I'm still trying to finish the book. I'm still impressed wtih the writing, and Dinah does seem real. I liked that her fantasy of Rebecca immediately making her the favorite didn't pan out, which is what a young girl would do (the fantasy).

What's getting in the way of my really enjoying the book is the sense I'm havng that this is supposed to be an "important" book, telling the tale of how the women's gods are being subjugated by patriarchal monotheism. Yes, Laban worshiped them sincerely, but the emphasis I'm seeing is that this is primarily women's spirituality, and that is under attack.

The rituals are interesting. I'm curious as to waht Diamant is using as the source material for the worship of Inanna. I'm familiar wtih the various rituals around a girl's first period, but the bit with the frog idol was unfamiliar.

I wasn't familiar with Dinah's story in scripture, but I'm glad I know the story. Otherwise, I admit, I'd have given up on the story before now, because I'm still waiting for something to really happen. Yes, there have been lots of events, but they're fairly standard events given the milieu. I still have no sense that Dinah is somehow remarkable, that she has a tale that, out of all the others around her, is worth telling or that her insights are more penetrating than others. I'm finding the intereaction between Leah and Rachel much more interesting, two women who both have the sincere love of their husband but in such different ways.

---

Nowadays, in Judaism, more attention is paid to descendents of the tribe of Levi than any other tribe.

Because of the priesthood? Am I mixing this up, or is the surname Cohen/Kohan (today) an indication of someone's Levite heritage? Also, Wolfram--I have generally skipped over a lot of the geneologies when reading, are the descendants of the 12 tribes kept track of throughout the Hebrew canon?

What's getting in the way of my really enjoying the book is the sense I'm havng that this is supposed to be an "important" book, telling the tale of how the women's gods are being subjugated by patriarchal monotheism. Yes, Laban worshiped them sincerely, but the emphasis I'm seeing is that this is primarily women's spirituality, and that is under attack.

I never thought of it as an important book, just a beautiful one, but I live under a rock, where a lot of issues are concerned.

---

I think it's starting to get the baggage of being an "important" book, because it's very accessible, unlike the Bible, which isn't really that much fun to read. I'm betting that in a year or so, we'll see The Red Tent on a lot of high school and college reading lists, with The Color Purple and House of the Spirits and books like that.

I myself would classify it as a "worthwhile" book, rather than an "important" book, which is almost more rare these days.

And that the women were busy doing their own thing completely separately from the men

This point is what made Rachel's smuggling of the household gods that much more believable to me. The red tent is a woman's place (and it's easy to see how the red tent could become Rachel's skirts) so Laban won't even consider going in there.

Welcome Mark! I'm glad you brought up Mists of Avalon, because I was going to try to explain myself better about the "vilification of men" issue, and that book certainly applies. When I first read it, I didn't even see the way the male characters were treated...it wasn't until years later, when my husband read something I was reading and commented on how he hated reading books that made all men out to be evil, with no other plot or character reason for so doing, that I started paying attention to the perniciousness of that habit. Then I started connecting the dots in another way, and realized that every book my step-mother has given to me or recommended to me (starting with Mists, continuing through White Oleander) has shared the aspect of "all men are evil." She gave me The Red Tent, so I was suspicious of it from the get-go.

And there's a lot in it to support that claim, I know, but after somber reflection I don't think all the male characters were conceived as evil and lacking in any other character. You're right, Laban is Biblically consistent. Jacob's pretty much Jacob, with this wacky family heritage. Both Dinah's husbands are good people, as far as we know, and if her son is distant, there's a good reason for that (and distant is not evil). In fact, the women are capable of as many hurtful acts as the men, in most scenes.

The massacre rang fairly true for me as well in not being retaliation for a rape (as I agree with Cindy - the modern understanding of that wouldn't have applied) but in being a barbaric violent action against those who live and believe differently, and who are seen as being better off. THAT certainly has modern resonance.

---

Because of the priesthood? Am I mixing this up, or is the surname Cohen/Kohan (today) an indication of someone's Levite heritage?

The Kohenim are the descendents of Aaron. They are a subset of Levites.

Levites (as a tribe) got no portion of land in Israel because of the Schechemite massacre, but they were also the only tribe to not succumb to the golden calf idolatry. That earned them some sort of reward, but now my brain has totally blanked on the specifics. Could be just the general priesthood thing.

But all that is well after The Red Tent.

---

That earned them some sort of reward

"Tribe of the Month" parking space?

---

And a nice plaque.

---

Because of the priesthood? Am I mixing this up, or is the surname Cohen/Kohan (today) an indication of someone's Levite heritage? Also, Wolfram--I have generally skipped over a lot of the geneologies when reading, are the descendants of the 12 tribes kept track of throughout the Hebrew canon?

What -t- said about Kohains and Levites. Although I'm not sure that they lost their portion due to the massacre since the tribe of Simon did get a portion. Nowadays a Kohain and Levite get most of their distinction during the reading of Torah, where they receive the first two blessings respectively. Kohains also have other duties and privileges like blessing the congregation on holidays from the podium, and officiating at "Redemption of the Son" ceremonies.

The surname Cohen indicates someone is from a Kohain family, but is not necessarily the case (I know two Cohens who aren't.) The same with the surname Katz which is a spoken acronym of the hebrew term Kohain Tzedek (righteous priest.) And similarly the surname Levy is an indication of Levite status.

WRT the status of the 12 tribes and lineage: first of all, there are actually 13 tribes since Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Menashe, each received a separate portion of land in Israel, and the Levites are often not referred to as a tribe. At some point, I think after the destruction of the second Temple, 10 tribes were "lost." I'm not sure what that means, except that nowadays everyone is descended from either Judah or Benjamin (not counting the Levites.) There had been some speculation about an actual tribe of Jews found in Ethiopia about 25 years ago who had been cut off from the rest of the world for over 1000 years possibly being one of the lost tribes, but I don't know whether that was ever resolved.

---

Although I'm not sure that they lost their portion due to the massacre since the tribe of Simon did get a portion.

Good point. I'm recalling DH's interpretation of someone's commentary, so, accuracy not guaranteed.

There had been some speculation about an actual tribe of Jews found in Ethiopia about 25 years ago who had been cut off from the rest of the world for over 1000 years possibly being one of the lost tribes, but I don't know whether that was ever resolved.

They are officially recognized as Jews (whatever that means) but I don't know about the lost tribe angle. I read a review of something ( Aross the [Something] River I wanna say) that mentions some people living on the Indian subcontinent that go out of their way to make bread (they usually eat rice and not bread) every Spring so they can eat unleavened bread, also specualated to be a Lost tribe, but I just read the review and not the book so I don't really know.

Anyway, to be a little more on-topic, from what I understand, which, as noted above, may not be that correct, the traditional explanation for Rachel smuggling the idols away from Laban is that she was saving him from his idolatry. I think Diamant's version (with the women's religion not really being Jacob's religion, as such) is a bigger change from "canon" than the "rape".

Surely that could be clearer. Need more coffee.

---

There had been some speculation about an actual tribe of Jews found in Ethiopia about 25 years ago who had been cut off from the rest of the world for over 1000 years possibly being one of the lost tribes, but I don't know whether that was ever resolved.

I know they have done Y chromosome analysis on Africans (I can't specifically remember if they were in Ethiopia or not), where they had the the same specific markers modern day Kohaines do (but not other modern day Jewish people). So, they wouldn't be lost tribes, per se. Years ago, I remember hearing some theory some [Celts or Brits, I disremember] are a lost tribe. When Werenro was introduced in The Red Tent, it brought it to mind.

---

WRT the Levites not having an inheritance among the tribes of Israel, and without going so far as to pick up the Bible and actually check facts, the story as I remember it is almost as lovely as the massacre at Schechem. During the Israelite's sojourn in the wilderness, Balaam of Peor (he of the ass) had the bright idea of tempting the Israelites away from the Almighty with Moabite women. When this idea began to work, the tribes assembled to address the issue. While they were talking, a few Israelites came into the encampment with Moabites on their arm, and a handful of Levites, zealous for the Lord, slew them where they stood. Because of this, God's anger was appeased and he accepted the tribe of Levi as substitutes for all the firstborn sons (human or animal) that were his due. The Levites were to be his portion, to serve him in perpetuity, and he was to be their portion, in lieu of the acreage all the other tribes received.

---