Hamantashen Reimagined (updated)

Talking Heads: "This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no..." ...no purim Torah so get ready for some tasty tidbits. But what is a good dessert without some ancient Canaanite and Persian iconography as an appetizer? A calm stomach, for one thing...

I know it's early for Purim but here goes...

We have all heard the rumor that Esther's real name was Haddasah (see Gemorah Megillah 13a). Some have even been so bold as to declare that Esther is a variant of the goddess Ishtar, venerated by the Persians.


But what relevance does Hamantashen have for us. I recall my first grade rebbe telling me that it was the shape of Haman's triangular hat, and in our victory over him, we have consumed him (I'm sure that wasn't a direct quote).

Along comes Ruth Hestrin with a great observation regarding Canaanite iconography that would illuminate our understanding of the foundation for the tradition of making Hamantashen for Purim.

Archaeologists found at Lachish site, a ewer (dating to 1220 BCE) and a goblet that illustrate that the pubic triangle and tree could be used interchangeably in Canaanite iconography to represent Asherah. Asherah is the female goddess often represented as a tree. The Ewer has 2 ibexes nibbling on a tree and the goblet has the pubic triangle in place of the tree.

Here’s where things get interesting. Stay with me on this.

At some point, the separate goddesses Anat, Asherah, and Astarte merged or became interchangeable to some extent. Astarte is associated with the QUEEN OF HEAVEN mentioned in Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25 to whom women baked cakes in service. Astarte in Persia was Ishtar.

Now recall queen Esther (sounds like Ishtar) and the holiday, Purim, we bake cakes for her. So veneration of the female goddess has been legitimated and incorporated into normative Judaism by being transformed and co-opted to the form we have it today. Instead of worshipping the goddess, queen of heaven, Ishtar, we instead honor Esther in a manner similar to how Ishtar was worshipped. We bake cakes but not just any cakes. The cakes are very specially designed to be reminiscent of the goddess herself. That same goddess that can be represented as a tree is also represented as the pubic triangle. And the cakes baked for Esther's holiday are triangular in shape with interesting filling.

Something to chew on. Although Hamantashen have not tasted quite the same since I learned this. I guess we should call them Kamintashen (Come-in-tashen).
-
For a great detailed article on the iconography and goddess' see here.

For a detailed post on origin of the name hamantashen see here.

-

POSTSCRIPT: BHB, in the comments, points out that there should have been a reference in the literature since Persian times demonstrating use of the shape of a triangle while baking in order to solidify the theory above that triangular cakes were reference to Ishtar and then incorporated into practice. In the comment section, I conceded that the triangular shape is not mentioned in the literature until the High Middle Ages at best and that particular component (shape) is tenuous. Someone should have mentioned that aspect of the tradition being passed down.

-

I did demonstrate there that the focus should instead be on the BAKING. The holiday of Purim has allusions to Ishtar (Esther), Marduk (Mordechai), cakes called Kaman (Haman, who was consumed or eventually sacrificed), and baking for the purpose of veneration (we send manot in celebration of the holiday).

-

For further clarification on kaman see here.

-
I should have indicated that I based this post on William Dever's Did God Have A Wife pp.226-234. He mentions that Jeremiah 7:18 describes the baking of cakes, kawwanim. That term (to me reads like kavvanim) is a loan word from the Mesopotamian word kamanu meaning cake. Mesopotamian texts describe the cakes as 'kaman'. That sounds awfully like it could be a corollary to Haman! Perhaps this is the word you are looking for. People baked cakes for the queen of heaven called kavvanim.

Kaman, Haman, (mishloah) manot sound similar. I guess the focus should remain on the aspect of baking for the holiday just like cakes were baked for Ishtar instead of triangular shape although I did enjoy the concept.

-

Frumster Update

Seek and ye shall NOT find me. For I have suspended my frumster membership. No, not out of disillusionment nor to stem the tide of foreign incursions. The very first woman I IM-ed became my first frumster date.

It was a fluke that we even got together. I set my preferences to a certain age range and she never appeared because she was much younger. I happened to see her online (hence the importance of photo attraction) and I saw that she was divorced so even though there is a decade between us, there certainly is common ground. So, on a whim, I IM-ed her. RESULT!

We went to a fantastic Mexican restuarant called Carlos & Gabby's in Cedarhurst and things went very smoothly. I have seen her over 15x in the past three weeks. We have been seen at Cafe Wha, Off The Grill, Guys & Dolls Billiards, and watching videos. We even talk on the phone till the wee hours of the morning. I'm getting the vibe that maybe she likes me. She even brings me food when we meet in the afternoon. That, of course, is critical. Oh, btw, she is very cute and easy to be with. NO DRAMA (yet). So, I'm off the market.

I met her parents when I went to pick her up for a date. They were the babysitters for her multiple children. I even helped her dad move some furniture around in her house (that's gotta count for something). She met my kids at the Children's Museum and so far nobody has bolted for the door.

The next day she was in line at Dunkin Donuts when guess who steps up beside her. My ex and the kiddies were there for a treat. My daughter calls out her name and EX meets nEXt (just going for the rhythm here, don't worry. We agreed that it's best to date for at least a year before using the M word). Wish I could have been a fly on the zipper, er, wall.

Keep your fingers Jewish-starred for me...

Cherubs

What do you get when you integrate Biblical archaeology, Biblical criticism, and a touch of the Bible? ....Certainly not an audience. Yet for those who remain, I would like to share an interesting insight I had into the representation of the Keruvim (cherubs) in the mishkan and first temple.

In Who Wrote The Bible, Richard Elliott Friedman has a very satisfying architectural breakdown of the dimensions of the mishkan. I have tried year after year to follow the cubit measurements to see how it all pieced together and always felt there was a fudge factor. Well he clears it up very nicely. It is critical to understand the correct dimension to grasp the importance of the dimensions used in the first temple. He shows that beneath the wingspan of the two side-by-side cherubim of the first temple there was actually the exact space (in cubits) to fit the mishkan. He demonstrates from pesukim and other sources that the mishkan was actually housed within the first temple whether in the space beneath the wings or stored somewhere in the temple but with the space between the wings delineating the proper holy dimensions. {Apparently there is an Israelite temple in Arad that also uses these holy dimensions so there must be something special about those specific dimensions}.To the Left: depiction of cherubim in first temple (REF p.182).

{REF's analysis is also critical to rejecting those who claim the mishkan is a pious fraud perpetrated during the second temple period. He shows how there must have actually been a mishkan even before the first temple period. I attended an archaeology lecture at Queens College where the speaker told of a find (I think in Moab) that resemble the mishkan in design and materials. Apparently in the early Iron Age royalty may have traveled in such a manner, so our Lord also traveled in style}.

The dimensions of the mishkan and the first temple are correlated but why would there be a difference in the layout of the Keruvim on the Ark of the Covenant as opposed to the way Solomon had the massive Keruvim in his temple?

The cherubs in the mishkan sat on the kapporet, the cover, on the Ark of the Covenant. Image credit

Exodus 25:20 says: "The cherubim shall have their wings spread upwards, shielding the ark cover with their wings, with their faces toward one another, toward the lid shall be the faces of the cherubim." The common rendition depicts two figures facing each other with heads bowed and wings extending over their heads until they meet in the middle over the lid. This photo above is similar to Artscroll image.

However, when Solomon built the Temple, "He set the cherubim within the inner house and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubim, and the wing of the one touched the wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall and their wings in the midst of the house touched one another" (I Kings 6:27). Solomon's cherubs stood parallel to each other rather than facing one and other. Image credit.

I wondered whether this common interpretation is faulty.

The Encyclopedia Judaica describes cherubim as having "wings [that] come together constituting the throne on which the glory of YHWH appeared." William Dever in Did God have a Wife p.165 describes how "lion thrones" were "very common in Ancient Near Eastern art and iconography...always associated with deities...often represented as cherubs-potent symbols of the divine presence and power...with wings." Below: Cherub throne on Hiram's sarcophagus (credit).

Now considering the fact that winged lions (cherubim) were so commonly used to represent thrones of deities and the Israelites obviously were exposed to this and even incorporated it into their practice, I have been drawn down the following path. While many translate Exodus 25:20 as implying that the cherubim faced each other thus being directly opposite, I have found a translation by Rabbi A.M. Silbermann as follows: "...and their faces turned (italics in original) towards one and other..." It does not say they stood opposite ('mool' or K'neget or No'chach) one and other but rather that their faces were turned towards each other.

The Artscroll chumash (Sapirstein edition) shows the cherubim (incorrectly as humans with wings) with the wings extending upward, over their heads and forward towards its mirror image facing it, wingtips touching. I guess even a griffin-like creature can be imagined to lift its wings up, over its head and forward in front of itself towards it own mirror image. Those wings then become the throne on which the glory of God 'sits'. But that is a very odd way to set up a throne especially in light of the familiar manner where the cherubs are side-by-side forming the two sides of the throne and their wings are to their side creating the seat. Why deviate from that? Solomon didn't. It is our reading/interpreting of the verse that leads to this odd image and awkward throne.

It makes for a more realistic throne similar to the manner described in Solomon's temple, two small cherubs on opposite sides of the lid in parallel with each other, wings up and out to the side thus covering the lid and looking like the throne of God. Their face turned towards each other and inclined downward towards the lid (as per the end of the verse-perhaps it is a gesture of bowing before the king) [I think that possibly their eyes looked at each other while the heads were turned towards each other and inclined downward]. There is no indication that the cherubs in Solomon's temple turned in any way. I have no explanation for that but Sedra Shorts has a nice dvar torah about why one set faces each other and the other looks staight ahead.

I can't know for a fact whether my approach is correct and certainly later sources may be unduly influenced against it. I don't know that we can ever know but there certainly is room within the interpretation of the verse and in light of the archaeological representations to at least seriously consider this possibility. As far as I know this is a novel interpretation that I thank Moshe Abelesz for inspiring this within me by his interesting post. I hope this offers an interesting way to imagine the iconography of the mishkan's ark. Although I later found this image to the left on google, someone else must've thought of it too.

Some afterthoughts: The way Artscroll depicts the cherubim on the ark reminds me a lot of the birckat cohanim (priestly manner of blessing the congregation).

NJG thought it made a great handle to lift the lid. Probably the original inspiration for the Swiss army knife; not only is it a throne but it can lift the cover right off the Ark with just one hand!

Part 2

---