and mythological archetypes. my interpretation would be that G!D has Designed the behaviour and recognition of hero-archetypes into human perception and history, so it's not entirely surprising. either way it's not a problem if other people have similar histories to moses, as long as people don't then use this as a spurious platform to delegitimise traditional judaism. i dare say you could take any symbol (snakes, flood, virgin births) and do comparative studies on them, but it by no means proves that there was only one original snake, flood or mysterious birth, which everyone has referenced. let's face it, these things crop up all over the place so it's not exactly like one culture has a monopoly on the creation and use of symbols. i just feel that judaism gets singled out for extra attacks (largely because of christianity, too) and i get a bit fed up of correcting people who have no idea of what judaism is actually like.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Mus Zibii]

well, i obviously appreciate this openmindedness, but i also suggest that a faith *in* objectivity is just that - faith. i don't believe humans can be objective, so for me subjectivity dressed up as objectivity is objectionable, particularly if it acts to delegitimise other overtly subjective points of view. i state my prejudices up front i hope, so that people can appreciate where i'm coming from.

Well, I can agree with that. Its hard negotiating semantics. 'Objectivity' as opposed to anything else sounds implicity insulting, but I didn't mean it to be. Rather than 'faith' I should've said 'accepted tradition' or something.