I was about to watch The Red Tent through Netflix, but from the first minute of the movie I saw that this was to be on Bible, Jews and Ancient Times; so I started to investigate on internet the veracity of the basis of the movie. Well...
It's not just a fiction story but a disrespectful action. I don't know the author's invention but it ruined it all - I gave up to watch (my time counts - fiction is fiction, lie is lie).
I reached this site, thanks God, that achieved to solve my doubts. Thank you very much.
Just to contribute with this article, the author never created the Red Tent: it exists in many pagan religions and cultures. I found them searching in spanish, to find it in some sites as below:
http://lacarparoja.blogspot.com.br/2012/04/que-es-una-carpa-roja.html
http://www.carparojacolombia.com/index.php/sobre-las-carpas-rojas
I'm a brazilian christian but respect the jewish culture and tradition. Amazing the lack of notion some people have in rewriting a sacred history based on pagan culture (sic)!

Regards,

Baruch haba b'shem Adonai. Hallelluyah!

I read this book years ago and it was completely disrespectful to the Torah and everything it stands for. For people who suggest that it's only a book, why make a big deal out of it, my answer is that the Torah is not something to be degraded like this. Even if it is only a novel, it implants these images of our forefathers and foremothers that are extremely disturbing and completely incorrect.

I read this book several years ago in Book Club. We discussed it only to the point that the Red Tent wasn't a part of Jewish ritual or culture. I do know about separateness, abstinence and mikvah in those times and today for women. I thought at the time that it was not too interesting because I've read the story in Torah. HOWEVER, as the author did in this book, every false tale, every lie, every bit of fiction is made believable by a kernel of truth inserted into the fiction.

I don't know if anyone is still reading this or will come across the post so, anyways, I will just leave this here for the curious.

To those who contend it is "just" a work of fiction, I respond that any work, fiction or not, intends to shape a consciousness concerning something. If you take on historical fiction, then you have committed yourself to some modicum of truth judgment. For example, one could and has written a novel which portrays Abraham Lincoln as a vampire hunter. Now, this is egregious fantasy, but should - not can - a person write a fictitious novel portraying Stalin as hero? One can do this, but one needs to ask whether he or she should. Historical fiction has a responsibility, just as Dan Brown violated his responsibility in the "Da Vinci Code."

Regarding the accuracy of the novel, there's a couple of problems aside from characterizations which obviously have an agenda at reinterpreting Biblical patriarchs. Since the endogamous matriarchs, daughters of Laban, hailed from Haran, I find it unlikely they would not be Yahwistic. Furthermore, the teraphim were most likely not statuettes of gods but rather than mummified heads of the ancestors used in divinatory practice (cf. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the accounts of teraphim in Micah and Samuel and the archaeology researches of Kathleen Kenyon). No doubt, ancestral veneration was outlawed in some forms (but encouraged in others - cf. Herbert Brichto) under Mosaic Law; however, this was by no means worship of foreign gods. Furthermore, recent archaeology (cf. Jeffrey Tigay) has suggested that much of the so-called goddess worship evidenced in the many statuettes of ancient Canaan ought to be classified as sympathetic magic without any relation to religious worship at all.

It's a storybook. Calm down. It's a beautiful story of love and forgiveness. If people think it's all true, let them. . .
Relaaaax.

People all great works of art are imbelished so that we read and enjoy. So enjoy. Don't get too deep into it.

Comments on the book Zipporah by Marek Halter should also be considered. Believe me, if you felt ticked off by the Red Tent, this one will tick you off by a mile! The things said about Moshe and Zipporah are mind boggling, to say the least.

I read this at my wife's suggestion because she liked the "sisterhood" aspect. I quickly discovered the story to NOT be historical fiction. There is so much inaccuracy at a basic level. Why offend several religious groups using Abraham, Issac, and Jacob as the storyline? Why not create a new story? Some of the story just seemed so blasphemous such as when she wrote a Sumerian goddess was the consort of the God of Abraham. Rather than the Hebrews living a higher law given by God himself, they are depicted as illiterate barbarians. I found this book to smack of the same attitude that creates offensive art using religious symbols and figures smeared in urine and feces. Does it really matter if we are forewarned of the true nature of the book? Yes. Not just because it demeans the beliefs, character, and scripture of devotees. Because it creates for the uninformed a completely false and harmful image of religions with roots in the history of Abraham and his sacred covenants.

You took the words out of my husband's mouth. Having read it with quite a fascination about the "sisterhood" factor, I immediately bombarded him questions about so many things in the book, to which I got almost, if not a similar response as yours and truth be told, it was eye opening to the obviously intended brainwash about Judaism. I even went ahead and bought the book "Zipporah" by Marek Halter and it contains loads of more idiocratic ignorance about the Israelites in the Torah book "Ba Midbar"/Exodus in the highest level. Nevertheless, it's always good to know what other people think and translate about Judaism. Although I tend to feel bad after a bad read, I still tend to think that ignorance is not bliss.

I found this comment by the author in an interview and thought it would be of interest to you. "As a journalist I’m comfortable doing library research and I did a lot. I had a fellowship at Radcliff for a year which gave me access to the Harvard system. This allowed me to poke around in the divinity school library, the Schlesinger Library and Wagoner Library for facts about daily life – food, clothing, remedies for disease, and what houses in Egypt might have looked like. In particular I researched female medicine – midwifery, birth control, and abortion. I didn’t do Biblical research. The sheer weight of the research nearly overwhelmed me. I had to stop myself a lot and tell myself that I didn’t need to become an expert on this. I just needed the details that served my plot." I think this is such an arrogant thing to do, taking the historically accepted character of a real individual and trashing it for the sake of creating your own version of art. As a writer of historical fiction, I would never ignore the most obvious historical source and totally reshape a beloved figure to suit my whims. Who would do such a thing to someone like Gandhi, or Mother Theresa? Rebecca and Issac suffered the most in this self-indulgent tale I found shameful. It left me thinking that IF any of this was true, then thank the Lord God Almighty those women's stories stayed in the tent! Abraham's God is far more grand and I'd much rather worship Him.

I know this book is fiction loosely based on fact, but I still loved it. I didn't quite understand that if every woman's cycle came at approximately the same time and they were all in the tent, who did all the work that the women usually did?

I find any untruthful stories about the Bible offensive. Also, the message of this story gets lost when it is romanticized into something it is not. This account in genesis is meant to teach the believer the importance of guarding their associations. Dinah, an Israelite girl was to keep separate from the pagan Caananites because of their false worship and immoral behaviors. Her bad association lead to her rape by a man who was considered a high ranking person. Dinah's choice to associate with these people caused her to be violated. THAT'S the true message of the story. This book is nothing but fluff, and innacurate Jewish history not to mention being out of harmony with scripture.

so you think that such scripture is teaching us rape is the victim's fault? that Dinah's 'defilement' was because of her actions? shame on you. this thinking has no place here.

When we place ourselves in the company of those who are engaged with drugs, alcohol, sexual immorality, or other bad behaviors, we must take responsibility. When we make ourselves friends with those find such behavior acceptable, we must take responsibility for the possible bad consequences.

So true. Thanks for bringing this up.

I completely agree with you Miriam. In fact, I praise the author's fresh female perspective on "Dinah's rape". It is thought provoking to have a contrast to the otherwise very androcentric scripture. Isn't the Jewish faith all about asking questions?

As a Christian & a Feminist I take issue with any story that would rewrite the actual word & turn it from a brutalization of a woman into a feeble minded love story. I've tried to take time to understand a wee bit about religion beyond my own point of view. I'm very concerned about the 'Oprahfication' of the world these days - if it's in a book, then there's a kernel to it. This is a 'truth' people will believe instead of trying to learn the authentic story. It can only do the truth ... in this case Judiaic History ... a disservice.

I agreed with rabbi Rothman.

As a Christian who takes my faith quite seriously, I am confused as to why people are offended with this book. I enjoyed skimming through Bereshith/Genesis and seeing all how she made fiction from the Word. I know that she is only using the framework of the first family loosely - and quite loosely at that. The most obvious discrepancy is Leah being the mother of Naphtali - according to the Word, Naphtali is Bilhah's second son. Again, this is fiction, so she simply uses the names and not the facts. I take her seriously as much as I take the movies "DaVinci Code" and "Last Temptation of Christ" serious - which means I label it imagination and not the reality of my faith.

Obviously you have no idea how to go about writing a piece of fiction, let alone historical fiction. The idea is to make characters that seem very distant from us -- due to time, location, etc. -- and made them relatable. It is a different perspective on the biblical text, attempting to give a voice to someone who is overlooked. However, it is not claiming to be scripture. It is a work of fiction and she has written a fantastic story in The Red Tent. You are taking it far too seriously and -- quite frankly -- looking for a reason to be offended.

"Only sheer audacity would enable an author to rewrite the history of a nation's seminal figures, tarnishing the name of Judaism's noble ancestors." It is a petty nation, or a petty mind, that takes umbrage at the fictional work of a single person. Diamant's loving evocation of such a remote time and place made me hungry for more knowledge of Jewish culture and history. Your insistence on that worn, stale portrait of the first family as strictly monolithic giants of humanity places them at a distance I have no desire to traverse.

I put the book down and did not finish it when I saw the story deviating so far from the Bible. I always thought that historical fiction should take the facts of history and weave a story around them, but this author actually rewrote the history first. It was very disappointing and causes me to hesitate to read anything else she has written. She has committed a breach of trust as far as I am concerned.

I don't considered this book an offense. On the contrary, very enlightening from the beginning. Author made clear her work is fiction waving biblical names a face and characterization. Excellent narrative, from a woman's perspective. That's it. No man can actually understand any woman's processes. The story tells you about other cultures from the past, before Abraham. Rebecca is treated as a mother, an oracle or wise woman. The one who knew and who told. It is indeed a feminine perspective. Very unlikely to be understood by any men.

Why do any authors feel it is their right to use historical characters in a book of fiction? I feel it is no different from using someone's grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or MLK to sell books or make money. If she wanted to tell this fictional story, she should have left the Biblical references out of it rather than debasing them. The women were gifted by God, not a pagan: Dinah was raped.

Anita Diamant has made it a point to say this is historical fiction. I'm a devout Christian, and was able to see this book as just that. I wasn't offended in the least and have recommended this book to many. A very good read!

'Simon and Levi are presumed to be bloodthirsty sons " Well, I am sorry but they were. One man raped their sister. Every man in a city was killed by them to avenge it. Even it it was a small city, that's a lot more than an eye for an eye.

Even though I knew this book was complete fiction I was immediately bothered by what I read in the first few chapters. It bothered me so much that I read the chapters in Genesis from my Bible just to remind me that what I was reading about Jacob and his family was not even close to the truth. I agree that if you are going to take history and use it in fiction it should be used respectfully and as accurately as possible. Diament's account makes it seem as though she finds the account in the book of Genesis to be so distasteful to her that she had to invent another version that was suitable for her thoughts and feelings. I'm glad I did research and found this article because now I know that this story won't get better no matter how much I want it to so that I can bring myself to finish it. I'm stopping today.

I read this book for a work 'book club' and couldn't complete it. It made me feel very uncomfortable to read about such holy figures in such a way, I found it crass. The family tree on the first page was even incorrect!

I read The Red Tent some years ago. What I remember most of all is that I really enjoyed the story. I didn't take any of it as fact. I didn't care one way or another. It was simply a good read.

i started this highly recommended book some time ago. I was so bothered by the descriptions or our honorable (yet human) forebearers that I forced myself to stop reading, even though Ms. Diament is a captivating writer. I was disgusted and embarrassed by her fictional characters and upset that she associated them with our biblical heroes. I love historical fiction, and prefer it a lot farther from home!

The first (and only time) we attended a synagogue in the closest city to us, this book was highly touted by a woman in the congregation, as well as the rabbi. So we ordered the book and I read it...and threw it in the trash!! We have not gone back to that synagogue. Well, since then we are advised to find an orthodox group to attend. We are too far to go on any regular basis at this point. But thankfully this site and Rabbi Brody and others are so encouraging us on our path back to where our ancestors came from and we only learned of in the last couple years. It is a long journey, but books like this one are no help, believe me!! (NO, I did not believe what was written either...I have read enough TORAH to know it was very much fiction...I love historical fiction, but the assumption is that all truth is in such, and only so much fiction as needed is used). Blessings, Elizabeth

Excellent! I agree wholeheartedly and hope the author has the humility to accept and learn from this.

This book has certainly served many purposes. It has given strength to female readers. It has inspired readers to re-read their Bible. It has stirred up enough emotion to even create this valuable dialogue. Seems to me like Diamant was used by God to open up this thought into action. Personally, I am thankful.

Most people feel that they learned so much history from this book. No one bothers to find out whether or not the history is true. As for me, I can't read the Bible account of Jacob and his sons without remembering this story, and it ruins it for me. I see in my mind all these amazing men as criminals and idiots, even though I know it's not true. Diamant took something from me that I don't think I'll ever get back: she took my perception of the truth. She took other people's perceptions of the truth, and most of them don't even know they were taught random falsehoods. I will not forgive Diamant for that.

The depiction of these bible characters is one I found particularily offensive, there is no traditional literature that I know of that suggests Rebecca was an evil, manipulative witch or that Isaac became a fool in his old age. As far as I know the practices of the red tent and these anchient gods are just as false. The suggestion that Dina(h) was in a loving relationship with her rapist while a pleasant thought is highly unlikely. The way Diamant presented many of the characters is a defamation that too many people will accept as truth, I agree with Scott that if this fiction work had fictional characters in a fictional setting then it would have been quite alright. As it is I am offended, and with good reason.

This book changed my life forever. I have read it 5 times, it comes to me when I need it and I get from it what I need at that time. It is a beautiful story that should reinforce for every woman just how strong we are - physically and emotionally. Diamant's portrayal of raw female strength empowered me through delivery of my babies. I was the one "on the bricks" and when I closed my eyes I could feel the women in the tent telling me to "fear not". Every stage of Dinah's life is about learning and gathering wisdom as a woman. I am not a "feminist". This work of fiction is an endless source of energy for me - men are truly fantastic creatures of great intelligence, but women give birth to the universe. It never occured to me until I read this article that someone could actually be offended by "The Red Tent". If this article was written by a man, he should learn to embrace the powerful mystique of the female. If it was written by a woman, she should accept with joy that she is female and celebrate with us, her sisters. This is a story - a captivating, breathtaking story. I always cry at the end.

I loved the fiction. It inspired me to read Genesis, and now because of this author I know more about ancient history and the bible than I ever learned in Sunday school. Books will always inspire some and lose others...Lucky me this time.

The book is very compelling but it's a disrespect to such an anciet religion as Judaism. It does feel that Diamant had no knowledge at all of fundamentals of Judaism nor of the Jewish history. A fiction also should be based on history.

I read and enjoyed the book. I thought about it. As far as fiction goes, it's an enjoyable read. THE PROBLEM IS THAT PEOPLE WILL THINK IT MUST BE TRUE. They will point to it as fact. People will bring down the Jewish people whenever they can. We sacrifice catholic babies don't we? See what I mean. Rumors become fact, fiction becomes fact, if it's printed it must be true. Perhaps the book could have been written using the same time but different characters... unknown characters... but then it wouldn't be a best seller and we wouldn't be talking about it after all.

I think that it is important to recognize that faith (i.e. religion) is something that is intensely personal. For me, and many believers, it is something felt so strongly in our spirits that it is of more value to us than our own lives. I think that is why so many fiercely defend it. Someone mentioned earlier that when religion is falsely represented (as a fiction) people "freak out" and I don't mean to offend in saying that seems to be a comment made in haste without an attempt to understand the nature of the faith of a people. My greatest treasure in this life is my relationship with God and I believe that He is the ultimate author of the Bible. Having said that, it concerns me that others may be misled in its meaning or authority by authors like Diamant and Dan Brown for instance. I understand the emotions that lead us to defend our faith. It pains me to see my greatest love treated with disregard and His beloved depicted with false (and seemingly malicious) intent, but I also understand that God is in control and that we each are on separate journeys of "religious" discovery where we have been given free choice over what knowledge we feed our minds and how that knowledge will affect our faith. I agree that the story is a fiction and that the general public should view it as such and I think that there is a message in there about the loss of a feminine community or support system that we no longer participate in as women today, unfortunately because of the choice of genre (historical religious fiction) that message is lost on many.

Why is it that when religion pops up in a movie or book, everyone is freaking out? I think we all need to take a deep breath, and remember the definition of fiction. I thought the book to be amazing and just finished reading it for my 7th time. I know people today named Leah, Jacob, Levi, Rachel, Ben, Dan, Joseph and Reuben, and I do not ask them why their parents named them after biblicle people who some did such horrible things. Because it is a story. If there are people who are so small minded they portray fiction as fact, that is their own issue, and hopefully someone can straighten them out without bashing the author of an amazing book.

In my opnion, this book is amazing. Anita Diamant just used the bible like a pretense to set up the story and the book is not really about monotheism or polytheism or something like that but the purpose of the book is to show the strengh of the woman living in a world ruled by men. She's showing that even though Dinah faced many hardships in life in the end, she dies happily surrounded by the people cares and loves about the most. Moreover, Dinah was raised by her mothers whom believed of other gods and goddess not by her father whom ignored her throughout her life. As for the bible, Dinah only had few paragragh and those paragraph aren't enough to truly make her a character. For me, her character in this novel was well thought out...

I read this novel and even though it was a compelling story I had a really hard time with the author "re-writing" history from the Bible. Even as a Christian I felt the new depiction of such an important part of the Bible was wrong, even a little blasphemous.

I red the Red Tent and thought it absolutely amazing. All this love sick puppy thing is crazy. She was a strong woman who got through the death of her loved one the taking of her child and even the knowledge that she had been forgotten by her family. How can you not say she was remarkable? The author never said it was real she said it was a book about woman being strong. And even in her mothers you see a strong women in her own way. I totally disagree with this essay.

I needed this chance to tell what is on my heart since reading The Red Tent. I agree with Rabbi Rothman. In fact, he is not harsh enough. I was very disappointed with the book because I had hoped to read a novel based on historical evidence of the lives of people of the era combined with the Bible's account. It is neither. It is so loosely based on the Bibical account not much but the names and general plot line remains. She changed many things beyond those listed by Rabbi Rothman. But what concerns me most is that Ms Diamant rejects all interactions with our God, all miracles, all divine interventions and dismisses them as coincidence or nonexistant. For example, Joseph's dream of becoming a leader is turned into a child's game of pretend. If Ms Diamant had done this once or twice for the sake of her story, I would be perturbed but I am quite angry with her treatment of the one true God. I fear that she has purposefully discredited the God of the Jews and Christians--not just the patriarchs to whom God gave the truth of his Oneness. "Hear O Isreal the LORD our God is One God." Those who submit comments and do not understand the importance of the disgraceful way Ms Diamant misuses both our history and God must not believe the Bible to be fact. One writer even refers to it a myth. But to those of us who would give our life rather than change one word of it, The Red Tent is deeply offensive. I do not know Ms Diamant's motives. Money often is the motivation when creating a contraversy. Nevertheless, I suspect the motive is to discredit the God of the Jewish people, even putting the one true God on the same plane as the gods of the Egyptians. Perhaps she is agnostic in her theism and considered her treatment of God as irrelevant. Once the message of the Bible-that there is one God who cares deeply for his creation--is null and void, the Bible stories are now no more that folk tales which may be twisted to please ourselves or our pocket books. Perhaps in her own eyes she has done nothing inappropriate, but she has offended those who believe in the infallible word of God. God loves us so he gave us a proud history and His word to guide us. We should not take liberties with it for any reason.

Thank you so much for this article. I just finished this book and was incredibly disturbed. It's supposed to make the women look strong? What a joke? The Torah portrays them as strong, Rashi portrays them as strong, the Talmud portrays them of strong. This book portrays them as a bunch of bizzare women fighting over everything. It takes away the selflesness that Rachel had when she helped Leah marry Jacob without embarrasment. It turns Dinah into a much bigger victim. It makes the bad guys look like the good guys and the good guys look like thugs. The author even dragged in Rebecca and Issac and made them look nuts. Why? Why? She's a talented writer, surely she could have come up with her own characters. or did she think she could only sell a book that created a controversy. And fiction or not, tens of thousands of people who read this book come away beliving that what is in here is fact, or, they don't know the facts to begin with and now this is their only picture in their head of these holy people.

I kept hearing about "The Red Tent", so I finally bought a copy. I expected to read something that filled in the holes, a book that would bring the story to life. Instead, I've been increasingly disturbed by the discrepancies between the Biblical account, Jewish tradition, and the novel. I'm glad to find I'm not the only one.

While I can understand where the Rabbi is coming. I am completely opposed to his opinion. It seems to me that he does not understand exactly where Diamant is coming from.
She's interpreting a piece from the Bible, which in itself is a tiny piece that it must be open to interpretation. I've read The Red Tent and I've just finished my second read through of it about 20 minutes ago.
It's a version of a myth and a well written one at that. Diamant interpreted the story of Dinah with impeccable taste. The fact that it's being bashed like it is, is downright upsetting.

What about The Red Tent makes the patriarchs villainous?
What part of it says: "I am correct. I am the word of God!"
I mean, is the story tragic, because it gives women a voice, or that it downplays the role of religion?
To me, it doesn't seem to want to bring people into religion or to degrade it. The Red Tent gives a version of the story that isn't given freely within a book written (and I will stand by this) by men. Even in Diamants book women are not treated equally. I believe that she is just trying to give a different point of view. And the only religious aspect of the book was the reference to the one god.
It's not that women OR men believe this story over the Bible/Torah/Midrash etc. People read the book knowing it's a work of fiction. The fact that they relate to the story is the trademark of a FANTASTIC Writer, which is what Anita Diamant is. Hands down.

One must take into account that this was written by a man. Rabbi Rothman lacks a certain understanding of how the women who read this story relate to the need of support among each other. Maybe we looked at the book as what it was meant to be - a story about the struggles of being a woman.

I read "The Red Tent" knowing that it was fiction. However, I found it even more enjoyable because Diament does pose some interesting questions about life around 2000 years ago, and I do not believe that questioning a people's, or a faith's, history is wrong or insulting in any way.

I agree with Melissa that Diament intended no disrespect. However, I disagree that "the point of this book was to give biblical women a voice which was denied them." Putting questionable words into womens' mouths is not the same as giving them a voice.

I feel that who ever wrote this was missing the point of the book which had basically nothing about Judaism in it. I feel that the point of this book was to give biblical women a voice which was denied them. Anyways how do you know there wasnt a "red tent", its a fictional work if you can't accept the book as it is don't go out of your way to make it seem like she was writing this book out of disrepect

The way you describe The Red Tent is completely inaccurate to the novel. The woman were not "cast off" during their cycle but separated themselves in sacred rituals. The book says nothing bad about Jewish people as it hardly mentions the religion. Most of the characters are not monotheistic. Your article reminds me of Christians' ignorant hatred of The Davinci Code. Please, try to raise yourself above this.

I'm honestly not sure what to make of this article. On the one hand, I understand how the retelling is different and therefore could be taken as dishonouring beliefs. However, I feel that Diamant's take on the story empowers women and gives them a voice that is largely muted in the Bible. Diamant's Dinah is so far from a love-starved girl. She is strong, caring and so deeply enriched by traditions and family. Moreover, if one were to look at the Bible as simply a collection of myths, then what is the harm in reinterpreting the story? True believers will understand that it is a work of fiction, offering an alternate interpretation of events and characters.

I appreciate any light being shed on the misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the Bible. This book was recommended by a co-worker, and I think we are going to have a conversation. (not mean, just informative). Rabbi, I truly thank you for posting your commentary and thankful for my finding it before I gave this book to my daughter.

Does Rabbi Rothman actually know that ancient peoples did not have a so-called red tent. The American Indians kept menstruating women in a separate tent.

I didn't like the fact that she took honorable people and defamed them. Sure it's fiction...so why not use fictional people to tell a fictional story?
I will not recomend this book to anyone!

of course its fiction. that's besides the point. fictionalizing true people whom millions have revered for thousands of years and lowering her stature with falsehood and actions that go against so much of what our Patriarchs and Matriarchs stood for, is disrespectful and shameful. Just imagine someone writing a fictionalized account of your grandmother that has her doing numerous objectionable things that you know she never did -- and that book would be read by millions, and although a work a fiction, people would have this false impression of your grandmother. I doubt you would be so lasse faire as many commenters are here.

The Red Tent humanizes figures in the Torah. It is a work of fiction. Do you let other fairy tales get under your skin? Relax and marvel in the beauty of the text. Im certain it was not created to undermine your beliefs.

I read the book because it came highly recommended. I was disapointed at nearly every page for its lack of integrity. The story is interesting, yes, but even if it had not been written about the for-fathers of our faith I would have been left with an empty feeling. The story goes no where. No teaching, moral, or point to the pain of its fictacious characters. If the author was interested in the truth or integrity of "her" characters at all, she would have allowed Rebeca's grace, Isaac's wisdom, Jacobs faith, Rachel's stature to remain intact. These were people of God, upright and shining examples to the world of faith- all were left ripped apart by "The Red Tent".
Also, I didn't appreciate (given the audience that is so attracted to an elaborated Bible story) the long, and sometimes deep references to sex lives of the characters. More than I needed to read to understand that they were in love, intimate, or any of that!

I totally agree with your comments about the book, I took offense at the writers sheer lack of respect for the history of our Lord and his people. If this book did not include names of Gods people and was simply an imaginary account of "what if" I could have enjoyed it. I think the author needs to examine her motives more clearly before trying to rewrite the Greatest book of all time.

i think u take too much emphasis on the little things. it is a work of fiction and right under the the title of the book on the cover it says " a novel" the author had to make stuff up becasue the actual information is unknown to us and just for her and our own pleasure as readers. no matter how big ur beleifs are its a book. get over it

Thanks for your critique. I took a class on the theology of the Pentateuch while I was in seminary, but it was ages ago. As I read the book I became so filled with conginitve dissonance, sure that this was contrary to what we know of the time and culture and of the Biblical record itself, that I just had to put it down. I came here in my journey to find out what is true about those times and am grateful for the affirmation that I'm right to search.

I just recently read The Red Tent and am now writing a paper on this very subject. The matter of biblical theology or lack there of in this novel. The most important thing to remember when reading this novel it that IT IS FICTION. Diamant is not trying to rewrite the Torah, but is just trying to write an interesting FICTIONAL novel from the basis of a Bibilical character. I agree that it may be difficult for someone who is not well versed in scripture to understand all the miss use of the real story and to take Diamant's as verbatium, but we must all rememeber that The Red Tent is FICTION. Diamant herself is Jewish and is therefore well versed in the Torah and would not mean for her story to rewrite or undermine this teaching. This is why she refers to her book as historical FICTION.

Even the "red tent" in the story, a place to which women were cast off during their menstruation cycle and men never ventured near, has no basis in Jewish belief or history. It says more for today's questions about equality of the sexes, than in biblical times, since the red tent never existed. Perhaps the author invented it to figuratively create a "women's club." But nevertheless, she created it.


in this paragraph, is the author saying that the "red tent" itself never existed in history? not the story in the book but the red tent itself, the tent where women would go during their menstration cycles...

Many of the people who read this novel do not believe that Judaism made the world better

I just finished reading The Red Tent as it was a gift from a friend. It doesn’t take much to know this is fiction...and really good fiction at that. A good book that will be moving emotions…– positive or negative emotions! This is a book written to entertain us! Just like music or fine art, if you don’t fancy it, don’t look at it or listen to it, but try to have an opened mind. You can always stop reading a book you aren’t fond of. Where have we gone when an artist/writer can’t explore their creative juices? I see that this is LOOSLY based on Genesis, but please have some consideration of artistic talent. The book is compelling, reading was easy, persuasive and alluring.
My family members and friends give great praise to a writer that can clearly express the experiences of women through their suffering, affliction and their finding tenderness, devotion and love. I have a preference to reading a book that show our ancestors as real humans, because I think they WERE! Remember, this is fiction and one woman’s art. Looking forward to the next one!

I understand why some people would be offended by The Red Tent. However one must (before and during the reading) realize one simple word... fiction. If people believe this it is becuase of their own ignorance. I am not offended by the book, but offended at how closed minded my people are. Look not at this book as the Torah it self, but as a peice of modern day writing. Only then can you truly see it, fiction and all.

After reading The Red Tent for my book club, I was very curious to know what if any reactions the book had sparked from the Jewish community. I appreciate your comments and plan to share them at the next meeting of my book club. Despite my Catholic upbringing, I knew that the story in the book did not match what I knew of the Old Testament, as we refer to the Torah.
I agree completely with your comment that "it reduces Dinah to a character in a Harlequin romance novel". The entire novel seemed to focus around only the sexual lives of the characters. In addition, several inaccuracies in the relating of the story reminded me of revisionist history, very much like that of the recent best-seller The DaVinci Code. I certainly hope that people are not basing their views of history and religion on these fictional accounts, but I am afraid that many are finding them to be believable.

I was shocked when I read the book. I liked it, but felt it was inappropiate to use religious figures for a sexual love story. She made the religious figures worthless in their old age. what was their purpose then in their youth. One thing the book did accomplish, I am not jewish, but I went back to read the Old Testament to make sure I had my facts straight. Thank you for writing this article.

In my view, your comments were more than justified and quite appropriate. I like your writing and applaud you as a defender of those I admire. Thank you.

I wish I had read this review read before I bought the book! I am so sickened by the lies that this woman is spreading about Judaism and our forefathers. I started reading the book last night and was horrified by what I read! I am returning the book today for a refund, I will not contribute financially or any other way to the slander she is spreading. Anita Diamant, a Jew, is willing to perpetuate contempt for us and our religion for her own finacial gain.

Everyone is taking this book way too serious. It is a fiction book written for entertainment. Maybe because I am younger than most of the people that have already made comments about this book I have a more open mind about this subject. I just recently read the book for my religion course study and found it very moving, but I know that the book is only based on some facts and that some of the information is from Diamant's imagingation. If everyone that was so upset about this book and the historical correctness of it why did you even bother reading it? It says on the cover that it is fiction and that Diamant wanted to explore the voice in the bible that had been locked up.

Imagine the outcry if a Christian wrote a book suggesting that Jesus was really a sexual predator. Look what did happen to Salman Rushdie, when he wrote a novel suggesting that Mohammed wasn't perfect. I'm grateful that as Jews, we don't issue fatwas against artists whose works insult what we hold sacred. At the same time, though, we are within our rights to demand basic respect! Diamant should be encouraged to use her writing talents to share fiction *based upon* Jewish history -- not upon lies defamatory to it.

I have just finished reading The Red Tent. I found it fascinating, yet it left me feeling disturbed with my Christian beliefs. After reading the book I needed to know how much was fiction and how much was fact in depicting the history of the book. I am familar enough with the Old Testament of the Bible to recognize where the author deviated from familiar Biblical stories. That deviation is what bothered me - I could see the fiction, but for those not familiar with Old Testament, or the Torah, they would take the story at truth. I have found this to be true with the women who have suggested my reading of the Red Tent. My women friends discussed with me their thoughts and feelings of the book and how real it was to them. These women have taken the fiction as fact. My women friends also have little to no knowledge in the Bible and therefore take it as truth. It is sad that many people will feel that the forefathers of our Jewish history are backward, brutish, and ignorant because of the Red Tent. I believe that the women of the day were treated like property and that is a sad commentary on any society, but to give the impression gained from the Red Tent that the Hebrew people were the dirty, ignorant, brutes, and the cultures of the surrounding peoples more refined, advanced, and tolerant makes me sad.

As for a fictional story the reading was smooth and enticing. My thoughts at finishing the book are how sad to think of how many will be turned off to the one God through reading this fiction, made so believable by a good story line.

As I was looking through the comments people made I found one that I feel complelled to argue against. The statement was as follows.

"My feelings exactly!

I could barely stomach reading The Red Tent, precisely because it portrays our founding Mothers and Fathers as corrupt barbarians, in direct opposition to everything we know about them. It is a sad comment on contemporary American Jewish life that this book is so immensely popular, especially among Jews. It is also bizarre that the author of this book is otherwise known to be an exponent of Jewish pride. What explains this exercise in the defamation of our heritage, I don't know."

Obviously our "mothers" and "fathers" were sinners. how else would our current world become so full of hate and wrong etc. we learn from the people before us and we have learned to behave like them, their behavior was portrayed in the Red Tent. These people werent perfect, and that fact is what made this FICTIONAL book so realistic and easy to relate to.

Your review was right on the mark. The author of the Red Tent sullies our forefathers, and the work reeks of the worst form of revisionism, hiding under the cloak of fiction. Bravo, Rabbi Rothman!

I can't begin to comment on your opposition to this book based on a philosophical or religious perspective as I read it simply and innocently as a nonsecular female. I suspect that I am somewhat typical of those whom you have met who loved the book and I would like to tell you why.

First of all, I humbly appologize for all of those who are not Jewish who read the book and do not understand the term fiction thereby commenting or believing in this book as something that it is not. Having had the opportunity to travel extensively in Asia and Europe, I have come home realizing how ignorant we are as a nation toward not only other countries but other cultures within our own nation. I am constantly amazed at how foolish we are in responding and/or reacting to cultures outside our own; how quickly we fall for stereotypes and use bits of truth to be the whole truth.

However, without the scholarly and spiritual background that you have I did not look for or find all the problems that so many of these comments reflect. I simply saw a reflection of women; their strength and hope and shame and fear. The story to me was about love and loss and the amazing courage and ability of women to nurture, protect, persevere and continue in the face of unbearable events that none of us can escape completely regardless of race, creed or color. Biologically we are far more similiar than we can ever begin to be different racially, politically or philosophically. Why, I wonder, do we seek to defend our differences rather than celebrate our similarities.

There's not much to add to this discussion. I do feel compelled to point out, however, that the word is 'forebears,' NOT 'forebearers.'

Why don't you take the book for what it is FICTION!

To quote the Rabbi: "...It is about the people who fought and struggled to bring monotheism and eventually Judaism into the world and to make it a better place...” As you see this is at a time when Judaism isn't yet as clearly defined, as many would assume. You have to admit that it was not until the Exodus and even more so the Exile, that Judaism became close to what it became centuries later. Of course I am looking through the lens of a different background, so finding perfection in the characters is not of a concern of mine when looking for a deeper exploration of what may have been the 'human' concerns of existence. There is never anything that can be said to those who choose to cling to a doctrinal line of thought that opposes the fallibilities of their heroes.

I am writing to comment on the review by Rabbi Avraham Rothman of the novel, The Red Tent, which recently appeared on Aish.com. I was excited when I noticed the review because of my own very mixed feelings about this book. However, having read the review, I want to offer my own comments because in the end, I believe that Rabbi Rothman both underestimates the strengths of this novel and, more importantly, also misses its main and fatal flaw.

As I see it, The Red Tent has four major strengths: (1) It's well written. Ms. Diamont has created a living world peopled with real characters. The prose is often nearly poetic, yet the dialog is realistic, dramatic and moving. (2) Second, the book often has the taste, texture and aroma of history rather than fiction. Ms. Diamont appears to skillfully weave historical and archeological fact with imaginative story telling. The result is a work of fiction constructed on a skillfully built scaffold of fact that feels like history even where it is obviously fiction. (3) Ms. Diamont demonstrates uncanny skill in taking "silences" of the Bible (where the Biblical narrative leaves off) and interprets them in ways which are not obviously contradictory with what IS in the Bible. Her ability to pinpoint such "gaps" in the sacred text and fill them skillfully and with imagination makes her novel fascinating reading, including for those familiar with the Biblical text, for here is a legitimate point of view of what the Bible might have said if it had filled in those silences. (4) Finally, and most importantly, the overwhelming strength of The Red Tent are the portraits of the women who people its pages, most especially Leah and Rachel, Bilah and Zilpah, and of course Dina. Never again will these women be mere shadowy figures evoked only by a few Biblical references to their names for a reader of The Red Tent.

However, the weaknesses of The Red Tent are also real and parallel the novel's strengths. On the whole, the men in its pages are far less substantially portrayed than the women. They tend to be one dimensional cardboard cut out type characters, even Jacob and Labon, and far more so the king and prince of Shechem and male characters populating the portion of the novel taking place in Egypt, including Joseph. Similarly, the novel's blending of history and imagination breaks down when the story line reaches Shechem and Egypt, the descriptions of both of which are more suggestive of suburban living in this century than historical reality.

But another weakness of The Red Tent is, I believe, also its fatal flaw. This is Ms. Diamont's failure to follow through with the courage of her own story's convictions. In her novel she creates living, breathing, strong, sensitive, intelligent, caring, flesh and blood Biblical matriarchs, and then abandons them to an age-old male chauvinist stereotype. For apparently, Elokim, the God of Abraham, is the province solely of men in the world depicted in The Red Tent. Despite the statements in Biblical narrative indicating that Abraham's wife, Sarah, Isaac's wife, Rebecca, and Leah all individually prayed to God, Ms. Diamont ignores these jewels of Biblical feminism. Instead her finely drawn heroines stay mired in the muck of paganism. They are more interested in their wood and stone household idols than in the fascinating concept of an all powerful and invisible God, a God who is worshiped by the very man each of the four weds, loves, lives with and bears the children of.

How could this be? Is it conceivable that woman such as the characters portrayed by Ms. Diamont could possibly be satisfied worshipping sticks and stones when in their own home is a higher spiritual alternative? One could argue that these women, unlike Jacob, were raised in ignorance of Abraham's monotheistic and all powerful God, in the household of idol-worshiping Laban. But is it conceivable that not one of the four articulate, intelligent, spiritual women portrayed by Ms. Diamont would show any interest in the most earth shaking spiritual phenomenon to touch the planet - at the very moment it took place and in their own household, tents, and family? I think not.

Rabbi Rothman states in his review of The Red Tent that "every Bar/Bat Mitzvah child knows that our forbearers possessed faith beyond our comprehension." As he seems to see it, the fundamental problem with The Red Tent is its assignment of our doubts to our ancestors -- "who spoke to God, who saw the burning bush, who experienced the Exodus and countless other miracles…" "These," says Rabbi Rothman, "are our issues, not theirs." Furthermore, he argues, "We cannot accept that our forefathers, even in fiction, could be petty, could be murderers, could be willing to throw away the relationship they fought so hard for with the Almighty." But in my view, Rabbi Rothman's analysis actually misses the mark in taking aim at this novel's most important failing.

Personally, I can live with a book that portrays our ancestors - even our patriarchs and matriarchs - as real human beings, because I believe they were and did have real human failings - if that book also shows them striving, even struggling, on the higher plane of their God-given human souls. Remember, The Red Tent takes place long before the miracles of the burning bush and the Exodus, and while God spoke to Abraham, and to Isaac and to Jacob, His presence, His power, His relationship to His people, had not yet been burned into the consciousness of the nations through the open miracles of the plagues in Egypt, splitting the Red Sea, and bringing His people to freedom. At any rate, casting our ancestors in realistic human terms is not the major failing of this book, but actually one of its strengths, at least as far as its central female characters are concerned. No, the major failing of The Red Tent is its failure to ascribe any "relationship … with the Almighty" whatsoever to these central characters.

Sadly, The Red Tent appears to be so enmeshed in defending its feminist view point -- that women of the Bible are just as rich, full, complete and complex human beings as are its men -- that it steps right into the trap of handing God entirely over to men in the Bible, instead staking a claim for Biblical women solely to idolatry. The unfortunate but incontrovertible message received is that men in Dina's day may have found the imminent and omniscient invisible God of Abraham and Isaac compelling, but women did not, and would not or could not strive for this new spiritual height. This is the novel's fatal flaw.

Thus, despite all the power and drama it brings to its skillful blending of historical and fictional events and personages, in the end, The Red Tent serves up the same warmed up stereotype we have all tasted before. Our Jewish matriarchs - whose rightful place is that of true spiritual partners of our Jewish patriarchs, are left diminished in our memories by this book as spiritual dwarfs. How sad! What a tragic waste of a powerful writer and story!

p.s. By the way, while the color of the "Red Tent" in this novel may be fictionalized, I understand that the existence of a separate quarters for menstruating women is an historical fact associated with herding societies (such as the community of Jacob depicted in this novel). I believe this phenomenon was still in existence among Ethiopian Jews prior to their immigration to Eretz Yisrael.

The bad thing is that people think this is fact and not fiction.

I read this book on the recommendation of the many midwives and maternity nurses I work with, both Jewish and non-Jewish. Of course, they find it fascinating, and it has been my ongoing task to remind my colleagues that this book is fiction. The problem is that there is just enough fact to grant this book a credibility it does not deserve. Unfortunately, most readers will are not learned/knowledgable enough to differentiate the fiction from the few facts.

I totally agree with the comments, as above in particular the comments regarding Rivka, to me I studied that she was a smart person and ruses she used where ultimately for the good of Israel in the future. I also felt that Dinah was poorly portrayed and that the book is sensationalist and the author is looking to commercial aspects
. Of course Anita Diamnat is entitled to her interpretation, but she made me angry.

I am finding the book quite disturbing.
As a traditional Jew, the flipant comments about Jacob and Rivka were annoying. This could easily be used by antisemites for some stupid purpose.

My mother gave me The Red Tent about a year ago, thinking I would enjoy it. When I read the back cover, I was very hesitant to read it because I thought it would make me mad. Thank you for saving me the trouble. Now I know it will make me mad! I don't even think I'll give it away, I think it belongs in the garbage.

I could not accept Dina as the girl I read about in the Torah Nor could I accept the rest of the character of the rest of the people. A good review. What do the people think who do not know Torah? Do they think the book is fact?

During the last year, I happened across 'The Red Tent' and with eager anticipation opened it's pages. What I found was a vulgar portrail of women who were obsessed with sexuality (including vivid descriptions of genitals). I put the book away and never finished it. There was much more to these great woment than what this author wrote. She reduced them to a brood of wenches!

I just finished reading The Red Tent on the recommendation of a friend,and am relieved to hear your comments. I found myself offended at the caricatures Diamont made of our forebearers, and confused as to why my friend's rabbi has conducted 'studies' of this book. I intend to share your insights with her too. Thank you.

lighten up!!!!

Thank you, Rabbi Rothman, for speaking out against blasphemous and patently offensive pulp-fiction which hides behind a mask of acceptability. The Red Tent joins a small collection of Torah-based smut which is demeaning to G-d in particular and women in general. In one of these popular novels, the lead character is raped on her way home from the mikvah (lo alenu); another book has its heroine fleeing the clutches of her abusive/psychotic/Chassidic husband and living on the lam with their child. (Naturally his being abusive and psychotic is tied in with his being a Chassid in some fringe faction in Israel.)

Perhaps the only thing worse than Jewish women writing this trash, is that others are reading it for "entertainment". Let us pray that we should once again be a "light among the nations", and not imitators of drivel and lies.

My book club read this book and I was horrified. Not only did the author portray the Jewish men as boors, murderers,and Joseph as a wimp, but the non-Jewish males were all sympathtic, kind, wonderful people. I am very upset that readers who rely on this type of reading for their knowledge will get a totally skewed impression. I think the author must have a serious issue with Jewish males to have portrayed them in this light.

I think Rabbi Rothman is right on the money on his analysis of anita Diamant

While I agree with the Rabbi that Diamant's portrait of the the Matriarch's is both madening and baseless in the text, many of his other problems go too far.

Simeon and Levi's attack on Shechem is hardly a "surgical strike." Rather, the text shows them slaughtering all of the men of a city, enslaving the women and children and taking plundering. The story is one of the most bloody in the text.

Further, Jacob is portait not as complicitous or barberous, but silent, much as he is in the Torah. Many die because of his silence.

While I do not wish to defend TRT, I do think that your article points to another problem. Jewish comentators often seek to turn charcters that the text shows to be extremely flawed, into paragons. Doing so does the text and the reader a great diservice.

Dear Rav Rothman,
The Red Tent has bothered me for some time.
The Torah ends the Dina story with a powerful anti-rape statement [calling it an abomination in Israel!], and comes to a wonderful [female-positive, perhaps 'feminist'] conclusion.
While The Red Tent disturbs me too, i believe the impulse the author felt to re-write the Dina story comes from our flawed Rabbinic writtings that suggest [incorrectly in my opinion] that Dina's rape was punishment for various imagined crimes. Rape is always evil; in fact the story teaches us that. But by 'blaming the victim' our Rabbinic sages created the false impression that the story was a message to women to stay in their [limited] place. No wonder modern women want to re-write it...but there is no need...the story as HaShem gave it to us, is already a female-positive, anti-rape story.
Some of our sages were limited by the social biases of their times.
Perhaps what we need are new midrash/commentary: ones that give Torah credit for outlawing [and punishing] rape before other law-codes did; commentary that elevates Dina not demotes her.
bruceb...

When my students ask me the problem with reading "The Red Tent" I give the following analogy: Suppose there was a well-written, dramatic novel in which the main character, Adolf Hitler, was portrayed as a compassionate, well- meaning hero and the Jewish people were portrayed as a race of theives and villians. Since it is so well-written, anyone who reads it is likely to feel compassion towards Hitler - and animosity towards the Jews.
What would be wrong if it became a best seller since it's only fiction?

Those who read "The Red Tent" cannot help but be affected by it and, when I've spoke to these students about the true story of the rape of Dina, they still wonder if maybe she didn't really get raped. My experience has been that it has altered their views of our matriarchs and patriarchs - making our heros villians and our villians heros at worst and skeptical of the greatness of them at best. Even thought they know it's fiction - it affects them.

The hypothetical book about Hitler would be protested and banned in most countries because it is understood that this kind of novel is abomidable and anti- semitic. "The Red Tent" is guilty of this as well. The author could have written an interesting novel in any time period with any names, but to use our heritage, our patriarchs, our matriarchs and to distort them in such a way is tragic.
Unfortunately, it's tolerated because so many Jews do not realize that the rape of Dina was a historic fact not a fable. If everyone knew the greatness of our heritage and the truth of our Torah, they would be protesting this "novel." That's the lesson for all of us and the saddest part of all.

Thank you for your article and thank you Aish.com.

An excellent debunking of a very PC book which attempts to " explain " the lives of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs from a secular, late 20th Century perspective with no references to the words of our Sages.

Dear Rabbi Rothman,
Thank-you for your commentry on "The Red Tent". I had tired to read this book but stopped after a few chapters because it seemed so audacious to be blasphemous. The rape of Dinah is a difficult but to create an enraged Dinah battling her family merely creates a new set of problems.
I would be most interested in hearing your lectures in Toronto.
Thank-you.
Rena

I could barely stomach reading The Red Tent, precisely because it portrays our founding Mothers and Fathers as corrupt barbarians, in direct opposition to everything we know about them. It is a sad comment on contemporary American Jewish life that this book is so immensely popular, especially among Jews. It is also bizarre that the author of this book is otherwise known to be an exponent of Jewish pride. What explains this exercise in the defamation of our heritage, I don't know.

A book with a power and influence we dare not ignore. This book is fiction with twisted fact! I was horrified to read it! Thank you for being clear in your correct critisism.

I'm glad you put into words the feelings I had about the book. I tried reading it, telling myself that it was just fiction. I was not able to finish the book, it had so much wrong with it. Thanks for your article.

The esteemed Rabbi disagrees with Ms. Diamant's creative retelling of the past. As is his right. However, if he is of the belief that Jews of the past were not capable of deciet,inappropriate behavior, murder even, then he is equally guilty of rewriting the past. And aren't many stories told by our great teachers intended to be used as metaphor or allegory? Are men the only ones who have "schools"to pass down the teachings? I do not feel offended by Ms. Diamant's history, but rather encouraged to read more. Am I mistaken in thinking that our history is one of questioning in the pursuit of knowledge?

I am so happy to see your article!! I have been giving talks in my community to various women's groups about the Red Tent and it is unbelievable how many women believe and want to believe that what Anita Diamant wrote is the Real Story. As one woman said, "Everyone knows that the Torah is stories written by men for men and the 'voices' of women are excluded. The Red Tent is what really happened." Another women said, "Well, there's the Torah, the Midrash, and The Red Tent -- and each person has to choose which one works for them!" I think it is imperitive for Torah observant people -- women especially -- to read this book. We need to be able to respond with information and facts. We also need to ask ourselves the question, why are so many women believing this book to be more accurate and even more important, why do they want to believe this rather than their own tradition??

Excellent article. G-d willing it will defuse this lie before it turns into one of those "everybody knows..." fables, such as the bedsheet with a hole or the horn-covering headgear.

Sadly, when it comes to the world at large, I have very little faith. We only need to look at the Palestinian situation, or the propaganda of Henry Ford, to realize that people will believe what they want to believe, no matter how outlandish.

How true - and thank G-d for Aish that publishes articles like this to defend the honour of our faith and our holiest ancestors.
It is a tragic sign of the times that a daughter of our own people can have so little knowledge of our lofty heritage. It is obvious that her gross ignorance fuels her absolutely unacceptable "audacity".