Masculinity and Faith. Sara Denounced to Abraham for laughing in Vayera

Toxic masculinity is on our radar, manifesting in sexual harassment, rape, aggression and chauvinism. I wonder about the nature of non-toxic masculinity. What is it exactly? Is it realistic to have faith that men will express their masculinity in healthy ways? I don’t know how to answer my first question. The answer to my second question is to suggest that the question itself is flawed, because realism is not very useful in deciding whether to have faith in men. Faith in men requires a positive choice to believe we can get it right, despite some of the evidence.

The Torah’s teachings about the role of men often seem at odds with modern perspectives about gender roles. Perhaps the most controversial concept is the idea of a man as the “head of the household”. God declared to Eve representing all women, that “he will rule you” (1). Perhaps that was a prediction of how men would wrongly fully dominate women rather than a prescription of how things ought to be. Yet, there is some evidence that God seemed to think that men are rightfully in charge of women. When the barren Sarah laughed about a divine promise that she would bear a child at an advanced age, God complained to Abraham about his wife’s laughter (2). Is this not an expression of Abraham’s “headship” of his household?!

The passage in which God appears to speak to a husband about his wife’s alleged misbehaviour has been on my mind this whole week. It linked in my mind to the image, circulated on social media, of actor Adam Sandler putting his hand on the leg of Clare Foy, an actress sitting next to him during an interview. In the widely circulated image, Foy looks uncomfortable. (I must mention that I had not seen the rest of the tape until later, nor was I aware that Foy released a statement that: “We don’t believe anything was intended by Adam’s gesture and it has caused no offence to Claire.” Regardless of the facts in the Sandler-Foy case too many men behave in entitled ways toward women. Does this verse not imply that God regarded Abraham as Sara’s boss and therefore complained about his wife to him?!

Perhaps not. Both Abraham and Sarah both responded with laughter to God’s promise that Sarah, aged 90, and Abraham aged 100, would have a child together (4). Both of them were deserving of reprimand (5) because they doubted God’s promise based on the available evidence, of their advanced age and the impossibility that a birth could occur. God chose not to reprimand Abraham at that time because to do would detract from the celebration of a significant history altering act that Abraham was engaged in at that time. Circumcising himself which symbolised that men can constrain their sexual drive and commit to doing so as part of an overall covenant with God (6). There is a precedent that proves the principle that God would not distract from celebration of a great moment with punishment when a sin occurred around the time the Ten Commandments were given, but there was no punishment or reprimand (7).

Abraham had ample justification to be sceptical about a miraculous birth, and a covenant to transcend human frailties. This is expressed in him falling on his face (8). God hints at a reprimand by telling him “but indeed Sarah will give birth!” Have faith! (9)

Sara is keen on evidence based approach. According to one interpretation her laughter was not about God’s impossible promise, but in surprise to her body changing suddenly into a younger version of herself, losing her wrinkles and suddenly having her period. This is what upset God. This looking for evidence and only when it is presented belief follows (10). If we want our society to work, we need to believe despite some evidence to the contrary that we can make it work.

When God reprimanded Sarah, through Abraham, it was intended for both of them. For Abraham indirectly and for Sarah directly (11). In this interpretation the question about Sarah’s laughter is not about male position, but about a delicately delivered lesson about faith at a particularly tricky time. This removes one more Biblical excuse for male chauvinism. Based on available evidence, many men will continue to relate to women appallingly. However I choose to put aside that evidence and keep my faith that men can and will learn to relate to women as equals, with care and respect.

1. Genesis 3:16
2. Genesis 18:9-14
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/10/30/claire-foy-responds-to-adam-sandler-s-constant-knee-touching_a_23260633/
4. Genesis 17:15-17
5. Midrash Hagadol, cited in Osnayim Latorah, p. 121, (thanks to Chayim Lando for drawing this to my attention) and Akedat Yitzchak 18:1
6. Akedat Yitzchak 18:1
7. Exodus 24, as explained in Vayikra Rabbah 20, cited in Akedat Yitzchak 18:1
8. Genesis 17:17 as interpreted in Akedat Yitzchak 18:1
9. Genesis 17:18-19 as interpreted in Akedat Yitzchak 18:1
10. Ohr Hachayim on Genesis 18:12-13, drawing on Midrash, Talmud, Bava Metzia, cited in Torah Shlaima p.761, 154.

Sexism: Is Religion The Cause or The Cure? Genesis 1-6

I think religious teachings impact different people in different ways; in some cases they work to  legitimise discrimination against women, while in others they restrain people from engaging in sexist behavior and attitudes. This question was sparked by a discussion I had with a Muslim teenager last week in which he asserted that faith plays a restraining role in people’s lives, by preventing them from enacting certain behaviours and that without it people would be out of control. I wondered about the apparent tolerance, on the part of many Americans, of Trump’s alleged behaviour and attitudes toward women. Can this phenomenon be attributed to a decline in religious mores or on the contrary, could it be caused to some extent by “Biblical sexism”. I explore this theme by looking at my own traditions relating to Genesis 1-6 (1).

There is a little known variation to the creation story. In this variation is the legend of Adam’s first wife, Lilith. Both she and Adam are created in the exact same way, from the ground. Lilith and Adam quarreled; Lilith insisted that she was equal to Adam. Eventually Lilith flew away and left Adam and was replaced by Eve (2). This shadowy woman is thought of today as a demonic threat to babies. Her name is mentioned on the prayer cards my Chabad community places on a baby’s crib, requesting God’s protection from Lilith. One implication contained in this story could be that a woman seeking equality is a problem. One commentator (3) states explicitly that the woman could not be completely equal to the man because then it would be inappropriate for her to serve him as the Torah suggests (4).

In the aftermath following Eve and Adam’s decision to eat the forbidden fruit, Eve was told by God that her punishment would be for her desire to be directed at her husband and “he will rule you!” (5). It is useful to ask if this assertion is a prediction or a prescription about how things should be.

One tradition asserts that God’s statement that men will rule women is prescriptive rather than descriptive. In a later period a drunken King demanded that his wife appear before him and his guests to show off her beauty. When she refused he had her killed (6). Afterwards he was comforted by an adviser named Memuchan, who, according to this commentary, was actually Daniel. Daniel told the king not to cry over Vashti because the King had done the right thing according to the Torah which states “he (men) should rule over you (women)” (7).    

Thankfully, there is an alternative perspective. In this interpretation, men ruling women would apply only  a consequence of an agricultural reality. One of the punishments for eating the forbidden fruit was that the production of food would require sweat of the brow and physical exertion (8). This would create an advantage for men, at the expense of women who would now be dependent on them. This “endangers the original equality (that God intended between men and women, but if the Torah is properly adhered to it would reestablish:) Man and woman again in an equal God-serving calling” (9). According to this view, with the shift to the knowledge economy, the value of brute physical strength has diminished and therefore the shift back to the ideal of equality of the sexes can and should be actively pursued.

The interpretation that supports equality would be consistent with the tradition that Eve was actually created at the same time as Adam, not from his rib, but as one part of a double human:  one side being Adam and the other side being Eve (10).

The divergent sets of guidance show the problem with jumping to conclusions about whether a religion “is sexist” or it is not. Interpretations vary both in text and practice. Outsiders to a tradition would need to be very cautious when making judgements or assertions. As an insider, I think it is useful to tease out the competing ideas,  to emphasise those teachings that support equality and to deal with the challenge of texts that might lead people to undesirable attitudes and behaviours.  

On the other hand it is useful to recognise the power that religion has in restraining people from wrongdoing, as my Muslim student suggested. In the unfolding story we are told disapprovingly of men’s treatment of women. The Torah’s standard for the male-female relationship is: “a man will leave his father and his mother and will cleave to his wife and they will become one flesh” (11) which is interpreted as finding common purpose “as if both of them are one existence” (12). This ideal was disregarded by Lemech who married two wives. One for the sole purpose of producing children, who he then left alone for the rest of her life, to live like a widow”, ignored by Lemech. The second wife was used only for sex, she was named Tzila, whose name means “shade” because she was always in Lemech’s “shadow”. She was given a contraceptive drink and was “adorned like a prostitute” (13). The objectification of women then degenerates with men taking from women “all that they chose” including rape. God was disappointed with the human project (14). The message is clear that God-fearing men would surely never consider behaving in such a manner or tolerating such behavior.

In conclusion, I passionately believe that it is generally wrong to blame specific bad behaviors or attitudes on a religion. Human beings are complex. We are driven by a variety of factors including individual characteristics, fears and experiences, psychological and cultural factors. However I think it is not truthful, nor useful to deny that religion can play a facilitating role in justifying sexist behavior or attitudes. Still, we must recognise the differences in attitude and emphasis between people who identify as adherents of the same faith and deeply explore the often complex and apparently contradictory teachings that lead to these divergences. No doubt many men’s faith prevents them from behaving badly toward women out of fear or respect of God. As for the rest, it is incumbent on all people regardless of religious affiliation, to strive for justice for all, including equality and dignity for the female half of the human family.

Notes

1. Two main reasons for why I focus on my own faith tradition. a) I have expertise in my faith and know little about the faiths of others, I don’t think a Wikipedia/google based “research” of other faiths has much validity; on the contrary I think it is usually quite idiotic. b) I don’t think it is tactful to judge other people’s sacred texts. I accept that studies of religion students will need to think critically about other’s faiths. I suggest that in those cases, students approach the task humbly, as gathering provisional knowledge. People in positions of leadership, might be advised to take a more cautious approach.   
2. Ben Sira quoted in Torah Shlaima part 2, p. 236, see note 256, the legend is mentioned in the Zohar twice,  Zohar Bereshit 34b, and Vayikra 19a, see also reference to Lillith in Talmud Shabbat 151a.
3. Seforno commentary to Genesis 2:18
4. Genesis 2:18
5. Genesis 3:16, in Hebrew the same words are used to predict the future as to give a command. He will rule over you can also mean he should rule over you.
6. The book of Esther
7. Pirkey D’Rabbi Eliezer 48, cited in Torah Shlaima part 2, p. 275,121
8. Genesis 3:19
9. Samson Raphael Hirsch on Genesis 3:16
10. Talmud Eruvin 11, cited in Rashi commentary to Genesis 2:21
11. Genesis 2:24
12. Seforno commentary to  Genesis 2:24
13. Midrash Rabba/Beresheet Rabba chapter 23
14. Genesis 6:2-3

Humans Gone Ape? Affirming our Essential Humanity and a Beauty Named Naama Beresheet

This work by Jonas Malmo, Sweden 2010,  is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 License.

“Look at what they are doing to each other!” say some people , referring to Arabs or Muslims or both as a collective “they”, when they see the images or hear of the horror that is being perpetrated in Syria. This came up in a discussion about a Jewish teaching that people had descended to the level of Apes. The horrible murder and mayhem in Kenya led one participant to comment that  people like the Al-Shabab murderers are indeed apes, followed by the problematic comment about Syria. While people certainly do horrific, evil deeds, influenced by evil thoughts and speech, I think it is wrong to dehumanize them. Beasts kill for food, following their natural instincts without malice or evil intent; humans, on the other hand, make choices and carry out evil plans. It is the humanity of every human community, rather than the evil choices made by  some of their members,  that we should recognise. 

One important concept  about the nature of prejudice is the process of “essentialising”. This involves taking a negative characteristic or perspective about a member or several members of a group and reducing the group as a whole to that one characteristic and nothing else (1).  I heard of a chilling anecdote from Kenya  that one of the murderers responded to a 4 year old child’s assertion that he was a “very bad man” by offering him a Mars bar and telling the child that “we are not monsters” (2).  This interaction suggests to me that the killer, despite his evil side, is, in one sense, a person like me, rather than a demon. He wants to be perceived as a “good person”; he must think that he is making a “tough” decision that seems entirely justified in his twisted understanding of religion and morality.

I wish to explore the theme of essential humanity through the complicated case of a woman named Naama. This woman’s story carries a redemptive message about the enduring human spirit, regardless of ancestry or even after going through a “demonic” phase.

Naama’s birth is the result of an unwanted pregnancy. Her father Lemech, a descendant of the murderer Cain, married two women (3). One wife, Ada, was married for the purpose of child bearing; having served her purpose, she was   to spend the rest of her life “like a widow”, ignored by Lemech. The other wife, Tzila, whose name means “shade” because she was always in Lemechs “shadow”, was for sex. She was given a contraceptive drink and was “adorned like a prostitute” (4). Thwarting Lemech’s intentions, God ensures that Tzila becomes pregnant (5) and gives birth to a son named Tuval Cain and a daughter Naama. 

Unsurprisingly, Lemech’s two wives were jealous of each other and quarrelled.  Lemech finds it unbearable and cries out, “How are my sins worse than those of all people? that I have no quiet in my home, not when eating, not when drinking, not when going to sleep or waking up, did I kill a man(6)? Or choke little children to deserve this?! (7).

Tuval Cain and his sister Naama (8), raised in this household, are the world’s first iron workers (9) and arms manufacturers (10). Lemech  is unconcerned by the moral cost of creating weapons because he argues, much like gun control opponents do today, that he is not responsible for bringing the sword and murder into the world. He argues (11) that “the sword is not the only way to murder; in fact killing without it by repeatedly inflicting a barrage of wounds and bruises is a much worse death” (12). 

Naama, whose name means pleasant, was exceptionally beautiful (13). Men strayed after her (14), including the “sons of God”, meaning the children of the judges, who saw “the daughters of men, that they were good and they took all women as they pleased” (15).  Even demons fell for her. She is also thought to be the mother of Ashmadai, the king of demons (16). The commentary written by these ancient men is crying out for a feminist critique. Not attempting to offer it myself, I am instead considering this from the perspective of the religious mindset of scholars from between 500-2000 years ago, that describes this woman as one who would seem to be beyond redemption. This, however, is not the case.

Naama lived in a time where the human population became so degenerate that they were described as having their faces changed to those of apes, people became Centaurs, (17) half men, but also “like horses and mules without understanding”(18). Yet, our sages tell us that she was pleasing in the “end of her actions”; the angels sought to stray after her but she ran away from them (19).  She eventually (20) married the righteous Noah (21) and is therefore the mother of us all.

The key point for me here is that, despite the fact that we can behave in ways that might best be described an inhuman, nothing, not ancestry, family influence, personal choice, character or even horrific evil deeds, schemes and thoughts, like those of Al Shaabab, can ever erase the essential humanity of us all.

Also, there has been much discussion on facebook about a Muslim tradition or Hadith regarding Jewish people who sinned and were turned into apes. This can easily be misconstrued by non-Muslims and Muslims themselves as dehumanising. I am afraid this might feed anti-Jewish bigotry for some Muslims as well as generalised hatred of Muslims by some Jews. Yet, for me as a Jew, I find it fascinating that the idea of ‘humans gone ape’ is clearly articulated in my own tradition for a very similar reason. 

Notes
1)    Hall, S. ed. (1997) Representation, Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, London, Sage. p.245
2)    http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/24/british-boy-4-tells-nairobi-shopping-mall-terrorist-youre-a-very-bad-man-4099859/
3)    Genesis 4:19
4)    Midrash Rabba/Beresheet Rabba chapter 23
5)     Pesikta Zutra, Rashi, Rabbenu Bchaya
6)     Genesis 4:23
7)    Rabbi Yossi Kara, cited in Bchor Shor, An alternative interpretation (Radak) is that he is so enraged by this that he threatens to kill them, boasting of his capacity to do this as if he had already (Ibn Ezra and Radak) “killed a man” and could do the same to his wives if they continue to displease him. Ibn Ezra and Radak, support their view by citing the common usage of the past tense to refer to future events
8)    Midrash Hanealam (literally, the hidden midrash, cited first in the new Zohar 19b, and in Kasher, M. M., in Torah Shlaima (1992), Jerusalem. Beit Torah Shlaima) The text only tells us about Tuval Cain’s occupation but the unusual phrase “and the sister of Tuval Cain” was Naama, is taken to mean that she was like him with the same level of expertise.
9)    Genesis 4:22
10)    Rashi and Ramban. The word Tuval in the name Tuval Cain means spice, which is taken to mean that he extends Cain. Whereas Cain killed with his bare hands, Tuval Cain and his sister enabled killing with greater efficiency and ease (Midrash Rabba/Beresheet Rabba chapter 23)
11)    This is based on yet another interpretation of the phrase “did I kill a man?” in Genesis 4:23,
12)     Ramban, Rabbenu Bchaya
13)    Midrash Rabba
14)     Zohar Chadash Part 1, 55
15)    Genesis 6:2, commentary discusses whether this was consensual as the “sons of God”, according to one commentary, refers to the descendants of Cain who were exceptionally attractive, “beautiful and tall”, leading women to abandon their husbands (Midrash cited in Torah Shlaima); or it might have involved rape, particularly by the sons of the judges, an alternative meaning to the phrase “sons of God”, who grabbed women and raped them in the market place. Their example was followed by ordinary men as well (Sifre/Sifre Zuta). According to one commentary, the verse Genesis 6:4 “the fallen were on the earth”  refers to the Hebrew word for a miscarried foetus, a נפל (Nefel),  and suggests that many of the women who became pregnant were given a type of drink that caused them to miscarry because of their shame, and the earth was filled with aborted foetuses (Tzror Hamor- cited in Meam Loez).    
16)    Midrash Hanealam ibid
17)    Midrash Rabba/Beresheet Rabba chapter 23  
18)     Torah Shlaima citing מו"ע  (not sure who this is).
19)    Midrash Agada, cited in Torah Shlaima  
20)     I am taking the liberty here of compiling a composite image here that includes many different perspectives. I am not suggesting that the original commentators saw it as one narrative, they clearly did not.
21)     Midrash Rabba/Beresheet Rabba chapter 23

Naming a Daughter: Aspiration, Recognition & Feminism

My wife and I were blessed with a baby daughter last Friday, after having five sons. In Jewish teachings there is a connection between the name and character[i]. In selecting a name for our daughter we wanted something distinctive but traditional that would connect her to a biblical role model. Personally, I was also concerned about the way that women are often thought of as the wife of this great person or the mother of another, rather than a person in their own right. I also don’t like the way some girls’ names reflect a view of girls being pretty little things rather than full human beings. Traditionally one consideration in selecting a name is to honour and remember family members, but with four grandmothers between the two parents, we could not honour all of them.

Shifra – Heroic Career woman or Mother?

One strong female characters in the Torah is the Egypt-wide chief midwife for Hebrews[ii] Shifra, who along with her colleague Puah defies the Pharaoh when he commands them to murder the Hebrew male babies[iii].  This courageous choice is the first and perhaps the only example of civil disobedience that resists racism in the Torah. The name is also related to the Hebrew word Shfoferet, a tube because Shifra would resuscitate babies who had stopped breathing by blowing through a tube[iv]. While many sources identify Shifra as being Jochebed, the mother of Moses[v], other texts identify her as a convert[vi], and as an Egyptian[vii], whose children or husband remains unknown and irrelevant to her identity, just as they are absent in a plain reading of the Torah text itself.  

I wonder about what message there is in the commentary that links Shifra with Jochebed. Is it about the greatness of Moses’ lineage, or reflecting a view that a great and complete woman is not just one who interacts with a monarch and defies him but also one who is a mother as well? There is a moving prophecy that reassures men who have no children “let not the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree”. For so says the Lord to the eunuchs who will keep My Sabbaths and will choose what I desire and hold fast to My covenant, "I will give them in My house and in My walls a place and a name, better than sons and daughters; an everlasting name I will give him, which will not be discontinued[viii]." Surely we can read this passage as saying there is a value to a woman beyond motherhood. Equally, I ask myself whether my own interest in the less prominent commentaries that could be interpreted as positioning Shifra as a career woman rather than a mother reflects a lack of recognition of the importance of motherhood for women and its contribution to the wellbeing of children and to society generally.

To be Named Or Not to be Named

Our daughter’s second and third names were given to her to be named after my paternal grandmother Golda Kastel A.H.[ix] and my wife’s maternal grandmother Bracha Stark A.H., both very strong women who managed to both support their husbands and shine as people in their own right.  In selecting two grandmothers, we highlighted two out of four.  

The issue of whether names are acknowledged or not mentioned is a significant one in the Torah reading, Tetzaveh [x], which was read on the Shabbat on which our daughter was named. The special clothing worn by the high priest in the temple worship included diamonds in which the names of each of the twelve tribes of Israel were engraved “before God, on his two shoulders, as a remembrance”[xi]. The names would also be carved a second time into twelve precious stones on a breastplate worn by the high priest[xii].

The opposite side of the equation is also found in this portion. It is the only portion in the Torah that occurs during the life time of Moses[xiii], where he is not mentioned. According to commentary this reflects a selfless choice by Moses, in which he offers a desperate plea to God to forgive the Jews for the sin of the Golden Calf. Moses says to God, “And now, (God) forgive their sin, and if not, erase me please from Your book (the Torah) that You wrote[xiv].”  While God essentially forgives his people, the words of Moses about being erased from the “book” are still partially fulfilled in his absence from this portion[xv].

Not Named But Still Present

The absence of Moses’ name in the Torah portion does not mean he is not present. One way of thinking about it is that his role is more of a background role. Moses might have felt disappointed when, as the sanctuary for God begins to come together, the prominent roles are filled by others - Betzalel is the architect and chief designer while Aaron will perform the key rituals. Where is Moses in all this? To comfort him, without altering the reality of his less overtly prominent role, God tells Moses three times “and you[xvi]” will command the people relating to the olive oil, draw Aaron close and instruct the designers of the priestly clothing. The Torah has a special tune or accent in which it is traditionally read, with louder and longer pitches or intonation for emphasis, all three times the words “and you” have these strong accents[xvii].  Suggesting the importance of Moses’ role in the sanctuary, the spiritual illumination symbolized by the oil and the worship by Aaron[xviii].

Applying the same principle to our question of the names not given to our daughter, I think our daughter can draw strength and inspiration from the two grandmothers after whom she has not been named. Their lives, character, choices and guidance have indirectly helped shape the person she will become, by their parenting of Shifra’s own grandparents.

Conclusion

Names matter. Names can mean a lot of different things, depending on how they are interpreted. The name Shifra also means beautiful or to make beautiful, for example. I trust that our Shifra Golda Bracha will find her own way to construct her identity and draw some strength from great women and men who came before her. This will involve prioritising between public and private roles, at home and/or at work. It will also require recognition that recognition itself is far from the only criteria of value. As my third “honorary grandmother” Stella Cornelius used to say “you can accomplish a lot if you don’t care who gets the credit”. Welcome to our world, Shifra Golda Bracha Kastel.

---

[i] There is a story told about a student at the House of Torah study whose name was Chatfa which means to grab. After something went missing in the Yeshiva, this student wiped his wet hands on another student’s clothes, which showed a lack of respect for the property of others.  When he was confronted about this he admitted to the theft. This vindicated the view of Rabbi Meir about the link between names and character. I have been unable to find the source of this story.

[ii] Ibn Ezra

[iii] Exodus 1:15-21

[iv] Torah Shlaima p38, note 165, also saw elsewhere but can’t find the source

[v] Sifre, Talmud Sotah 11b, Rashi

[vi] Yalkut Yehoshua cited in Chumash Torah Temima

[vii] Midrash Tadsheh, end Chapter 1 21, Imre Noam, Paaneach Raza, R. Y. of Vienna, the latter two suggest it is would be implausible for the Pharaoh to demand Jewish midwives murder the babies because according to Jewish law one must be prepared to sacrifice one’s life rather than take an innocent life,  all cited in Torah Shlaima, p.38

[viii] Isaaia 56:3-5

[ix] Alehah Hashalom, upon her, peace.

[x] Exodus 27:20- 30:10

[xi] Exodus 28:9-12

[xii] Exodus 28:21

[xiii] The middle three books of the Torah, the last book Deuteronomy is almost entirely the words of Moses himself. 

[xiv] Exodus 32:32

[xv] Midrash Hane’elam Zohar Chadash 6b, cited in Torah Shlaima p.139

[xvi] Exodus 27:20, 28:1 and 28:3

[xvii][xvii] The accents are called, Gershayim, Pazer and Reviee

[xviii][xviii] Alshich, cited in Leibowitz, N, New Studies in Shemot p.526