Equality, Desire and Being Known – Eve’s Perspective

I am Eve, known as Hawah to Muslims and Chavah in the Torah. My husband named me Chavah, because I am the Mother of all life (1). Thousands of years later, too many of my grandsons still behave chauvinistically, and many of my descendants also struggle with desire and intimacy.
 
Do not dismiss me as out of date. Yes, I was named by a man, but this does not imply ownership or superior/inferior status. On the contrary, it was an expression of respect (2). However, there was a journey that began with exploring questions of the status of the genders before Adam and I reached a level of respectful intimacy.
 
Before Adam and I met, Adam married another woman named, Lilith. Lilith was created from the earth just like Adam, so she thought she was equal to him and refused to be her husband’s “helper”. They fought, and she ran away (3).
 
In replacing Lilith, God declared that he would make Adam “a helper, opposite [or against] him” (4). This time the woman would be derived from Adam rather than the earth. This could change the power dynamic between the genders to favour men (5).  However, being a “helper-opposite” at least hints at the need to allow the spouse …”to occasionally stand opposite, to feel opposite, to think opposite… A life’s partner must be able to say no… [otherwise] the lips may be moving one way, but the heart may be saying no silently until the heart breaks from the weight of "nos" (6).  Perhaps "occasionally opposing" is not enough for equality, but it is a good start.
 
Well, the idea of me being constructed from Adam’s rib is not the only version of how I came to be. In another telling, Adam and I were both an individual and a pair at the same time. One side of the first human was male - Adam and the other female - me (7).  That explains the seemingly self-contradictory verse about us: “…in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (8). However, because we could not face each other God declared that “it was not good for the human to be alone” (9). Only once we were separated and could face each other would we [potentially] be able “to receive light in light, face in face”, and arise “satisfied as one” (10).
 
Great idea, but when Adam and I first met, he initially failed to fully appreciate me as a person despite us being ‘face to face’. Instead he thought of me as an extension of himself (11). Adam first called me woman, “Isha”, which is a variation of the Hebrew word for man, stating “this [not she, or you] will be called woman, because this was taken from man” (12). 
 
I was far from satisfied with this attitude. When I gave birth to my oldest son, I named him Cain and I declared “I have created (13) a man” (14). I rejected the argument that woman should be considered inferior on account of having come from a man, as I have demonstrated now that man has come from woman (15)! This naming speech was my rejection of male chauvinism (16).
 
My claims to equality were set back by our eating forbidden fruit, which Adam blamed on me (17). In response to that sin, God declared that women would desire their husbands, and husbands would rule their wives (18). This should not be taken as an instruction but as a prediction of an unfortunate problem, for humanity to address (19).
 
Despite the unfortunate aspect of that situation, it had a silver lining. Eating fruit from the tree of “knowledge of good and evil” introduced a new element of sexual desire between Adam and me (20). After “our eyes were opened” (21) and our innocence lost, Adam finally noticed me as a person in my own right and gave me an individual and personal name, Eve/Chavah (22).  To celebrate our arrival as a loving couple of equal and unique people who deeply respect each other, God clothed us in garments of light (23). For us, despite the difficulties, we found the possibility of true love and respect. I wish you the same.
 
 Love, Grandma Eve-Chavah-Hawah
 
Notes
1)       Genesis 3:20
2)       Sacks, J. (2009), Covenant and Conversation, Genesis, Magid Books and the Orthodox Union, Jerusalem, p. 33-37
3)       Alef Bet of Ben Sira, Zohar Bereshit, 34b and Vavyikra 19a, Torat Hachida Bereshit, 70, p. 23
4)       Genesis 2:27
5)       Torat Hachida Bereshit, 70, p. 23
6)       Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, in Lubotzky, Y. & Mark, R.  https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0272/7831/1512/files/brushes-all_03r.pdf?v=15699884950348939191,  p. 18
7)       Talmud, Brachot 61a
8)       Genesis 1:27, note the shift from singular to plural
9)       Genesis 2:27,
10)    Zohar, part 3, 44b.
11)    Sacks, J. (2009), Covenant and Conversation, Genesis, Magid Books and the Orthodox Union, Jerusalem, p. 35-36
12)    Genesis 2:23
13)    Translation follows Radak
14)    Genesis 4:1
15)    Abarbanel
16)    Casuto, in Pardes, Ilana. "Creation According to Eve: Beyond Genesis 3." Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia. 27 February 2009. Jewish Women's Archive. (Viewed on October 5, 2020) <https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/creation-according-to-eve-beyond-genesis-3>.
17)    Genesis 3:12
18)    Genesis 3:16
19)    Bernbaum, T. https://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/90765/jewish/The-Curse-of-Eve.htm
20)    Radak
21)    Genesis 3:7
22)    Sacks, J. (2009), Covenant and Conversation, Genesis, Magid Books and the Orthodox Union, Jerusalem, p. 36
23)    Bereshit Rabba 20:12 as explained in Sacks

Who Counts? Men, women and minorities

One of the great gifts I got from my grandmother, Goldie Kastel o.b.m.[1] was to be noticed by her as someone ‘special’. At her 80^th birthday celebration, I compared her effect on me to that of a caterpillar being transformed into a butterfly. The way she saw me changed the way I saw myself. I learned to think of myself as someone “who counts” and can make a contribution.

On Wednesday this week, I was part of a group that gave a similar message to a group of young Arabic and Pacific Islander students who might be considered disadvantaged because of their family income. Issa, an 18 year old Arabic recent graduate of their school and of the same socio-economic situation as most of the students was part of our Together for Humanity team. He told of a two week trek he did in the forests of Malaysia together with 11 other young people, some white, others from minority groups. One of these was a Somali who was the sole survivor of his family; all the rest had been murdered. At the end of the journey Issa told the Somali, “two weeks ago I did not even know you and now you are a brother to me”. The Somali broke down in tears because he was so moved. I don’t cry often, but that story really moved me and tears welled up in my eyes. The kids noticed. They could see clearly that one of their own “counted” and by extension they could too.

 

On the other hand, there are many people who are not noticed and get the message that they don’t count. In Australia for many years that was quite literal. Aboriginal Australians were not counted in the census, because the Australian Constitution stated that 'Aboriginal natives shall not be counted[2]'.   A milestone for Aboriginal people was the 1967 referendum that allowed them to be counted in the Census. An Aboriginal elder reflected on the change, “…because we were not counted as part of the census, we were part of the flora and fauna[3]”, it is only after being included in the Census that “we were recognised as people”. 

This is an exploration of how people can be affirmed and valued, particularly through the process of counting. It is also about who is not counted and what we make of that.

A Census in the Wilderness

Moses was commanded to count the Israelites in the desert[4]. The symbolism of this has interpreted as relating to them being loved[5]. The Jews are compared to wheat that “is counted when brought into storage and when taken out, unlike hay and straw which is neither counted nor measured…because God derives pleasure from the Israelites, therefore they are counted all the time”[6]. It is also related to being raised up and exalted, using a play on the words used to command Moses to count the Israelites which also means “lift up the heads”[7]. The theme of recognition is also linked to the flags[8] that the four camps of Israelites had, which are explained as a great expression of affection by God, “so that they will be recognised[9]”.  

Not just a number

The way we are counted is important of course. To be “just a number” is to be devalued, we want to be recognised by name for the individual we are. I remember the first time I saw a light blue number tattoo on the arm of a Holocaust survivor, the physical evidence of the dehumanization of people by reducing them to a number. Yet, in the desert counting, there was great dignity, even “greatness” in the counting. Moses was not to simply approach the head of a household and ask how many in the family, rather they all passed before him in awe and honour[10].  Each person was called by their name[11].

“Every Male”. Don’t women count?

Only males were counted. Considering the symbolism of the counting, the exclusion of women would suggest they were not valued as highly. It is made even more difficult because we are told twice that the counting would and did include “everyone[12]”. It is a bit like the sign seen in a Hasidic neighbourhood in New York. It said, "Lecture Tuesday night. Everybody welcome. No women.[13]"  

A gender differences argument

It is at times like this, that men run for cover and let women do the heavy lifting[14]. Seriously, the following ideas, while I don’t find them entirely convincing were the best argued I could find.  Channa Weisberg^[15] , bases her article on Kabalistic teachings that “the masculine force in creation is outward-bound, while the feminine is inward-bound”. Significantly, Weisberg presents Torah’s differentiating between men and women as symbolic of two approaches to divine service. Rather as rigid gender roles, such as ”Men go out to war, women nurture families”, she recognises that both men and women can and do operate in the mode thematically linked to the other gender.    

Masculine war-making 

Symbolically, Weisberg explains, the spiritual service of men is to forge into foreign territory, to wage war against evil. “We are in a male mode when we go outside of ourselves in order to impose a higher truth upon our world and ourselves... by literally waging war against the tyranny of cruel regimes, or through ideological battles against immoral ideals”.

Feminine Nurturing

The feminine mode, “is to protect, nurture, discover and reveal the holiness implicit in creation…. the divine power in what already is, and become sensitized to the potential of our inner essence”. …”This mode is not waging a war or imposing an order, but rather uncovering and nurturing the positive and Godly aspects within our world, and thereby increasing and spreading holiness”.

Men need a boost?

Weisberg argues that operating in the masculine dimension involves “putting oneself in a position of danger by exposing oneself to the outside elements”. In these situations men need the strength that comes from being counted, which “empowered him to respect his own individuality and remain true to himself[16]”… “When on the attack, fighting in alien environments against foreign values which constantly attempt to erode one’s ideals and vision, this reminder was needed to keep the warrior (from being) swallowed up by the surrounding norms.”

I have summarised Weisberg’s article and left out some of her argument, while I am impressed, I am not convinced that the challenge involved in nurturing does not require the additional strength implied by being counted.

Alternative meanings of the count

It is useful to consider the historical development of the Torah. According to traditional sources the Torah itself is from approximately 1300 b.c. It the primary text, a simple explanation for this census was to count the men who would be called upon to go to war as can be seen from the reference to counting “all who are fit to go out to the army in Israel[17]”. The timing of the count is linked to the impending invasion of Canaan[18], which if not for the episode with the spies would have happened shortly after the count[19]. The Midrashic interpretations that link counting to value were written over 1000 years later as an inspirational teaching rather than a factual explanation of why God wanted people counted.
The Midrashim offer a variety of different interpretations. An alternative explanation for the counting is that it symbolised forgiveness for the sin of worshipping the golden calf[20] which was essentially a male sin[21].

Conclusion

Beyond the practical meaning of a census in a desert or in Australia, is the symbolism of recognising people as being of value, be they female or male, rich or “low socio-economic”, white, black, Arab or Jew. I am in Bangkok airport as I write these lines, I was here for 18 hours for an interfaith peace conference, and I have lost count of the times people have put their hands together and bowed to me since I arrived. It is a way of saying, you are important and we see you that way. I heard that in one part of Africa, people greet each other by saying “I see you”. In an age in which people are often thought of as nothing more than a number, we would do well to think, feel, speak and behave in a way that makes everyone feel like they count.   

---

[1] Of Blessed Memory

[2] Section 127 of the Constitution Act 1900, http://guides.slv.vic.gov.au/content.php?pid=81642&sid=605793

[3] http://youtu.be/V-vX5kNpyLU

[4] Numbers 1:2-3

[5] Rashi

[6] Midrash Tanchuma 4

[7] Pesikta Rabbati 10

[8] Numbers 2:2-34

[9] Bamidbar Rabba 2-3

[10] Bamidbar Rabba

[11] Lekach Tov based on the words “according to the number of their names” in number 1:2

[12] Numbers 1:2 & 18

[13] Comment by “Stan” on the article http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/385864/jewish/Don%E2%80%99t-Women-Count.htm

[14] At a seminar I attended recently about women and inheritance under Sharia law, the speaker left to address the issue was a woman law professor.

[15] Weisberg, C, Don’t Women count? http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/385864/jewish/Don%E2%80%99t-Women-Count.htm

[16]Weisberg drawing on Chasidic sources, primarily the work on the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi M. M. Schneerson,  explains that the empowering effect of numbering is reflected in the halachic rule that “an entity which is counted can never be nullified” (Talmud, Beitzah 3b; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 110:1). Under certain circumstances, certain food items are “nullified” when mixed with a quantity sixty times their volume. For example, if some milk drops fall into a meat soup, the entire mixture becomes forbidden. If, however, the volume of the meat mixture is sixty times that of the milk, then the milk is considered nullified and nonexistent. However, an object that is sold solely by unit is considered “prominent” and cannot be nullified. An example of this is: if whole eggs of a non-kosher bird become mixed with kosher eggs, it is not batel b’rov—“nullified by the majority”—since eggs are sold by count (e.g., by the dozen) rather than by weight or volume.

[17] Numbers 1:3

[18] Rashbam

[19] Klei Yakar

[20] Midrash Hagadol

[21] Pirkey Drabbi Eliezer 45

Discrimination, Purim and International Women’s Day

Tomorrow, 8^th of March 2012, Jews will celebrate Purim and may others will mark International Women’s day.  A common thread is discrimination, which so often involved the strong seeking to dominate and oppress the weak.

The book of Esther has an early enlightened almost multicultural element.  The king’s ball will not require guests to adhere to the Persian custom that forced people to drink a lot of wine[i], instead there will be no compulsion to accommodate the will of every man[ii]. Commentary tells us the background to this decision was the king accommodating a religious request from the Jewish sage Mordechai[iii].

It goes downhill quickly.  The drunken king demands that the queen Vashti, appear before the guests wearing nothing[iv] but her crown to show off her beauty to the nations and officials[v]. The king is very angered by her refusal, his anger burned within him. According to one interpretation he seeks advice from Jewish sages, who are afraid to get involved so they say they don’t have the authority to judge such a matter[vi]. 

Haman[vii] steps into the vacuum and suggests that what is at stake here is the authority of men over women[viii]. He argues that women will despise their husbands and there will be much disgrace and anger. Women having some right to make decisions for themselves is equated with anarchy, much as arguments were later made for paternalistic attitudes toward blacks and colonised peoples.

The King decrees that men rule in their own home and speak in the language of his own nation[ix].  Ironically, this instruction about language dominance is conveyed to each province in its own language and script[x]. I see a civilisation that is aware of the importance of language and yet seeks to deprive its women the right to full expression in their own native language. Essentially, communicating in a language learned later in life can often make it very hard to express emotions[xi]. This is has a significant impact on the power dynamic, as I think the following anecdote shows. 

Rabbi X. was one of the scholars at the Talmudic college who had quite a harsh way of dealing with his students. His first language was Yiddish, which I speak fluently, but I spoke with him in English. He once asked me why other students would stop by my table during study for a chat. I told him, I guess I am a nice guy. He said “you not nice guy, you nice garbage!” He probably meant that I was not respecting myself and my study time and wanted to put me in my place. The fact that he had to deliver his sting in a non-native language made him clumsy and weakened his position of authority over me.  

Demonstrating the principle that where inequality takes root it soon spreads, we see bigotry soon follows the sexism.  The king accepts Haman’s argument that there are a people who don’t assimilate, as they have different laws[xii]. They are assumed to be disobeying the king’s laws, no trial, evidence, due process or consultation of the “wise men” required for this judgement, following the precedent of the quick decision to execute Vasht[xiii].  It is not worth the kings while to spare them. 

Fittingly, it is the words of a woman that save the day, as the king listens to Esther’s words and cancels his decree to kill the Jews of his kingdom.  

---

[i] Ohr Hachayim on Esther 1:8

[ii] Esther 1:8

[iii] Meam Loez

[iv] Midrash

[v] Esther 1:11

[vi] Talmud Megilla 12b

[vii] The text attributes the advice to Memuchan but the Midrash and Talmud tells us this was a nickname for Haman

[viii] Esther 1:16-19

[ix] Esther 1:22

[x] http://www.lookstein.org/articles/irony_and_theology.htm

[xi] http://counselingoutfitters.com/vistas/vistas08/Faubert.htm, first brought to my attention by my colleague, life coach Ronit Baras

[xii] Esther 3:8

[xiii] Yosef Lekach