Sacred Texts and Jewish Humanoids

Uses of Sacred Texts and Textures When Creating a Golem or Other Artificial Creatures

Authors

  • Marianne Schleicher Aarhus University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/post.32031

Keywords:

golem, humanoid, Ashkenazic Hasidism, anthropogony, bSanhedrin 65b, sacred texture

Abstract

This article focuses on the human creation of artificial creatures, especially the golem, as a religious phenomenon in early and medieval rabbinic Judaism. Motivated by the scarcity of scholarly reflections on sacred text use as part of golem-related practices, it inquires into the effects of this entanglement on religious identities. A processual, new materialistic understanding of all phenomena and the author’s distinction between hermeneutical and artefactual uses of sacred texts and between sacred texts and sacred textures constitute the article’s theoretical apparatus. The analysis opens by looking at the first usages of the word “golem” in Psalm 139, the Mishnah, and a few early midrashim, connoting matter about to be formed by God and Torah while claiming at the same time insights into divine creation. From here, it turns to two texts associated with the mystical bereshit-tradition: the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 65b that contains the first description of the human making of an artificial being, and Sefer Yetsirah, a book that also claims insights into divine cosmogonic and anthropogenic processes. In the medieval material, primarily from the context of Ashkenazic piety, the analysis sorts the information on golem-making after a three-year study of Sefer Yetsirah into the tripartite structure of a rite of passage to illustrate the ritual’s transformative effect on the golem-makers’ religious status. The analysis concludes that especially fragmentary renderings of sacred textures are seminal in the golem-makers’ ritual. Had one limited the understanding of sacred text use to a matter of hermeneutics, that is, interpretation proper, one would have overlooked the central sacred text practices that render this anthropogenic ritual an expression of imitatio dei and piety.

Author Biography

  • Marianne Schleicher, Aarhus University

    Marianne Schleicher is Associate Professor of Jewish Studies at Aarhus University, Denmark where she works on individual and collective uses of sacred texts, its materiality and intra-action with bodies, gender, and sexuality in both mainstream and mystical traditions. Her publications include Intertextuality in the Tales of Rabbi Nahman of Bratslav (Brill 2007), “Engaging All the Senses: On Multi-sensory Stimulation in the Process of Making and Inaugurating a Torah Scroll” (2017), “Entanglements of Jewish Piety and Economics in Medieval Ashkenaz” (2025), and the edited volume Gender and Sacred Textures – Entanglements of Materiality, Embodiment, and Sacred Texts in Religious Identities (Equinox 2025).

References

Boccaccini, Gabriele. 1995. “The Preexistence of the Torah: A Commonplace in Second Temple Judaism, or a Later Rabbinic Development?” Henoch 17: 329–350.

Botha, Carine. 2017. “Psalm 139: A Redactional Perspective.” PhD dissertation, Old Testament Studies, University of Pretoria.

Boyarin, Daniel. 1993. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Gennep, Arnold van. [1909] 1960. The Rites of Passage, translated by Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle. L. Caffee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood, and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Routledge.

Idel, Moshe. 1990. Golem: Jewish Magical and Mystical Traditions on the Artificial Anthropoid. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Liebermann, Rosanne. 2023. “Drinkable Ink or Womb-Destroying Words? A Solution for Suspected Adultery in Numbers 5:11–31.” Postscripts 14(1): 38–64. https://doi.org/10.1558/post.25993

Malley, Brian. 2004. How the Bible Works: An Anthropological Study of Evangelical Biblicism. Oxford: AltaMira Press.

Ricoeur, Paul. 1976. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press.

———. 2003. The Rule of Metaphor: The Creation of Meaning in Language. London: Routledge.

Schäfer, Peter. 1995. “The Magic of the Golem: The Early Development of the Golem Legend.” Journal of Jewish Studies 46(1–2): 249–261. https://doi.org/10.18647/1802/jjs-1995

Schleicher, Marianne. 2006. “Religiøs reception og transformation af Salmerners Bog i jødisk tradition.” Collegium Biblicum Årsskrift 2006: 69–82. https://doi.org/10.7146/cb.v10i0.19899

———. 2009. “Artifactual and Hermeneutical Use of Scripture in Jewish Tradition.” In Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon, edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias, 48–65. London: T&T Clark.

———. 2017 [2012]. “Engaging All the Senses: On Multi-sensory Stimulation in the Process of Making and Inaugurating a Torah Scroll.” Postscripts 8(1–2): 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1558/post.32694

———. 2021. “Effects of Materiality in Israelite-Jewish Conceptions of Gender and Love: On a Necessary Synthesis of Constructionist and New Materialist Approaches.” In Entanglements and Weavings: Diffractive Approaches to Gender and Love, edited by Deirdre Byrne and Marianne Schleicher, 11–33. Leiden: Brill.

———. 2023a. “Gender and Sacred Text(ure)s: Extending the Field of Sacred Text Studies.” Postscripts 14(1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1558/post.26129

———. 2023b. “Jewish Women and Sacred Text(ure)s: Making Women’s Religious Agency in Jewish Book Culture Intelligible.” Postscripts 14(1): 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1558/post.26003

Scholem, Gershom. 1965. On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism. Translated by Ralph Manheim. New York: Schocken Books.

Turner, Victor. 1967. The Forest of Symbol. Aspects of Nedembu Ritual. New York: Cornell University Press.

Published

2025-03-05

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Schleicher, M. (2025). Sacred Texts and Jewish Humanoids: Uses of Sacred Texts and Textures When Creating a Golem or Other Artificial Creatures. Postscripts: The Journal of Sacred Texts, Cultural Histories, and Contemporary Contexts, 15(2), 91-110. https://doi.org/10.1558/post.32031