Alef = I-Bateleur or = Fou ?

Rosanne

I have been painting my Magician for the 78 weeks study, and I have some thoughts about this. Firstly I should state I am an Abecedarium-ist. I think you have the proto sinetic alphabet taken by the Hebrews (and why not- I say)and by the Greeks. From thence on to the World that uses this alphabet. Originally I think it was an Almanac and rhebus of sorts in its simplicity- reducing the many symbols of pictograms and cuneform down from hundreds of symbols to 22 phonics. When Taurus was rising it was the start of the year in that part of the world and out you went and plowed up your field with the powerful help of an ox. So the alphabet starting with the ox made sense.But there is another connection to ancient myth-the circling dragon(oroborus/and also the procession) in the sky was depited star by star starting-I believe with Aldebaran in Taurus and on to Betelgeuse in Orion but thought by the ancients to be the House of the Twins(Gemini). It was then the Hebrew alphabet and trotted of to Europe with all its correspondences- Alchemical and Astrological and became the triumphant parade of energies that were associated in Alchemy and Astrology and a whole mixed bag of Christian and Hebrew thought and pagan belief and the way we humans are and have always been- searchers for meaning to our existence; and looking for a system that explains it, and a method of practice-and so -Tarot, so we are back at the Ox Aleph/alp/alef with collective memory remembering to start the year plowing your fields. Thats how I see it anyway :* ~Rosanne
 

prudence

Umbrae said:
Cardinals>card> do have a linguistic connection. And indeed to Tarot.

In the Middle Ages, there was a form of sport called nowadays, “Tweelsey Whopping”. Young boys played it (eventually with pillows) on what we in North America call ‘teeter-totters’, a board balanced on a fulcrum. However originally this was played by grown men (often the town ‘idiots’) armed with freshly smoked hams.

People would gather and watch in amusement as these grown men sat upon a balanced board, and would strike each other with large hams. Such was known in the colloquial sense as, “To ham a ham” and later gave us such terms as, “He’s such a ham.”

The church took a cut in the gambling’s and decreed that Cardinals should be present to referee the matches (and supervise ‘their take’). Soon the Cardinal Referees found it advantageous to ‘get in the way’ and be struck by one or more hams (accidentally) and wander about ‘stunned or dazed’. This was referred to as “hamming it up,” or as the local herald would cry, “He’s such a Card...”

Now how does this relate to Tarot and proper placement of the Fool?

Simple. What’s he got in the bag. A nicely smoked ham. And he falls between Resh and Tau. He struck the head and has thence won (made his mark).

Wha…? Oh…sorry…

Hmm, I may start a new tarot journal for Semi-Plausible Tarot Mythology for the Moderately Gullible (I confess to being a member of this group). This is going in, right next to the fangs on the Judgement Angel (thanks again, Teheuty ;))
 

Umbrae

I’d like to thank you Filipas for a brilliant and comprehensive post.

I do have one question. In certain cases you’ve stated that a letter does not mean, and then provided a commonly accepted word. Examples would be: HA deos not mean ‘window’, LMD does not mean ‘ox goad’ etc..

Are these modern attributions, that is attributions not used in the fourteenth century? Or are you stating that never ever in the Jewish linguistic traditions have they ever held such meanings, that they are ascribed to Gentiles who think they are Hebrew scholars?

Loved the post. Backed up my long held thoughts.

I’ve always held that early Tarot majors were not numbered. When they began to be numbered, the Fool was not numbered, as Death was not named. This implies three sequences. One of the collective 22 cards. One of the numbered cards. And one of the named cards.

Numbering the Fool as 0, as confused modern ‘scholars’ with its placement – as they fail to comprehend that the 0 is a modern addition, and thus obfuscates.
 

filipas

Hi Umbrae, Thank you, glad the post was helpful.

Umbrae said:
I do have one question. In certain cases you’ve stated that a letter does not mean, and then provided a commonly accepted word. Examples would be: HA deos not mean ‘window’, LMD does not mean ‘ox goad’ etc..

Are these modern attributions, that is attributions not used in the fourteenth century? Or are you stating that never ever in the Jewish linguistic traditions have they ever held such meanings, that they are ascribed to Gentiles who think they are Hebrew scholars?

Essentially your second statement is correct: the literal meaning of the Hebrew letter names never included those you are referring to, neither at the time of the early Tarot nor today. The misconception that they were is due to errors by early linguists (Court de Gebelin being one of these!) and to these errors being passed down in the writings of so many occultists through the last 200 years or so.

On the other hand, distinction must be made between *literal meaning of the letter names* and *esoteric attributions of the Hebrew letters* since, in some cases, concepts such as 'snake' and 'oxgoad' can indeed be found associated with their respective letters. Jewish works make clear, though, that these are part of the myriad conceptual associations of the letters and not actual letter-name meanings.

- Mark
 

Rosanne

I went to the site for filipas's Book-which until today I have not seen. The site says to go to Tarot.com to purchase the book and the link does not work. I would love to purchase the book- does anyone know how? ~Rosanne
 

MikeTheAltarboy

Believe it or not, gentiles *can* be hebrew scholars. Linguistics isn't blood related. ;-)

My understanding is that the attributed meanings of the hebrew letter names are not necessarily found *because the names are hebrew words*, but rather they are the natural evolution of words that meant those things in times past. It's not just occult sources and gebelin that give those meanings, but many sources on the phoenician and proto-sinatic alphabets, as well.
It would not be at all suprising that a word that once meant "ox-goad" simply fell out of use by the time we recognize hebrew, or that it should change meaning.
 

kwaw

Umbrae said:
I’d like to thank you Filipas for a brilliant and comprehensive post.

I do have one question. In certain cases you’ve stated that a letter does not mean, and then provided a commonly accepted word. Examples would be: HA deos not mean ‘window’, LMD does not mean ‘ox goad’ etc..

Are these modern attributions, that is attributions not used in the fourteenth century? Or are you stating that never ever in the Jewish linguistic traditions have they ever held such meanings, that they are ascribed to Gentiles who think they are Hebrew scholars?

Marks work is based on the lexicon, therefore he is looking at the names of the letters and their meanings as can be found in a dictionary. The meanings of the letters that have become associated with them in kabbalah however are not based on literal meanings of their names alone.

There is the meaning associated with the ideogram [the form or shape of the letter representing an idea or concept] itself, and in kabbalistic literature the ideogram Lamed [LMD] is associated with 'ox goad', also in this case the name is the root of the word for ox-goad, mLMD. Rabbi Ray commenting on the enlarged lamed in the phrase 'vayashlichem' [Deut 29:27 ‘and he cast them into another land’] in "Masechet Sofrim" [a Talmud tract] says that : "lamed in Egyptian hieroglyphics is the symbol for an ox-goad. Thus this is a very relevant image when God is driving Israel out and perhaps the form reverts to its original usage in ancient Egyptian." LMD is the root for the word "Ox goad" in Hebrew [MLMD which also has the meaning of "Teacher"] which can be verified in the Hebrew Lexicon at www.onlinebible.com [ref: 03925; TWOT 1116b]. It is also the root of LIMD - disciple. So lamed refers to both learning and teaching, as does the letter Aleph which is also related to the Ox. The idea of teacher/student in Aleph [Ox] is that a young untrained Ox would be yoked to an older experienced Ox in order to train it. In [M]Lamed Ox Goad it is of the teacher who spurs on and directs the student [who submits to his authority and discipline]. Mark uses roots elsewhere, I don't know why he finds this one unacceptable.

Aryeh Kaplan also gives 'fish-hook' for TzDI [Tzadi] and 'snake' for Teth. These meanings are based not on the name of the letter [at least not in Hebrew], but on their shape as a form of ideogram. The form of the letter Tzadi itself is said to represent a hook and TzDI is the root for 'hunters of fish' TzYDVN from root TzD [hunt] with Nun [fish] suffixed. It is also connected to fish/Nun in that the form of the letter is said to be composed of a letter Nun/fish and letter Yud/hand [for example see Sefer Bahir 61;Zohar 1:2b].

The meaning of Teth as snake is also based upon the shape of the letter as an ideogram: "The tet (TYTh) is the basic consonant letter in the words MTH ("staff"), HTYH ("inclination"), MTH ("below"), and MTH ("bed"). The symbol of the staff is related to that of the snake, as in the story of the Divine sign which Moses performed before Pharoah of the staff becoming a snake. According to kabbalah, the tet resembles a snake coiled head into tail." Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburg's "The Alef-Beit"

Also some meanings have become associated with letters as commonly used metaphors in kabbalistic allegories. As an example of the latter for example is the connection between the letter HH and 'window', a metaphorical connection that goes back to at least the Bahir, and may have suggested itself through the shape of the letter as an ideogram. Marks examples can be found in Jewish kabbalistic literature, but as the meaning is not based on the literal name but derive from the processes of kabbalistic exegesis or possibly the original meaning of the non-hebrew name for the letter and its hieroglyph such meanings won't be found in a hebrew dictionary.

Aryeh Kaplan lists these meanings in his table of hebrew letter meanings in his Sefer Yetzira, and I don't think he comes under the description of a 'Gentile' with pretensions to a knowledge of Hebrew. Mark is correct to say that these meanings do not derive from the names of these letters [at least not in Hebrew] and to correct any misunderstanding that this is so; however to imply that these meanings are down to the errors of hermetic or christian cabbalists or 18th and 19th linguists is to perpetuate an error himself.

It might also be suggested that looking for the meaning of the names of the hebrew alphabet in a hebrew dictionary is somewhat flawed anyway, as the names did not originate in Hebrew. The names belong to a close enough semitic family that share the same words in the majority of cases with the same or similar meaning, but some, like Teth, have no meaning in Hebrew. Interesting then that kabbalistic texts have retained the meaning of the names of the letters [for example that the name lamed and its pictogram or hieroglyph means ox-goad, and according to kabbalistic texts the name teth and its pictogram means serpent] even in the case where Hebrew shared no such word [though as said above lamed is the root of the hebrew word for ox-goad]. How much is genuine retention of meaning and how much mere speculation of the kabbalists I don't know. In Greek of course, in which language the names of the letters had no meaning whatsoever, the names divorced from meaning went through changes such as aleph to alpha, beit to beta; so I suppose it is better to look in a hebrew dictionary than a greek;)

Kwaw
 

kwaw

Umbrae said:
Numbering the Fool as 0, as confused modern ‘scholars’ with its placement – as they fail to comprehend that the 0 is a modern addition, and thus obfuscates.

I don't how modern you consider modern to be; but it can be found pre-gebelin[1781], for example in the 1750 Schaer TdM. Now 21 or 22 I would consider modern [post gebelin], though possibly you can come up with some examples to prove me wrong? What are the earliest examples of a numbered 'fool' card?

Kwaw
 

mythos

Umbrae said:
Loved the post. Backed up my long held thoughts.

I’ve always held that early Tarot majors were not numbered. When they began to be numbered, the Fool was not numbered, as Death was not named. This implies three sequences. One of the collective 22 cards. One of the numbered cards. And one of the named cards.

Numbering the Fool as 0, as confused modern ‘scholars’ with its placement – as they fail to comprehend that the 0 is a modern addition, and thus obfuscates.

Haven't read Mark's post yet but will. Interesting that this issue of unnumbered cards has now, in the last 24 hours, come up 3 times. I decided yesterday that my Majors will remain unnumbered. It resolved the issue which has been niggling for quite sometime now. As yet, I have insufficient 'knowledge' to support this decision, it is a purely intuitive one. Not that that is, in and of itself, a problem, but I do like to be able to support with research as well. When all else fails ... and none is to be found, or everything I read disagrees, but intuitively (as opposed to stubbornly - who me?) I still find myself convinced of my decision, I will take it and walk with it - with trepidation admittedly, because I loathe conflict ... but nonethless, it is a matter of being true to myself.

Thus, for me, the issue of 'alef' as bateleur or fou becomes moot.

mythos:)
 

mythos

Umbrae said:
Cardinals>card> do have a linguistic connection. And indeed to Tarot.

In the Middle Ages, there was a form of sport called nowadays, “Tweelsey Whopping”. Young boys played it (eventually with pillows) on what we in North America call ‘teeter-totters’, a board balanced on a fulcrum. However originally this was played by grown men (often the town ‘idiots’) armed with freshly smoked hams.

People would gather and watch in amusement as these grown men sat upon a balanced board, and would strike each other with large hams. Such was known in the colloquial sense as, “To ham a ham” and later gave us such terms as, “He’s such a ham.”

The church took a cut in the gambling’s and decreed that Cardinals should be present to referee the matches (and supervise ‘their take’). Soon the Cardinal Referees found it advantageous to ‘get in the way’ and be struck by one or more hams (accidentally) and wander about ‘stunned or dazed’. This was referred to as “hamming it up,” or as the local herald would cry, “He’s such a Card...”

Now how does this relate to Tarot and proper placement of the Fool?

Simple. What’s he got in the bag. A nicely smoked ham. And he falls between Resh and Tau. He struck the head and has thence won (made his mark).

Wha…? Oh…sorry…

Heheheheh ... ya got me! :royal: Love it!

mythos:)