Disgraced Cohen's Daughter's Punishment - Emor

As I am finalising my thoughts on this blog, my heart is full of inspiration from yesterday’s Inter-school Program, watching Christian, Jewish and Muslim students come together yesterday culminating in spontaneously making music together. In stark contrast to that, I consider enduring contradictions and divisions that challenge me and others. Experiences, narratives and texts can all alienate us from communities, both similar and different to ourselves.  In this post I explore one of these.

I have been thinking of one passage in the Torah that challenges me not to feel alienated from my own tradition. “The daughter of a Cohen/ priest who will profane herself through whoredom, her father she is desecrating, in fire, she should be burned” (1). After thinking about it for a week, it seemed clear to me that there was nothing I could say that would reconcile this verse with contemporary mores. Over Shabbat (Friday night and Sunday) I was delighted to find a possible, at least partial, way through.

At the start of this discussion I make the following points: A) We need to look at how a religious text is applied today in the lived experience of the adherents of that faith rather than what the words are in the text. This is as true for non-Muslims looking at verses from the Koran as it is for those trying to make sense of Judaism.  B) It is useful to consider how traditions have been interpreted over time.

A Sydney Rabbi who told me that his sermon on the passage of the Cohen’s daughter, interpreted it along mystical lines. He said that it is by God’s design that this law does not apply today (as capital cases are no longer prosecuted since the destruction of the second temple two thousand years ago). Instead, he suggested that burning in fire represents passionate devotion to God to correct the sins of passion (2). Another contemporary approach to this matter took the form of a personal reflection on the responsibility of dads in  positions of religious leadership to be attentive to their children. The writer regrets that some of his religious study years earlier was at the expense of his family. Failure to properly guide children shames the father (3).   

Earlier traditions relating to this law make clear that we are dealing with adultery and a married woman (4). Furthermore, there are very strict laws applying to all cases of capital punishment. The perpetrator must have been warned by two witnesses immediately prior to the act which is then witnessed. This is a highly unlikely scenario. Traditions vary about how rare an event any capital punishment was when it was practiced at all, with one opinion that a Court that killed once every 70 years was a “murderous court”, and another view putting it as once every 7 years (5).

Despite the restrictions on actually putting a woman to death for this crime, the phrase itself raises concern for me. There are two aspects that bother me. One is the idea that a woman’s status is considered through the perspective of its impact on the honour of her male family members. The second is on the discrepancy between a misbehaving son and daughter (6).

Early traditional commentary is in line with a simple reading of the text: “If he [her father] had been treated as holy (before), he will now be treated as mundane, (if he had been treated with) honor, now he will be treated with disgrace, as they will say cursed be the one who gave birth to this one, who raised this one” (7).

Fortunately this approach is not the only one. I take comfort from the approach of both of the early authoritative translations into Aramaic, neither of which mentions the father’s shame (8). One (9) subtly re frames it as “from the holiness of her father she becomes desecrated”. The meaning of the translation is that she is desecrating herself, and profaning “the holiness that she has as a heritage from her father”. As the daughter of a Cohen/priest she inherited social- spiritual capital that has now been lost (10). It is not about her father but about her.

The discrepancy between a daughter and a son can be considered from a historical and contextual perspective that suggests that the verse is a response to the practice of the “sacred prostitute”. It is argued that the daughters of idol worshipers’ priests would act as prostitutes at their places of worship (11). Evidence is found in a  phrase in the book of Hosea: “they sacrifice with the prostitutes” (12). If we accept this argument then it is reasonable that the warning is directed to females based on the historical-actual problem the passage is seeking to address. While this explanation is attractive to me, I have not yet found any earlier authoritative commentary linking this ancient practice and this verse.

I am conflicted about how to approach these types of texts. I can join my colleagues who try to make it ok. As demonstrated above, there are some plausible approaches to do that, at least partially. I can also simply put them out there for further reflection and study. When my own daughter was born we  chose a biblical name, Shifra, that was not identified as being the wife, daughter or mother of any important man because we want our daughter to know she matters for who she is and who she will become, including but certainly not limited to her roles as a mother, wife or daughter. I take comfort in this view being consistent with some of my traditions about this difficult verse. The discrepancy between the treatment of males and females, however is acknowledged as a matter of concern.

Notes and Sources

1. Leviticus 21:9
2. Conversation at Lag B’Omer event at Bondi with Rabbi Y. 14.05.2017 based on Chasidic sources
3. Buchwald, Rabbi E, Lessons from a Cohen’s Wanton Daughter, https://njop.org/emor-5772-2012/. He wrote….As one who completed the study of an entire cycle of the Talmud about twenty-five years ago, I know how enriching the experience can be… but looking back, it was inevitable that devoting so much time to the study of Torah came, at least in part, at the expense of the family, especially during the children’s critical nurturing years..
4. Talmud Sanhedrin 50b
5. Mishnah, Makkot 1:10
6. Abarbanel, commentary on Emor question 5, p.225
7. Talmud Sanhedrin 52a
8. Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, sees the reference to the father as a clarification of a matter of law, that she had gotten married through Erusin, but lived in her father’s house
9. Unkelus/Onkelus, who lived around c. 35–120 CE, although the Talmud Megillah 3a suggests that this translation is was based on the teachings of the great Tanaaim Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, or even earlier but forgotten by the masses, and rerecorded by Unkelus,
10. Meshech Chochma, Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, 1843-1926
11. Daat Mikra on Leviticus 21:9, Mosad Harav Kook,
12. Hosea 4:14

Fear & Shame, Withdrawal & Cover-up, Perseverance & Triumph. Vayishlach

photo by Jesse Andrews, used under Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

It is hard to imagine the impact the devastation in the Philippines has on those affected, all we can do is give them the support they need, and I would not be offering them any advice from the comfort of my Sydney home.  In less dramatic ways, like most people, I deal with a range of challenges. There are times when others can support me. Yet there are some difficulties, especially relating to the consequences of our own choices that we need to deal with, almost, alone.

There are times when we are subjected to the choices of others, either malicious or indifferent, with limited ability to protect ourselves. At such times it can become difficult to keep fighting.  Whether as a victim or a guilty party, there is the temptation to hide one’s shame. Shame can be useful, just like pain, it is a sign that some standard has been violated,  and we can negotiate with shame to contain and channel it for good. With a prayer on our lips, gratitude for what we do have, recognition of our virtues (1), we can have faith that despite the troubles we face, we may yet triumph in the end. I explore these themes through the life of Jacob, mainly as they appear in the Torah reading this week, Vayishlach.

We encounter Jacob very afraid and upset (2) about meeting his violent brother Esau who he had cheated out of their father’s blessings years earlier (3). His prayer is full of pathos, “Please save me, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I am afraid of him, lest he come and strike me, [and strike] a mother with children” (4). Yet, despite the urgency for Jacob, God does not reply to this prayer.

I see great symbolism in the fact that Jacob remains “alone” when he wrestles with a man (5), who commentary tells us was his brother’s guardian angel (6). Jacob prevails in his wrestle with the angel, admitting that yes he is Jacob, which means the usurper (7), yet standing his ground. The meeting with the brother works out ok, after Jacob sent him many gifts, his brother kisses him and tells him “My brother, let what is yours, be yours” (8), which is interpreted “as my brother, there is no need for the gifts” (9) and perhaps even conceding that Jacob can keep the disputed blessings (10).

Shortly after the reunion with his brother Esau, Jacob’s daughter Dina’s, an only girl among a family of boys (11), goes out to seek some female company with the local girls or alternatively she is more keen to “be seen” to show off her good looks (12). She is noticed, then abducted and raped by Shchem the son of the local ruler “who sleeps with her and pains her” (13) (see note 12 regarding the offensive linking of mode of dress with rape). When Jacob hears about the rape, he waits silently for his sons (14) and leaves them to do the talking (15). They make a dishonest offer of intermarriage with the people of Shchem on condition that all the men in Shchem circumcise themselves which enables Jacob’s sons to kill the ailing townspeople. They don’t bother to seek Jacob’s guidance or permission. Jacob’s protests weakly about PR damage and fear of reprisal. His sons dismiss his concern with a rhetorical question “should he make our sister into a harlot?!” (16). I see Jacob withdrawing from leadership because of the pain and shame of the situation.

Jacob, shattered by the episode with Dina, still manages to pull himself together to provide some religious guidance to his sons about disposing of any idols among the spoils (17). It is not long before Jacob seems to withdraw again. After his beloved wife Rachel dies, the text tells us that his son Reuben “went and slept Bilhah (this is not a typo, it does not say slept with), his father’s concubine, and Jacob heard” (18).

There is great controversy about the meaning of the verse. Some sages are adamant that it is not to be taken literally (19). It could be argued that they are seeking to whitewash or cover up what really happened according to the plain meaning of the text and the views of other sages (20). At a time when the Torah used to be translated for those who did not understand Hebrew one sage instructed the translator not to translate this verse (21). One commentator (22) cryptically suggests that the sages have interpreted this verse well, citing the proverb “and the wise, have their shame covered” (23). This view is strongly rejected, while it is “permissible” to say that Reuben did in fact sin, it is absolutely forbidden to” suggest that the sages who did not take the story literally were engaged in a cover up (24).

Certainly in the modern context we know that hiding problems such as child abuse is a terrible omission that can lead to great suffering, honour killings is another crime that might be motivated by the desire to avoid shame. According to commentary Dina has a daughter to Shchem who is later named Osnat, and her brothers want to kill the baby girl so that no one will say that the house of 

Jacob is a house of harlotry. To his credit Jacob prevents that heinous crime, but disturbingly he sends young Osnat away from home (25).  

In the end Jacob survives all these troubles. His last years are happy ones, spent with his powerful and much loved son and wonderful wife,Joseph and Osnat, yes the same Osnat daughter of Shchem and Dina (26).

 Jacob’s legacy is the existence of the Jewish people today 3000 years later, and the spreading of Biblical teachings to large parts of the human family, an amazing triumph.  He fulfilled his greater destiny, despite the tragedies and foibles along the way.

Let us all offer support to each other whenever we can, through trouble great such as the Philippines is now going through as well as small. Equally, let all of us, who face difficulties try to “feel the fear and do it anyway” (27) persistently and humbly navigating the challenges of living. 

(Thank you Donna Jacobs Sife for Edit)

References and Notes 
1)    R. Yosef Yitchak Shneerson argues that one must know ones positive points just as one must be aware of ones faults
2)    Genesis 32:8
3)    Genesis 27
4)    Genesis 32:12, (translation with minor modification from chabad.org)
5)    Genesis 32:15
6)    Beresheet Rabba
7)    Gensis 32:28 as interpreted by my colleague Donna Jacobs Sife
8)    Genesis 33:9
9)    Seforno
10)    Rashi, Baal Haturim, indicates that the Gematriya, the numerical value of the letters in the words אחי יהי לך אשר לך (my brother let what is yours be yours) is the same as זה הברכות they both equal the number 645.
11)    Ohr Hachayim
12)    Tanchuma Yashan Vayshlach 10 who goes on to suggest that her arm was revealed, “because it could not be that she would have gone out without covering her face” (based on Torat Cohanim and Yefat Toar),  see also in Midrash Agada, Lekach Tov cited in Torah Shlaima  Vol. 2 p. 1317-1318. I agree with the modern view that showing off her beauty is no excuse for rape, these commentaries written over a thousand years ago do not suggest that it is a justification but they do contextualise her abduction with this commentary.
13)    Genesis 34:2, which is interpreted as Shchem raping her (Ramban)
14)    Genesis 34:5, an alternative interpretation is that he is that he initially sends two servants to bring her home, Shchem and his men banish Jacob’s servants but not before Shchem sits Dina down and kissed her and hugged her in front of them. They reported back to Jacob on what they had seen. It is a this point that Jacob goes silent (Sefer Hayashar)
15)    Genesis 34:13, Radak points out that Jacob is silent while this negotiated. He does not speak falsehood with his lips but leaves it to his sons to do.
16)    Genesis 34:30-31
17)    Genesis 35:2-4
18)    Genesis 35:22, while the verse seems to suggest that he was passive, commentary suggests that he heard and rebuked him (Yalkutim Hatemanim, cited in Torah Shlaima Vol. 2 p. 1362, 96).
19)    Talmud Shabbat 55b some of the sages, Rashi, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, Chizkuni. The proof cited in support of the non-literal view is the fact that the Tribe of Reuben stands on Mt. Ebal and utters the curse against anyone who sleeps with his father’s wife, which would surely not be appropriate if this was a sin committed by the founder of their tribe and their ancestor. 
20)    Other opinions in the Talmud Shabbat 55b, Oonkelus, Bchor Shor and Radak who explains that Reuben thought that Bilhah was not really his father’s wife but a mere concubine. Another source that would not be considered authoritative is Sefer Hayovilm  33 (which was found with the dead sea scrolls). It gives a vivid description of the event.
21)    Talmud Megilah 25b
22)    Ibn Ezra
23)    Proverbs 12:16, וכסה קלון ערום
24)    Sefer Emunat Chachamim, L’Rabbi Eliezer Sar Shalom 22, cited in in Torah Shlaima Vol. 2  p. 1362, 96
25)    Midrash Mayan Ganim, manuscript, cited in cited in in Torah Shlaima Vol. 2  p. 1318, 6
26)    Genesis 41:45, as interpreted by Pirkey DRabbi Eliezer 38
27)    Susan Jeffers, the name of her excellent book, an earlier variation of this concept is also articulated by Abarbanel.