The Tall Tales of Rabbah bar Bar Hana

Complied at the end of the 6th-Century C.E., the Babylonian Talmud is one of the major religious texts used by all practicing Jews today. Making up the Babylonian Talmud is a collection of discussions held by various learned Rabbis over a wide variety of religious, philosophical, ethical, and legal topics that were themselves previously covered in the Mishnah (200 C.E.), another book of rabbinical commentary this time focusing on the Jewish Torah.

Naturally, all of this makes for some very dry reading and not the sort of place you would expect to find some of the most fascinating bits of Jewish myth and folklore. However, as it would turn out, it appears that even the Rabbis doing the commentary in the Babylonian Talmud knew how boring some of this stuff was and so decided to every once in awhile spice things up by veering off topic and telling some really great stories.

One such rabbi is Rabbah bar Bar Hana whose tall tales of giant beasts and strange monsters can be found in Tractate Baba Bathra (73a-77b), a section that initially deals with how to properly sell and or buy a boat.

In Tractate Baba Bathra, bar Bar Hana begins telling about his many travels around the world and the strange and freighting creatures he’s seen. The first beast he speaks about is an antelope who was the size of Mount Tabor and who cast a dung ball so big that it damned up the River Jordan. Next, bar Bar Hana describes how he once saw a frog the size of sixty houses, which was then swallowed by an even bigger sea monster. The sea monster was then plucked out of the ocean by a giant raven which then preached itself on the branch of a massive tree which can still seen by any who wish to look.

Bar Bar Hana then sets in with some lively fish tales, one about the time he saw a fish so large that when it was cast upon the shore it destroyed sixty towns and provided food for another sixty. When the rabbi returned a year later he discovered that the towns’ people were cutting rafters from the giant fishes’ ribs which they were then using to rebuild the towns that had been destroyed.

On another occasion while out at sea, bar Bar Hana said that he encountered a fish so large it took three days and three nights for him and several other men to sail a fast ship from one end of the monster to the other. And in case you doubt it was a fast ship, bar Bar Hana adds that when an archer shot an arrow the ship easily outstripped it.

Then there was the giant fish that had sand and grass growing on its back. When bar Bar Hana and his crew saw the beast they thought it was an island and landed on it. However, when they started cooking their food the fish woke up and rolled over forcing the men to make a mad dash back to their ship in the nick of time.

Bar Bar Hana then rounds out this set of tall tales with two more. One about the Ziz; a giant bird whose head reached the heavens and whose legs were in the sea. Thinking the water were the bird was standing must be shallow the men decided to go for a swim when a ‘voice from heaven’ (Heb. Bath Kol) called out saying; “Do not go down here, for a carpenter’s ax was dropped [into this water] seven years ago and it has not reached the bottom.”

Lastly, bar Bar Hana tells how an Arab merchant once took him to see the Dead of the Wilderness; those Jews who had died in the desert while wandering for forty-years looking for the Promise Land. The Dead of the Wilderness were truly an impressive sight, for bar Bar Hana did not even realize when they had reached them on account of the fact that they were so big he thought they were mountains and even rode his camel under one of their raised knees. Bar Bar Hana also tells his fellow rabbis how he tried to take a piece of the beautiful blue-purple fabric the Dead were wearing as proof of what he had seen but when he cut a piece of the cloth off and tried to ride away he found himself paralyzed. The Arab explained that one can not take anything from the Dead and expect to leave.

Prof. Timothy K. Beal of Case Western Reserve University says in his fascinating book Religion and its Monsters (2002) that stories such as those told by Rabbah bar Bar Hana are intended to inspire fear and awe in both the listener and reader, much the same way that scary stories around a camp fire still do today. The difference here is that since the stories are told in what is considered a religious context, the fear and awe they inspire is that of the infinite mysteries of God and the universe, rather than the dark.

Center: Giant fish, mountain sized bulls and the Ziz (here depicted as a griffin) were just some of the larger than life creatures that appear in Jewish myth and legend. Illuminated manuscript page from Germany circa 1238.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

“We die – and the world will be poorer for it.”, laments elven Prince Nuada, towards the end of Hellboy II: The Golden Army. The “we” he is referring to is that of the magical denizens – elves, fairies, trolls, demons, angels, gods – who make up the very fabric of mankind’s mythological understandings of the world around them. It is a very sad and profound moment in the film and one which helps to define the theme of the entire picture. But I’m getting ahead of myself…

This past Friday (July 11th) was a long awaited day for me as it marked the premier of Hellboy II: The Golden Army, a sequel to one of my all time favorite films, 2004’s Hellboy, based on my all time favorite comic of the same name, and directed by the amazingly talented Guillermo del Toro (The Devil’s Backbone, Pan’s Labyrinth). I went to a midnight showing of the film on Thursday but, unfortunately, have been unable to blog about it until now…

Hellboy and I: A Short History

For those of you who don’t know, next to my obvious love of mythology, folklore and legend, my second biggest interest has always been art. In particular sequential art, which is just a fancy way of saying ‘comic book art.’ However, despite my love of the comic book genre I have never really cared for the medium’s most prominent subject matter – superheroes. Call me crazy, but there is just something about the idea of guys who fly around in spandex and capes saving the world that I find utterly ridiculous on every level. So needless to say, it has always been a bit of a challenge for me to find comics that I actually wanted to read.

Part of this problem was resolved in 1993 when DC Comics created their mature readers imprint VERTIGO which specialized in mostly non-superhero themed comics, the most famous of which is undoubtedly Neil Gaiman’s Sandman series of which I am also a fan. VERTIGO helped to pave the way for other non-superhero themed comic books and later that same year Darkhorse Comics published the first issue of Hellboy.

Hellboy is the creation of Mike Mignola, an amazingly talented artist and writer of whom I am constantly in awe. I first heard about Hellboy and Mr. Mignola back in 2003 on an NPR news radio show on comic books – which had become the new big thing in Hollywood since the success of Bryan Singer’s 2000 X-Men movie. On the show the guest – whose name has long since left me – was asked what his current favorite comic was. He responded that it was Hellboy and then went on to explain that it was a series about a demon who fought monsters and that the stories in it were basically retellings of Old English folktales. The name and premise stuck with me and it wasn’t long after that I started hearing that there was going to be a Hellboy movie in 2004.

Well, 2004 came and I saw that movie and it was… good. It was a fun, quirky and slightly absurd (which is, in my book, a good thing since one of the key foundations within the realm of mythology is a very palpable level of absurdity). The first movie didn’t blow me away, I liked how it was filmed and the way the characters looked and the references to both history and myth scattered within. It was a few weeks later then, that Free Comic Book Day rolled around and I decided to stop by one of the local comic shops to see what they had. It was then that I saw the first collected volume (or trade) of the Hellboy comic sitting on the shelf. I looked through the book, recognized a lot of stuff from the film, and thought the art was really great and decided to buy it. Like the movie, the first volume of the comic didn’t blow me away, but it was still good.

Anyway, to make a long history short I eventually ended up picking up the second Hellboy trade at Barnes and Noble and that was the book that solidified my loyalty as a die hard Hellboy fan. The second volume was thoroughly amazing between its art, story, and its references to vampires, witches, Greek mythology, the Baba Yaga and Elizabeth Bathory. I was, to say the least, ecstatic. It wasn’t long after that that I began to collect every volume of the Hellboy series and then hunt down all the comics that hadn’t yet been placed into trades. Today, I own nearly every single issue of Hellboy either as single issues or in the form of trades. I also am the proud owner of the Hellboy actions figures, t-shirts, lunch boxes, collector’s books, original novels, animated films, posters and both the original and director’s cut of the first film.

And for the past four years I have eagerly been awaiting the debut of Hellboy II: The Golden Army.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army: Review

What follows is not a conventional movie review. The first thing you should know, and probably don’t need to be told at this point, is that as a fan of Hellboy this review is going to be overwhelmingly positive and undoubtedly bias. Also in this review I don’t so much intend to review the film as a film but rather as a modern testament to the power of mythology. So if you are look for an actual critical review of the film I suggest you hop on over to Rotten Tomatoes, who have already collected nearly 200 overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics across the country.

For past six months or so I have seen numerous critics and film writers try to sum up the plot of Hellboy II, and for some reason, unlike every other film, they seem to be unable to do it in less than a paragraph. For me, the premise of Hellboy II is not a complicated affair. Hellboy II features the return of demonic do-gooder Hellboy (Ron Pearlman), as well as aquatic sidekick Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) and pyrokinetic girlfriend Liz Sherman (Selma Blair), who this time must protect humanity from a slew of monsters and a robotic clockwork army that has been unleashed by the villainous elf, Prince Nuada (Luke Gross). Simple as that.

But the truth of the matter is that Hellboy II is not simple. It is a complex story with a deep – though not quite heavy handed enough – point. That we, mankind, have endangered ourselves by destroying our own mythologies and our own cultures via modern technology and convenience.

“It is said that at the dawn of time…Man, Beast, and all Magical Beings lived together under Aiglin, the Father Tree…” intones Prof. Bruttenholm (John Hurt) at the opening of the film. Prof. Bruttenholm continues to tell of how man, “in his infinite greed”, sought dominion over the entire Earth and with it the eradication of all magical beings. There are those who will, from this set-up, mistake the film’s message for an environmental one (like in Wall-E) or a social one (like in Narnia 2). But del Toro and Mignola, who wrote the script, are not talking about either racism or the destruction of the natural world. Rather they are talking about the destruction of our mythologies, our imaginations as noted by del Toro in a recent interview with MTV; “We live in a world right now [where] everything not provable, nonlogical, nonlinear, not supported by science or technology, is a childish concern, and we are destroying things that we find tangible.”

Likewise, in the film elven Prince Nuada – who wishes to remind mankind “why you once feared the dark” – declares that “the humans have forgotten the gods, destroyed the Earth – and for what? Parking lots – shopping malls – greed has burned a hole in their chests that can never be filled. They will never have enough…”

All this naturally creates a very large dilemma for Hellboy. Though Nuada and his ilk are “Sons of the Earth” while Hellboy is a “Son of the Fallen One” both are still part of the race of magical invisible beings. As Nuada frequently reminds Hellboy; “You have more in common with us than with them…” the “Sons of Adam”, mankind.

For me, del Toro and Mignola, have brought up, in this film, a very real concern. Here in the modern western world we have slowly but surely begun to destroy everything that we once held sacred, whether that sanctity be pagan or Christian. This was the concern expressed in folklorist Jane Yolen’s 1981 book Touch Magic and it is still a concern today as can be seen, from a more religious perspective, in Stephen Prothero’s 2007 best seller Religious Illiteracy. Having created a culture of high-tech toys – Ipods, camera phones, satellite TV – which can provide us with often mind-numbing instant gratification and entertainment we no longer feel the need to exercise our minds and imaginations and explore the world around us. Ask big questions, think deep thoughts, ponder that which is absurd and nonsensical.

And it is perhaps in this light why a movie like Hellboy II is so important. Early this year, movie goers saw another blockbuster comic book movie called Iron Man. For me, Iron Man is the embodiment of everything that Hellboy II tells us to be wary of. It is a film about high-tech, wiz bang toys and the billionaire who builds and owns them. It’s a film that asks no deep or meaningful questions and attempts to shed no light on human culture, it just says “Look at this! Ain’t it cool!! You should own one too!!!”

The Mythology Behind Hellboy II

So what is some of the mythology that is once again brought to life in Hellboy II? A man after my own heart (or perhaps that should be the other way around), Mike Mignola loves his mythology. Whether that mythology is Greek, Roman, Celtic, Russian, Polynesian, Christian, or Lovecraftian matters not; in the Hellboy comics he makes reference to it all.

The same can be said for director Guillermo del Toro, and in Hellboy II del Toro drops more than a few names and pays plenty of homage to the myths and legends of old. In addition to your standard trolls, goblins, and ogres Hellboy II gives us elves with names plucked strait out of Celtic mythology – Nuada, Nuala, and King Balor –, some particularly nasty “tooth fairies”, and an Angel of Death who acts like she has just stepped out of a Jewish folktale and who looks like something one would find on a Medieval woodcut. There is also the elves’ subterranean homeland of Bethmoora – a name taken from the 19th-Century writings of Lord Dunsany – and the infamous “troll market” which is essentially a beefed up version of poet Christina Rossetti’s “Goblin Market.” Also, lets not forget the gigantic forest god who appears midway though the picture and in whom one can see more than a little reference to Hayao Miyazaki’s own god of the forest from his 1997 film Princess Mononoke. I could go on all day about the number of references one can find in this amazing film – such as how the entire thing has a very Hieronymus Bosch type aesthetic about it – but there are other things worth mentioning as well.

For starters, Hellboy II is just a great film. It’s a great story that is both cool and exciting, funny and entertaining, emotional and thought provoking. It is beautiful to look at and great to listen to. It is a movie that everyone needs to see, pay attention to, and then go see again. And then after you have done that why don’t you put down the Ipod, go outside and try see if maybe the Sons of the Earth are still there, waiting in the shadows, waiting to be remembered.

Top: Hellboy, Abe, Liz and new commer Johann (Seth McFarland) return to save mankind, who really don't deserve it.

Center: He may have snow white skin but Prince Nuada is about as far from conventional fairy-tale elves as you can get.

Bottom: The Angel of Death, with eyes on her wings, is just one of the many mythological creatures who appear in the film.

Sources: Hellboy II: The Art of the Movie (2008), Edited by Katie Moody and Dave Land.

Hard Medicine: Bezoars

Bezoars are curious objects that fall into a unique category of folklore known as folk-medicine. Though folk-medicine usually tends to be more magical than medicinal, they were widely used by both common folk and the rich in times past. Their alleged healing properties will typically be debunked by respected medical scientists though it is not uncommon for other scientists years later to discovery that such folk-remedies actually possessed some genuine medicinal effects. Such is the case with the bezoar.

Bezoars are sphere-shaped deposit of calcium found mainly in the stomachs of ruminant animals like goats and gazelles. The term bezoar comes from the Persian word pâdzahr, meaning 'counter-poison', as it was once widely believed that such intestinal obstructions possessed mystical powers capable of rendering poisons harmless and healing the sick. Historical documents indicate that bezoar stones were used as far back as the early 7th-Century. The oldest surviving Persian work on medicine, the Abu Mansur Muwaffak (Mid. 10th-Century) also mentions bezoars in a list of 'medicinal stones.'

Among those famous individuals who received treatment using a bezoar is King Edward IV of England (1442-1483) who survived the effects of a poisoned wound, due solely to a bezoar in his possession. Likewise, Queen Elizabeth I of England (1533-1603) had a bezoar set in gold with unicorn's horn [1] given to her by her spy and magician John Dee. [2] However, the magic of the bezoar was not limited solely to the rich. Common folk could obtain bezoars from apothecaries who would lend them out at extortionate rates.

In 1575, a surgeon by the name of Ambroise Paré decided to put the legend of the bezoar to the test. Paré's cook had been caught stealing fine silverware. In his shame, the cook agreed to be poisoned. Pare then used a bezoar stone to treat the poisoned cook who did not recover and died in agony several days later. For Paré, such an experiment was proof enough that the bezoar stone could not cure all poisons as was commonly believed at the time.

Another type of bezoar was the Trichinobezoar, which is made of hair – basically a huge hairball – and results in human individuals suffering from what is known as the Rapunzel Syndrome: the compulsive eating of one's own hair. Unlike the calcium bezoar, modern science has actually shown that the much more disgusting trichinobezoar could have been used successfully to remove arsenic from poisoned drinks during the middle ages, which is how it was most often used. Over time, bezoars faded out of use as more reliable forms of medical treatment came into existence. Today, the bezoar remains an interesting item in folklore and fantasy and references to them can be found in the works of Neil Gaiman (Sandman) and most notably J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter).

At Top: A medieval physician treating patient with a bezoar stone (date unknown)

Center: Most bezoars are found in the stomachs of ruminant animals like goats and gazelles, this one, however, was found in the belly of an elephant.

Sources:
1) http://www.kirchersociety.org/blog/?p=814
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezoar
3) http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/bldefbezoar.htm
_________________________________________________________
[1] Most likely the tusk of a narwhal.
[2] John Dee (1527-1608) is sometimes called Queen Elizabeth I's Merlin. He was a Welsh mathematician, scientist and occultist. He also practiced alchemy, divination and prescribed to Hermetic philosophy. He also worked as a spy for the crown going by the alias 007 -- a title made famous by Ian Fleming's fictional British spy James Bond.

To Hell and Back: Conclusions

There are many things that we can learn from the tales of “Orpheus and Eurydice” and “Savitri and Satyavan”, things about ourselves, about our culture, ancient culture, death, and the role of women in society. In my last entry I asked readers to think about why it is that Orpheus fails where Savitri succeeds and what this has to say about a variety of issues, most of which were just mentioned in the previous sentence. This is a question that I have dwelled on for quite some time now. I find both of these myths utterly fascinating, especially because they are both so similar and yet so different. So in conclusion, here’s what I think…

In both “Orpheus and Eurydice” and “Savitri and Satyavan”, a spouse must descend into the underworld to retrieve the soul of their departed lover. Both make a deal with the god of the underworld. One fails, one succeeds. Why?

First off, both of these stories tell us a lot about the cultures that composed them. “Orpheus and Eurydice” tells us that the Greco-Roman point of view on death was very final. Once you died you were resigned to the underworld where you were expected to stay. In the land of the dead, the living were not welcomed, just as the dead were surely not welcomed in the land of the living. “Savitri and Satyavan” paints a similar picture for us except for the fact that we see that death is not always permanent; Savitri does manage to win back her husband’s soul and return him to life. This undoubtedly reflects the Hindu world of view in which the predominate form of afterlife belief is that of ‘reincarnation’ which hold that after death many of us will go on to living new lives, being reborn again and again.

Secondly, the deals which both Orpheus and Eurydice strike with their respective underworld gods are also interesting, especially because they serve as a prototype for later Christian legends concerning Faustian deals with the devil. In the myth of “Orpheus and Eurydice”, however, it is Hades who apparently wins the beat, as Orpheus fails to keep his eyes off of Eurydice until after the two have left the underworld. There are those who feel that Hades’ tricked Orpheus, however, I disagree, believing instead that Hades, if anything, was simply banking on the fact that Orpheus’ inherent human weakness would get the better of him. As for Savitri’s deal with Yama, I think it’s pretty clear that in this case Savitri did trick Yama into giving her Satyavan’s soul. The type of ‘loop-hole logic’ which Savitri employs here is also fairly common in both myths and fairy-tales, especially in Arabian mythology were it is often employed by djinn’s who want to get the better of their masters. Ultimately, what the story of “Savitri and Satyavan” is trying to tell us here, I believe, is that being quick witted is a virtue; for one who is fast on their feet may even be able to outwit the gods.

Lastly, I feel that without a doubt the most loaded issue of any to be found here in both of these tales is that of the role of the women in them. I believe that this facet of these stories is of great importance not only because of what it has to say about women is both the ancient and modern world but because it can also provide one with the answer as to why Orpheus fails in his mission while Savitri succeeds in her’s.

The key difference between Orpheus and Savitri, I feel, is ultimately motivation. Orpheus wants Eurydice while Savitri needs Satyavan, and this all has to do with how women were viewed in ancient Greco-Rome and India. Ancient Greece and Rome as well as India were patriarchal societies; men ran almost everything. This is still true today in modern India as in modern western society which has been largely modeled off the Greco-Roman prototype. However, there is one crucial difference. In Greco-Roman patriarchal society women were viewed as objects, literally second class citizens who could be owned by their husbands. This was in contrast to eastern patriarchy where women were still not as socially powerful as men but nevertheless still had many of the same freedoms and rights that men enjoyed, a fact which is still true today.

Now, while one who is sufficiently familiar with the tale of “Orpheus and Eurydice” would never question whether or not Orpheus truly loves Eurydice – he does – one does need to take note of the fact that Orpheus’ love for her is framed within a Hellenistic context, meaning that to him Eurydice is a ‘possession.’ And this is exactly the tone that one picks up on when re-reading the tale of Orpheus and Eurydice. Following Eurydice’s death Orpheus acts like he has just had something stolen from him, like a prized trophy or a new car. He then descends into the underworld to essentially demand the return of his property from Hades, albeit in song. The problem with all this is that the cold truth of the matter is that, from a social standpoint, Orpheus doesn’t need Eurydice, he simply wants her. Had this story been reversed with Eurydice having lost Orpheus and then failing to win back his soul, she would not have then been able to continue on with life by herself in perpetual morning – the way Orpheus does. She would have been expected to marry someone else; in fact, she probably would have been married off to someone else by her father in the weeks following Orpheus death, because that is what happened to women in ancient Greece and Rome.

This is, of course, in sharp contrast to “Savitri and Satyavan”, where Savitri doesn’t merely want the return of her husband’s soul but needs it. As Savitri notes in both my retelling of the story and the original version, that in Indian society it was a wife’s dharma – sacred duty – to care for her husband and bear his children. Without a husband Savitri would not have been able to fulfill her dharma and as a result would not have been able to join her husband in heaven as she would have to be reincarnated in an attempt to fulfill her duty as a woman and a wife in a another life. For some women readers this may not seem much better a situation than that Eurydice, however, I would ask those readers to keep in mind that Savitri is essentially just trying to be faithful to her vows as a wife, the same type of vows that western women make on their wedding day. Also, take stock in that fact that not only is Savitri the protagonist and hero of her story but also a shinning example of a smart, strong and determined woman who was not about to let her husband second guess her womanly intuition or let a male death god tell her what she could and could not do, all of which is far superior to poor little Eurydice who doesn’t have but a single line of dialogue in her entire tale.

With that in mind, I would also like to point out what these two myths can teach us today. Both myths teach us about the power of love, which is one of the greatest powers in the world, however, they also teach us what can happen when love is misguided. I personally think that in modern western society today there are a lot of Orpheuses out there. Talented young men who are desperately and recklessly pursuing women who they do not need but merely want, because to them women are nothing more than possessions to be had. Likewise there are a lot of young women out there who have let themselves become helpless little Eurydices, following there own Orpheuses all the way to the top only to have them foolishly cast them away with a backwards glance. While “Orpheus and Eurydice” is without a doubt one of my favorite myths from all of Greco-Roman mythology I do believe that from a social standpoint it is not one that needs to be imitated but rather learned from, a cautionary fable. Rather what we in the west need are more women like Savitri and more men like Satyavan who, in spite of their own piggishness, can learn to respect and trust their wives, girlfriends or lovers.

At Top: The title sheet for classical composer Monteverdi's 1607 opera The Legend of Orpheus. The myth of "Orpheus and Eurydice" has had a strong impact on western culture, having been adapted into poems, songs, novels, plays, operas, movies, comics and more. Visit Wikipedia's page on Orpheus for a very comprehensive list.

To Hell and Back: Analysis and Questions

Analysis

Now that we have looked at two very similar, yet very different tales concerning the religious and mythological theme of decent into the underworld it is now time to make an evaluation of the two narratives and draw a conclusion in regard to what they have to say about humankind.

Compare and Contrast: “Orpheus and Eurydice” with “Savitri and Satyavan”

The myths of “Orpheus and Eurydice” and “Savitri and Satyavan” both share a great deal in common. Not only do both deal with the motif of decent into the underworld but both also feature a protagonist who descends into the netherworld to rescue a spouse who was killed by a snake. In both tales, the protagonist must cross a river that separates the land of the living from that of the dead. Both tales find our protagonist’s presence in the underworld to be a source of potential cosmological chaos, and both protagonists must, in the end, make a deal with the Lord of the Dead.

However, while the similarities between these two tales may be striking the differences they share are equally profound. To start with, the tale of “Orpheus and Eurydice” is from ancient Greco-Rome while the tale of “Savitri and Satyavan” is from India. In “Orpheus and Eurydice”, it is the husband who is the protagonist and must rescues his wife, while in “Savitri and Satyavan” the scenario is reversed and it is the wife who must save the husband. The other major difference between Orpheus’ and Savitri’s tale is, of course, that Savitri is successful in her quest to retrieve her husband’s soul while Orpheus is not.

The Questions

It is this last observation that leads to the most obvious, though not necessarily the most important, question one can ask about these two myths: Why dose Savitri succeed where Orpheus fails? Another way of looking at this question is to also ask: Why did Orpheus fail? Was it his own weakness or did Hades indeed trick him? Was the deal Orpheus struck with Hades fair? And then for the more culturally centered reader: What dose this story tell you about the beliefs of the ancient Greeks and Romans? What dose it say about the relationship between a husband and a wife? What can we learn from it?

Then coming at this line of questioning from the Indian point of view: Why dose Savitri succeed? Was the deal Savitri struck with Yama fair? Did Savitri trick Yama? If so was this right or wrong of her? And what dose this tale tell us about the Hindu worldview and the role of men and women in it?

I will post my thoughts on these matters in the next few days.