OK, we’ll let up with all the Hogwarts Houses and Biblical characters, but one last one for now. Women of the “Nakh” part of “Tanakh,” so, post-Torah, Hebrew scripture. Let’s do this:

Michal is, first of all, the best character of any gender in the entire Bible. That’s a post for another day, but suffice to say that she persists through many personal tragedies with a strong sense of self and defiant spirit. Gryffindor or Slytherin is a tough call here, but perhaps the most telling anecdote is when she helps David escape Saul. She first convinces her husband to leave, and then lies to her father that David threatened her into abetting him. She does what she can to protect the man her love, but takes the calculated risk of inflaming her her father’s anger at him to save herself as well.

Michal is a Slytherin, and Slytherins are awesome.

Ruth is tireless. “Loyal,” “true,” “Unafraid of toil,” are quotes that come straight from the Sorting Hat, and describe this woman to a T. The first time we meet her, she sacrifices her own comfort for love of Naomi, and she stays with her mother-in-law the rest of her story, never complaining, constantly working towards a better life. She’s a perfect Hufflepuff, proving once again that it’s a house much maligned.

Naomi isn’t quite the ray of sunshine that her daughter-in-law is. She’s a woman to which life has been cruel, and she’s not above despairing. But when we moves forward, it’s with a balanced canny in encouraging Ruth’s next actions that suggest a Ravenclaw. But I can still be convinced otherwise on this one.

Esther, like Morechai, is a tough one, in her case because she often seems to be passive rather than active, or acting based on someone else’s desires. But the number one thing to know about Esther is that people really, really like her. The Megillah makes it explicit. And it’s not fair to call her doing what Mordechai says as weak; she protests, she shares her anxieties over his risky plans, but she goes on ahead in good faith. It’s her trust in her loved ones, but not a blind trust, that makes her a Hufflepuff.

So no Gryffindor women today, but remember, there were a whole slew in the Torah! But if any of these are wrong, feel free to reach out on Twitter and virtually yell about Harry Potter. That’s always a good time.

Image of Ruth and Naomi from the Walters Art Museum via Flickr.

The post Sorting Biblical Characters Part 4: Women Beyond the Torah appeared first on Jewcy.

Remember when we at Jewcy sorted Torah characters into their proper Hogwarts houses? Boy, wasn’t that fun!

Well, you know, since then, there’s been a new movie in the Harry Potter franchise (almost Jewish, not quite), and we’ve also been asked, “Where were the likes of Ruth and Esther in those articles?”

Well, that was about the Torah. Those ladies feature in the other parts of the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible . So, what the heck, let’s sort them, too. Biblical dudes today (mostly from Samuel I and II, because that’s where a lot of the men people are), women tomorrow.

Samson is a jerk who muscles his way through life without finesse. The worst kind of Gryffindor.

Samuel is a prophet, and as a spokesman for the Almighty, it can be hard parsing out what’s him and what’s the job. But he took to his job with vigor, and never showed signs of weakness or doubt. He was also full of sass, even in the face of kings, even when he was literally dead and summoned as a ghost to give advice. He stuck to his guns in the most Gryffindor of ways.

King Saul is a Gryffindor in an almost tragic way. Even when his demons (possibly mental illness, through some modern lenses), make his rage-filled or violent, perhaps paranoid, he’s still noble from start to finish. He seems angry or frustrated when those around him don’t seem sufficiently loyal, but even when he fears he is alone, he goes ahead with his duty. He’s a king of the battlefield, never really cut out for courtly intrigue. A fascinating, flawed Gryffindor.

King David is a Gryffindor in a very different way. Sure, he could be sly when he needed to, but he was generally pretty direct in getting what he wanted. Woe betide the man who stood in his way, but his good attributes, like his nobility and dedication to his cause (which was not purely selfish, but also Godly, according to the Biblical perspective), are also Gryff traits.

King Solomon is such a Ravenclaw that there is no point going into any more detail about it. Who else would propose the “cutting-a-baby-in-half” thing?

Mordechai is tricky! He refuses to bow to Haman. He reports an assassination attempt on the king. He walks a fine line between encouraging and manipulating his kinswoman to save his people. To what do these actions add up? It’s a bit of a hat-stall, but we’re going to go with Slytherin. He begins as an oppressed minority and somehow ends up with his enemies all dead and him as the right hand of the king. He had to have had some serious ambition.

Next up: Post-Torah Biblical ladies. Get ready for some feelings.

Image by Guercino via Wikimedia.

The post Sorting Biblical Characters Part 3: Beyond the Torah appeared first on Jewcy.

After our wildly successful attempt to sort men from the Torah into Hogwarts Houses, it’s time to move on to the ladies.

Women in the Bible can be tricky; they tend to be underdeveloped or have their agency downplayed. But without leaning on Midrash, let’s see what we can do:

Eve is the first woman in the world (unless you count Lilith), and also the first Ravenclaw. The very first thing we see her do is eat from the tree of knowledge despite being forbidden. Her temptation to do so? Curiosity, pure and simple— the snake tells her she can learn good form evil. And the fact that she went on to immediately share the fruit with her husband doesn’t show corruption or slyness, but that she was a huge nerd who likes sharing what she knows.

Sarah is a complicated woman of her day— devoted to her patriarch, in desperate need of producing a male heir to secure her own legacy. It’s hard to extricate her own decisions from being her husband’s sidekick. But here are a couple of interesting incidents:

• She insists that her husband take her servant as a concubine so he can have children.
• She regrets her decision and demands that Hagar be cast out.

Sarah is a survivalist, and she does what she has to, be it acquiesce to pretending her husband is her brother, to denying that she laughed at the prospect of her bearing a son in her old age. For better or worse, she’s a Slytherin.

Rebecca can seem a mess of contradictions; her two most famous stories are of her showing care for man and beast alike at a well, and helping her favorite son trick her husband. But all along the way, she’s also surprisingly outspoken. There’s the moment that she volunteers to leave her home to an arranged marriage early, and her insistence to her husband to send Jacob away to marry into her family.

But every thing she utters has an agenda, so is she a Slytherin or a Gryffindor?

It’s a hatstall, but her declaration that any curse placed on Jacob would fall on her instead nudges her into Gryffindor territory. There’s a cunning to her actions, but a boldness, too.

Rachel is more like her Slytherin husband than she gets credit for. From outwitting her father to steal his idols to cutting deals with her sister using their husband as a bargaining chip, she’s nobody’s fool. She’s a Slytherin, too.

Leah is the Gryffindor to her sister Rachel’s Slytherin. While they have a lot in common (including father and spouse), Leah tends to be direct. When Rachel promises Leah the night with Jacob, Leah straight up goes to her husband and lays it on the line.

Almost every time she names a baby, it’s references to the fact that will her husband actually like her now, please?! She’s in some ways an underdog, but doesn’t act like it, and isn’t afraid of making it clear what she wants.

Miriam appears fewer times in the Torah than perhaps you remember. Nonetheless, here’s what we have to work with:

• As a child she watched her baby brother in Nile and arranged for their mother to become his nursemaid.
• She was a prophetess who led the women in song and celebration during the Exodus.
• She spoke ill of her brother’s choice of wife, and lamented his superior position of power and Aaron, and was punished with leprosy.

A common link here is speaking out at risk of her own safety (in the first example, imagine a slave girl approaching a princess unprompted). She’s ambitious, sure, but more than that, a straight-shooter, looks danger in its face, and a vocal leader of her people. Like her youngest brother, she’s a Gryffindor.

Once again, if you want to kvetch about our decisions, you can do so in the comments or on Twitter. And let us know if you think we should go on with characters from the other parts of the Bible! Because we probably will anyway.

(Update: We did. Ladies. Dudes.)

Images via Wikimedia, Pottermore, and Warner Bros. Studio.

The post Sorting Biblical Characters in Hogwarts Houses (Part 2: The Ladies) appeared first on Jewcy.

Myers-Briggs is too broad. Astrology is bunk. The only valid way of discretely sorting all people is into the houses of Harry Potter’s alma mater: Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, or Slytherin. And who hasn’t tried to sort not only all of their real-life acquaintances, but also fictional and/or literary characters outside of the Harry Potter franchise? So, why not folks from Jewish religious lore?

Here are some Biblical male characters, and you can read Part 2 about the women here. To keep us from going totally overboard, we’ll limit it to the Torah for now, and get to the rest of the Bible another time. (Update: Another time has occurred. Men. Women.)

Here we go:

Noah had to organize his family to spend ages working on a structure to God’s exact specifications, and to gather two of each animal. He had to stay laser-focused as the world around raced towards destruction. He had to employ lots of Ravenclaw skills there.

Abraham is a bit more complicated, even if you ignore Midrash and go strictly with stories that appear in the Torah. Here you have a man who can at times be cautious, or not protect those he loves (like when he pretends Sarah’s not his wife, or almost sacrifices his son). But, ultimately, Abraham is a man of clear vision and purpose, who sticks it through tough times because of a balance of a strong sense of self and, ultimately, a strong moral compass.

It’s a tough call, and maybe you can make an argument for Slytherin, but 1) Abraham’s argument with God on behalf of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and 2) His bold actions led purely by blind faith make him a Gryffindor.

Isaac is the patriarch who seems the least proactive, but that’s not why he’s a Hufflepuff. He’s a simple man whose main concern is his family (playing favorites notwithstanding). He’s kind, trusting, dedicated to his father’s legacy and, well, nice. Which is more than you can say about a lot of men in the Bible.

Jacob is such a Slytherin. We could sit here coming up with examples all day: Getting Esau’s birthright, his personal and professional dealings with Laban, how even his bold move of wrestling with an angel ends with him using his upper-hand as negotiating leverage. For good or for bad, there’s only one house for him.

Joseph always managed to rise to the top based on his own wits and the relationships to powerful men around him, from his father to the Pharaoh. Sometimes this meant alienating those around him and getting into trouble, but he always got out again. The kid’s obviously a Slytherin.

Moses is the big one! It’s tempting to just stick him into Gryffindor because he radiates “protagonist,” and he does belong there, but it’s more complex than that. He goes through a lot (down to fear of public speaking) to gain the courage to become the leader he was destined to be. But he also shows early signs of boldness and, frankly, disregarding of consequences due to his passion for justice. Killing the Egyptian taskmaster, even though it eventually means exile? Such a Gryffindor thing to do.

Even once he was leader of the people, Moses often lost his temper, and was shockingly outspoken to both the masses and God despite his position also being highly political. Between his occasional lapses in judgment based on his temper coupled with a strong sense of right-and-wrong and his overcoming his fears Neville-Longbottom-style, yes. Moshe Rabbeinu is a Gryff.

Aaron was also a leader of the people, but not as brash as his brother. As the High Priest, he was focused on ritual, on organization, on logistics. Aaron had to be a stickler for detail (failure in this regard cost two of his sons their lives).

No doubt about it; the man’s a Ravenclaw.

Joshua is also pretty clear cut. Even before he was Moses’s successor, Joshua makes a name for himself in the Torah by being the vocal minority among the spies. He had some of the same qualities as Moses, most importantly, a strong sense of right and wrong.

Plus, it’s post-Torah, but tearing down walls? Quintessential Gryffindor.

Think that we’re wrong about any of these? WANT TO HAVE A FIGHT? Tweet us your own arguments.

Stay tuned tomorrow for the Biblical ladies!

Source Images for this SPECTACULAR Photoshop job via Vimeo, Pottermore, and EBay

The post Sorting Biblical Characters in Hogwarts Houses (Part 1) appeared first on Jewcy.

Upon hearing the biblical casting news out of Hollywood this summer that Russell Crowe was cast as the title character in Darren Aronofsky’s epic film Noah, I immediately thought that Crowe was a great choice. His skill set and experience—both in B.C. and A.D.—qualify him to build the ark on the big screen. However, after seeing a picture of Crowe in character, I started to question whether he was the right choice visually.

I’m skeptical because Aronofsky’s vision of Noah doesn’t really match with my vision of Noah, shaped over years of hearing and reading the story of the biblical ark builder. The first images of Crowe in character reveal a middle-aged Noah: a man of thick stock who’s a bit muscular and rugged, with a beard that’s not quite biblical length. (I define biblical length as a very long beard. I know that’s vague, but it makes sense to me.) My vision of Noah is a much older man, lean with a long white flowing beard, dressed in a white tunic or a cloak-like outfit (I think it may have been more of a brown color when I was younger.)

In Aronofsky’s defense, it’s possible that as the film progresses, Crowe ages and develops into the Noah I’ve always imagined. Another possibility is that my vision is just that: my own conception of a biblical figure. Better yet, maybe Aronofsky’s characterization will ultimately change how I picture Noah. But for now, something just seems off.

If Aronofsky and I have such a major difference in our visions of Noah, what does it say about the personalization of Biblical figures on a wider scale? What roles do our Jewish upbringings and imaginations, as well as outside forces, have in developing and influencing these images? My biblical visuals are rooted in a combination of Hebrew School lessons, d’var Torah passages, and good old-fashioned daydreaming. I remember being a kid listening to the stories told from the bimah and the front of the Hebrew School classroom. As the details of the story were read aloud, I would begin to visualize everything: I would picture the people, in varying degrees of detail, and the settings.

I distinctly remember envisioning Abraham when I was younger. I remember picturing him breaking his father’s idols as a skinny, average-height boy. Older Abraham has the ultimate biblical beard, though I’m not sure whether it’s salt-and-peppered or completely white. I think I usually give him a white beard, but I can’t remember for sure. He wears long tribal garb, and as of press time I still can’t picture his face. He’s more of a figure seen from behind or the side.

When it comes to Moses, there’s no need for imagination. Hollywood gave me Moses in the form of Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments. There is no other Moses. When I hear the name Moses, I see Heston. His face, beard, build, garb, even his voice are as they should be. But are they as they should be because I have fully accepted and internalized director Cecil B. DeMille’s image of Moses? Or is there a chance that his vision supports a preexisting notion of Moses in my head? It’s so ingrained in my consciousness at this point that I can’t know for sure.

Since Hollywood has clearly had a profound impact on my conception of Moses, I wonder if Aronofsky’s blockbuster will have a similar effect with Noah. Will this Hollywood depiction reinforce aspects of my Noah or completely replace him? Moses was offered to me when I was young–DeMille’s film, released in 1956, had already become a classic by the time I was born—but I’ve had twenty-plus years of picturing some form of a Noah without any big screen influence. If anything, Hollywood only confirmed that vision with Steve Carrell’s Noah-esque character in 2007’s less-than-stellar Evan Almighty.

I’ll have to wait until Noah is released in 2014 to see if Aronofsky can replace my vision of this particular biblical figure. Perhaps when I see Crowe, staff in hand, leading the animals two by two into the ark, everything will change. There’s a chance that Crowe could even become my Noah. But I’m pretty sure that Crowe won’t ever be my Noah the way Heston is my Moses.

The post Can Russell Crowe do for Noah what Charlton Heston did for Moses? appeared first on Jewcy.