Talk:Gevurah

Strength

Wikipedia guidelines discourage linking directly to a disambiguation page. It isn't clear to me which meaning of strength is referenced in the article -- physical strength? Fortitude? Virtue? Would someone who is knowledgeable on the subject please direct the link to an appropriate page? Thank you. Sanguinity 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

גְּבוּרָה can mean bravery, heroism, etc, but also (in biblical usage) "might". In the context of the Bahir (145) it refers to Deut18:16 "[...] neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not" so closest to *physical intensity*, but there may well be other senses, eg in the Zohar. *Shrug*, I'm not a Kabbalist But even in the Bahir sense, I don't think there's a correct disambiguation for that sense.

I assume you're still waiting for a reply to this seventeen year old question, :-D

Zaza9147 (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Might I add that '288' would not be the numerical value of 'Nitzotzot' as it would be spelt NITzVTzVTh which would sum to '652'. Since it is a plural of the word 'spark' and thus having a VTh at the end to pluralize it, the value would never be under 406 (just from the addition of the VTh). So the author may wish to consider whether or not they would like to perpetuate that incorrect gematria. Haetzchiam23 (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Gevurah → Geburah — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• The Hebrew spelling of Geburah is gimel-beth-vau-resh-heh (גבורה), not gimel-vau-vau-resh-heh (גוורה). Thus, "Gevurah" is an incorrect transliteration. The redirect from Geburah -> Gevurah needs to be removed and it's not necessary to redirect Gevurah to Geburah, because that wouldn't make sense. 201.229.221.116 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• So Negev נֶּגֶב‎‎ → Negeb? —Tamfang (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• ב without dagesh is usually transcribed 'b' in the Bible, 'v' in modern Hebrew. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Qabalah is Ancient Hebrew, not modern. Wouldn't you agree? 201.229.221.125 (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ancient Hebrew usage is irrelevant here; Modern English usage is. Find some sources to support the move especially since the article's sources use "Gevurah". —  AjaxSmack  16:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Non Jewish Sources"

I think this section should be deleted. There are no citations, and the references at the bottom of the article are to Aleister Crowley and Dion Fortune, two occultists who are not viewed by anyone as being serious theologians. If there is to be a section on non-Jewish interpretations of Kabbalah, we're going to need some actual legitimate sources on par with Chabad and Aryeh Kaplan. Writings of early Church Fathers, Saints, Popes, etc?

Reply:

The history of Hermetic Qabalah, which Fortune and Crowley integrated into their systems, dates to the sixteenth century, and the work of (H. C.) Agrippa, whose works syncretised Jewish Kaballah and other esoteric subjects in influential works. Agrippa is an important figure: I'm not sure how the previous commenter was grading intellects, certainly Agrippa was never Pope, but few of us are. Agrippa's work had documented influence on, say, Dee, and Dee on the Golden Dawn, and that, of course, on Crowley, Fortune et al. Quite how that influence affected the section "Non Jewish Sources" is hard to tell, as it's now completyely gone, as if none of this ever happened! The idea that western esotericism doesn't have a deep history but is, instead, all fever-dreams and essential oil MLM schemes doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Zaza9147 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)