Body Parts Flung Heavenward and Jewish Sexual Ethics

In the synagogue, a fellow congregant showed me a surprising interpretation of a verse in the Torah about Amalek’s attack on the Israelites in the desert. This is based on Deuteronomy 25:18[i], which is usually translated as Amalek “surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear".” However, there is an interpretation of this verse that reads  as Amalek “cut off the Israelites’ penises and flung them heavenward, [to God] saying, ‘This is what You have chosen, take for Yourself what You have chosen[ii].”

This bizarre interpretation leads one to wonder what moral teachings are to be inferred from the symbolism in this story. In understanding Jewish sacred text, it is useful to remember that there are 70 faces of the Torah[iii], eg. Every verse has multiple meanings.  Perhaps, one meaning of this story is alluding to a Jewish approach to sexuality that is nuanced, in that it affirms a positive attitude to sex as joyful, loving, wholesome and even holy, but also harmful if not constrained and directed.  

Amalek performed this brutal gesture to make a point in a culture war against the Israelites. “Amalek was opposed to Israel, and the form of Israel is that they [the males, of course] are circumcised. It is with circumcision that they are Israelites. This is the reason why Amalek cut off their circumcised penises because Amalek was opposed to circumcision[iv].” According to this teaching, circumcision is essential to the identity and idea of the Jewish people.

One way to explain this is to consider Maimonides’ explanation of circumcision. “As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of procreation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate regarding the sexual act…This commandment… is a means for perfecting man's moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that organ does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of procreation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust…[v]”.

This teaching is one half of the picture when it comes to Judaism’s approach to sex. A call to the Jew for moderation in sex and other means of enjoying life makes it possible for him to achieve a measure of holiness[vi].

On the other hand, we have the very positive approach to sex in Judaism. Sex is portrayed as joyful in the verse: “Abimelech, king of the Philistines, looked through the window and behold, Isaac was playing/making laughter [having sex] with Rebecca his wife[vii]”.

Sex is not just a Mitzvah, a positive commandment, when it leads to procreation[viii], but it is regarded as a Mitzva (commandment) and obligation for a man to please his wife and honour her right to sex[ix]. This obligation is understood more broadly as requiring the man to prioritise the woman’s pleasure during sex before his own[x], and an overall responsibility for a man to show understanding and be responsive to a woman’s emotional need to feel loved[xi].

Maimonides provides the following guidance: “[a man] should not be intimate with her [his wife] unless she is willing, and out of chatting and joy. Marital relations are forbidden while [he is] thinking of another woman, nor while drunk, while they are fighting, or in hatred, nor may he force her nor while she is afraid. Nor after he has decided to divorce her[xii]”. I understand this as affirming the value of bodily pleasure while also emphasising the emotional experience of making love and connecting. This is elegantly reflected in the use of the word “knowing” as a euphemism for sex[xiii]. “One should not think that there is anything disgusting, or any ugliness, God forbid, in the proper union[xiv]”, if it is done “as it should be” at the right time and with the proper intent.

One of Judaism’s aims is for us to be part of the world and partake of its pleasures in a measured way. We are invited to appreciate the flavours and textures of food[xv], but also to rise above our urges and bodily needs to attach ourselves to God, and to hold both seemingly opposed stances at the same time.

A descendent of Amalek, Haman, argued that “there is one nation [the Jews]… whose religious laws and ways were different from other nations[xvi]” and this difference was a valid reason for them to be annihilated. Perhaps the Jewish approach to be in the world and beyond it, unsettles the intolerant Amalekite who requires conformity for his own emotional security. By throwing the modified sexual organ toward the sky, the Amalekite is asserting there is no place for this ‘deviation’ from his norms, on his earth, but only in heaven. If you choose not to conform fully to the norms of the earth and you choose heavenly approaches, do them there not here[xvii]!  

On Thursday 17 March 2022, we celebrated victory over Amalek and Haman with the religious festival of Purim, which is marked by wine, feasting and food gifts, as well as charity and storytelling. And except for any Jewish astronauts, we do this right here on earth! 

 

Notes

---

[i] Midrash Tanchuma, Devarim, Ki Tetzei 10, cited in Rashi on 25:18, this translation is more of an interpretation than a translation. It is based on a verb related to the word “tail” (Zanav in Hebrew), that could be translated literally as “he tailed you”. The usual way of reading this verse is that Amalek attacked the tail end of the Israelite people, the stragglers as interpreted by Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, Chizkuni, Ohr Hachayim on Deuteronomy, 25:18

[ii] Midrash Tanchuma

[iii] Bamidbar Rabba, 13:16

[iv] Gur Aryeh on Deuteronomy, 25:18

[v] Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:49, 11

[vi] Ramban on Leviticus, 19:2

[vii] Genesis 26:8

[viii] Talmud, Yavamot 65b

[ix] Exodus 21:10, Raavad cited in Lamm, M. (1980), The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage, Jonathan David Publishers, p. 137

[x] Talmud, Brachos 60a

[xi] The Stiepler gaon, igeres Hakodesh, in cited Abramov Y., & Abramov, T. (1994) Two halves of a whole. Feldheim, p. 178

[xii] Maimonides, laws of marriage 15:17-18, forbidden intercourse 21:12, drawing on the Talmud Nedarim 20b

[xiii] Me’iri, cited in Lamm, M. (1980), The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage, Jonathan David Publishers, p. 135

[xiv] Ramban, Iggeres Hakodesh, chapter 2, cited Abramov Y., & Abramov, T. (1994) Two halves of a whole. Feldheim

[xv] Seforno on Genesis 25:30

[xvi] Esther 3:8

[xvii] Be’er Basadeh, on Deuteronomy, 25:18

 

Shiktzeh! Imposing One's Beliefs & Morals – Joseph & Beit Shemesh

By Seth Frantzman, licensed for
non-commercial reuse under terms as per
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en

A shocking example of seeking to impose religious standards on others was reported recently in Beit Shemesh, Israel. A seven year old girl who is afraid to go to school because of harassment by zealots has really brought this question home. (See video) With the qualification that media reports always only show part of the story, I think it is reasonable to assume there is a serious problem. Of course the behaviour we are seeing is absolutely wrong. 

My heart is with the demonstrators who asserted on Tuesday night that anyone who spits on a seven year old girl, spits on the beauty of Judaism and destroys its values[1]. They are right. This behaviour is not justified by the Torah “whose ways are pleasantness and all its paths are peace[2]”.  It would be wrong to blame whole communities for this and turn this into an anti-Haredi issue. Still, I think that before we can wash our hands of this, we need to consider the context out of which this outrage has come, as part of a strategy to prevent it in the future.    

This post explores whether the behaviour we are seeing is to be understood as an extreme manifestation of a broader rejection of pluralism. I think that because some traditional sources reflect anti-pluralist perspectives, work must be undertaken to establish and promote a compelling religious argument within a Torah perspective for greater tolerance of more practices[3] and beliefs that differ to ones own. Exhibit A. is the case of Joseph (Jacob’s son) and the degree to which his own beliefs influences his rule of a society who did not share his beliefs.

Ruling Egypt from a Jewish perspective – Mass Circumcision?

One surprising commentary about Joseph’s rule of Egypt is the suggestions that Joseph forced the Egyptians to circumcise themselves as a condition for being allowed to purchase food[4]. This baffling idea is offered as an explanation[5] for the odd wording with which Pharaoh responds to his people who cry out to him for food, “go to Joseph, whatever he tells you, you shall do[6]”. A simpler interpretation of this verse is that Pharaoh advised them to pay whatever price Joseph demands[7]. The idea that Joseph would impose his own religious practice on the people of Egypt is problematic on many levels[8]. While one commentator limits this idea to tribes related to Abraham that had previously undertaken the practice of circumcision[9], this is a bit of a stretch, with the simple meaning being that Joseph imposed this on Egypt as a whole. Why?

An Anti-Promiscuity Measure

One relatively recent view with echoes in the controversy in Beit Shemesh is that Joseph was concerned about the Egyptians who were steeped in promiscuity, so he introduced circumcision as a counter measure presumably to decrease desire[10].

Ironically, our sages never thought of as circumcision as a guarantee against sexual sin. This is the reason for the Yichud laws, which prohibit a Jewish man from being alone with a strange woman[11] with the door locked. In some there is significant segregation of the sexes in many aspects of life among the ultra-orthodox. While these varied measures have served the communities well and helped minimize if not prevent adultery and promiscuity, it’s imposition on others is wrong. Yet, this commentary can be taken to suggest otherwise. It also positions the other as promiscuous while viewing “us” as chaste. I am afraid there is too much in our tradition that the Beit Shemesh zealots can take further than reasonable people have in the past. 

Other views about Joseph’s “Virtue Policy”

One manuscript that softens this idea is that Joseph inspired Egyptians to want to circumcise themselves[12]. Another view is that as it was a time of hunger, it was important for the people to exercise restraint in terms of their eating and it was deemed useful to more generally initiate ‘character repair’ with the father of the fathers of this process being circumcision[13]. This links with the idea that a famine increases hunger so that people would eat three times as much[14] (if and when they can). The implications of these interpretations are still conducive to “us good and them not as good” thinking.

God doesn’t feed Heathens?

Another version of the circumcision story includes Joseph telling the Egyptians my God does not feed the uncircumcised, go and circumcise yourselves and I will give you[15]. The idea that God does not feed the uncircumcised, contradicts our belief that God feed all his creatures.

A “Muslim/Sufi story

Judaism has compelling ideas about the value of all people, yet for me in spite of almost 40 years of immersion in the world of Torah, what comes to mind is a Muslim story. “The Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) would not eat unless there was some guest at his table. Once,  Abraham went out in search of a guest and he found one very old man. He invited the old man to dine with him and the man agreed. When Abraham asked him to pray before eating the man refused, Abraham was angry and refused to feed him. When he did so he heard a voice from above: “Abraham, how old is that man? I tolerated him, (the old man) fed and sustained him for seventy years despite his disbelief and you could not tolerate him for seven minutes?! Abraham repented and took the old man home for dining[16].” I wish I had a ready Jewish response of equal strength, I believe we need to find one and ensure it is well known.

Egyptian law and custom rather vs. own faith? – The Property of the Priests 

We have another case, this time in the Torah itself. We are told that Joseph was entrusted with sweeping powers over Egypt; no man will raise arm or leg without your permission[17].  Despite these powers, when Joseph effectively nationalises all land in Egypt in exchange for food and seeds, he excludes the priests. Because it is a fixed settlement for the priests from Pharaoh and they ate their fixed portion that Pharaoh gave them, therefore they did not sell their fields… Joseph set this as law… only the land of the priests did not become the possession of the Pharaoh[18]. This suggests that Joseph’s set aside his personal religious views, because he was acting not as a private individual but on behalf of the Egyptian state and Pharaoh.

Alternative Explanations

Traditional commentaries offer other explanations, eg. Joseph returned a favour to the priests for speaking out in his favour when he was accused of attempted rape by the wife of Potiphar[19]. His master had sought to have him executed but because of the priests he was saved from execution[20]. A minority view goes so far as to suggest that we are not talking about priests at all but rather officials of war and the royal chariots[21], this is based on the multiple meanings of the Hebrew word כהנים (Cohanim is plural of Cohen, which can either mean priest or official). It seems that the idea of Joseph paying respect to the priests of idol worship is too offensive and implausible.

The light of Chanukah

The demonstration in Beit Shemesh happened on the last night of Chanukah, and was said to be bringing the light on the festival to the city[22]. Chanukah could be about affirming a live and let live approach. We could celebrate the triumph of religious freedom and the victory of the weak minority against those who sought to impose their way of life on them. Yet, for many it is not so much about the few resisting the many but more about the “the defiled being (given to defeat in) the hand of the pure[23]”.  

Limits of tolerance

It is necessary for communities to establish standards. I think it is right and proper for communities to decide how to deal with various challenges such as lust and assert their views. If religious Jewish men and women want to sit separately on a bus and cover up almost all their skin, that is their right. If people object to the imposition of standards on others, they have a right to make and enforce laws that prevent people being harassed for how they dress in public spaces or where they choose to sit on a bus. We need a robust tolerance that respects ourselves as well as the other.  

A choice between risks – shiktze vs. relativism  

Orthodox Judaism is committed to the idea that it has the absolute Truth. This is not going to be negotiated. In view of this, I can think of two significant options, one is to rely on teachings like “greet all people with a friendly face[24]” to counter the implications in sources such as those quoted above. The risk is the doubly offensive use of words like “Shiktzeh”. This is a yiddish version of a hebrew word being something disgusting that some people have used to refer to a non-Jewish woman. Thankfully, many orthodox Jews do not use this word. In situations like Beit Shemesh it has been unforgivably used interchangeably with words like promiscuous or slut.

The other option is to embrace an ethic that requires us to think about the other and their beliefs and practices as equal at least in the sense that we must treat their choices as we would like them to treat ours. A strong secular education that values the wisdom of all nations would be essential for the second option to succeed. This option carries the risk of slipping into relativism or at least weakening the degree to which Judaism is seen as a superior path. I am in favour of the second option.

... in today's multicultural world, the truly reliable path to coexistence, to peaceful coexistence and creative cooperation, must start from what is at the root of all cultures and what lies infinitely deeper in human hearts and minds than political opinion...It must be rooted in self-transcendence. Transcendence as a hand that reaches out to those close to us, to foreigners, to the human community, to all living creatures, to nature, to the universe; transcendence as a deeply and joyously experienced need to be in harmony even with what we ourselves are not...[25]"
-Vaclav Havel

---

[1] Tzviki Levin, http://www.facebook.com/groups/LightBetShemesh/permalink/271476442910094/

[2] Proverbs 3:17

[3] This tolerance does not need to be absolute. People of all persuasions find certain behaviours intolerable, eg. incest, theft, or indeed the behaviour of the zealots in Beit Shemesh. I would argue that the tolerance threshold needs to be higher and more open minded, with fewer behaviours being deemed intolerably offensive

[4] Midrash Beresheet Rabba, As mentioned elsewhere, the Midrash is not about what literally happened at the time but rather about teaching us something

[5] Rashi, Rabbenu Bchai

[6] Genesis 41:55, This implausible scenario is explained by Midrash Tanchuma by the sheer terror felt by the Pharaoh. Pharaoh asks the people why they did not store grain them selves? When they reply that they had stored grain but it rotted, Pharaoh is afraid that it is Joseph’s powers that caused the rot and that if the people disobey him, Joseph might decree that they should all die

[7] Chizkuni

[8] There is the ethical obligation of Joseph toward Pharaoh and the Egyptian people to carry out his duties in accordance with the purpose for which he was given his role, eg. to ensure that the Egyptians had what to eat. It is an obvious abuse of that trust and the office to use it for advancing some other agenda, regardless of how holy the thinks it is. There is also the concept in Judaism of 7 universal commandments that are applicable to all people which does not include circumcision.  

[9] Torah Shlaima, p. 1563 based on the view of the Rosh that the sons of Ishmael and Keturah were obligated to circumcise themselves

[10] Klei Yakar, in addition Klei Yakar explains that there was a direct causal link between Joseph’s stored wheat being persevered and the fact that he was circumcised.

[11] eg. A woman he is not married to, nor a direct relation such as sister, daughter, mother

[12] Torah Shlaima p. 1563

[13] Yefat Torah, cited in Torah Shlaima p. 1563

[14] Lekach Tov

[15] Midrash Tanchuma Miketz 6

[16] I heard this story from a religious Muslim, also http://www.bodhicitta.net/Compassion%20in%20Islam%202.htm

[17] Genesis 41:44

[18] Genesis 47:22 & 26 A careful reading of the verses could yield the explanation for Joseph not buying the priests land, being because the priests did not need to because they got food directly from Pharaoh, as mentioned in Bchor Shor. Yet, this royal stipend was presumably also administered by Joseph and he would have had the power to cancel it, this view is implied in the question of Sechel Tov, “Why did Joseph agree to give wheat to the priests?” and the interpretation of Yonatan Ben Uziel in the following paragraph

[19] Sechel Tov, cited in Torah Shlaima p. 1716

[20] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, They suggested Joseph’s garment be examined to see how it was torn when he got away from her. If it is torn from the front then her story was correct but if it was torn at the back then Joseph was obviously running away from her and she was chasing him. The tear was found at the back of the garment (Tur)

[21] This is the view found in a Manuscript of Moshav Zkainim cited in Torah Shlaima and Chizkuni, the view that we are discussing priests is found in Rashi, Sechel Tov, Midrash Hagadol, Unkelus, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, Bchor Shor and Radak  

[22] Tzviki Levin, as above

[23] Al Hanisim prayer recited during Chanukah

[24] Avot 1:15

[25] http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/historical/biography/vaclav_havel_civic_forum.html

Primal Spirituality of Circumcision vs. Cultural Steamroller of “Scientism”

Original published in Tikkun Magazine http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/the-primal-spirituality-of-circumcision-vs-the-cultural-steamroller-of-scientism in response to the proposed (but cancelled) vote on a Circumcision ban in San Francisco. 

Should a society based on the principles of democracy and western thinking permit people to circumcise children? The answer to that question may well be, no. I suggest that this is the wrong question and I think getting the question right is key.

People should not be allowed to act violently towards others just because they think God told them to do so. A case was reported in Australia of a Muslim man that was allegedly given 40 lashes for drinking alcohol by a few Muslims who broke into his house [1].  The perpetrators were rightly condemned by other Muslims. This example illustrates the logical principle that violence cannot be allowed on the basis of claims of divine sanction.

Anti- Circumcision Cartoon that has been
described as Anti-Semitic

Similarly, in approaching the issues of Circumcision if the question is whether scriptural mandates justify violence the logical answer should be no. However, I suggest that this is the wrong question.  Instead the question should be about how assertive we should be about our Western ways and logic when they clash with other ways of being and thinking. I think some humility is in order.

Yes, we have put a man on the moon, make some progress on racism and sexism and I am not advocating a return to the Shtetl. But the Western way has also been horribly destructive to some social structures, traditions and many lives. Bryan Appleyard, in his “Understanding the Present”[2], argues that “Scientism”, the approach that privileges the “scientific” way of knowing over all others often obliterates much of the spiritual and mystical.

I reflect on the time, when I was let in on the secret initiation rites of the Pitjantjatjara people of the Central Australian desert, my reaction was that these were unreasonably harsh. But, the initiated man I spoke to was dignified and clear about who he is, while many of his people who have been cut off from their traditional ways are literally destroying themselves and each other.

Don Palmer, an exceptional man working with Indigenous Australians[3] wrote “"it is matters of the spirit - the Kurrunpa, as those in the Centre (of Australia) would say that are fundamental to there being any future at all. Without the spirit being valued, nourished and cared for, then no amount of clever western medicine will serve any purpose of consequence".

For me and I suspect that for many Jews the ritual of circumcision, like some rituals of tribal and first peoples, transcends logic and is a primal and deeply important spiritual rite. It is not only important because some of us believe God commands it. It is important because it identifies us and binds us and our children in a non-negotiable bond with our concept of God and our past, all the way to Abraham.  

A pasty white tinge was noticed on my face. Again, I was enduring the circumcision of my son. The thought of what was being done to my third son and the newborn’s cries get me every time. Still none of this even caused me to hesitate to go through it all again on our fourth and fifths sons. The idea that my son would not enter into the covenant in the traditional way is for me, unthinkable.

I agree that in some cases religious priorities should ever be overshadowed by other community considerations. I was asked this asked about this, when appearing before the Local Government Council of Canterbury in Sydney Australia. They were considering restrictions on the operating hours of new religious buildings and this was of concern to Muslim groups. I objected to some of their draft plans but I answered that we must weigh up the benefits to one group against the compromises asked of others.

Citizens of San Francisco should bear in mind the devastation caused by Western cultural imperialism to other peoples, the deep importance of circumcision in Jewish and Muslim heritage and weigh that up against the violation of their conscience caused by the circumcision of children.

---

[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/two-charged-for-whipping-muslim-convert-in-bed/story-e6frg6nf-1226097882659

[2] Double Day 1992

[3] Don’s organisation is http://www.malpa.org.au , the quote is from his correspondence with me