Love flourishing or turned to hate - The cases of two prince-rapists Amnon & Shechem and the war beauty

I have been thinking about the struggles of couples to realise true love of each other in light of the craving to have their own needs and desires met, and the various pressures each of us deals with. The Torah reading this week mentions hatred of wives seven times (1) as well as some guidance for newlyweds, so it might contain some clues. I also investigate the cases of the Bible's two prince-rapists who claimed to love their victims. 

The first lesson is deceptively simple, although I will argue below that the truth is more complex. Physical desire that inspires feelings of instant “love” (2) might soon be replaced by loathing (3). This message is conveyed by the juxtaposition of two cases in the Torah. The first is about a soldier who sees a “beautiful woman” captive, and craves her, then marries her (4). This case is immediately followed by the case of a man with two wives, one of whom is referred to as “the hated one” (5). The hint is that the former is likely to end up the latter.

The replacement of self centred “love” by hate is tragically illustrated in the story of the princess, Tamar, who was raped by her half brother Amnon. Amnon was so in “love” with Tamar that he felt sick (6). He grabbed her, and despite her impassioned pleas, Amnon overpowered Tamar and raped her (7). However, immediately after the crime, “Amnon hated her with very great hatred, for greater was the hatred with which he hated her than the “love” with which he had “loved” her” (8). Tamar was utterly devastated, tearing her clothes and “screaming as she goes” (9). Amnon’s shift from “love” to hatred is attributed to shame and self-loathing, projected onto the person -“object” - that he used in his self-debasement (10). 

The prudish inference that body-based “love” and sexual desire is bad, but mind-spirit love is good, is disproven in the case of the other biblical prince-rapist (11) Shechem. Shechem is not motivated by animal desire of his body, but a higher attraction in his soul (12) to his victim’s spirit (13). After he raped her, he did not hate her, on the contrary, we are told that he loved her and that he, sickeningly, spoke to “her heart” (14), perhaps expressing his twisted soulful desire in fancy love poems. Shechem’s lack of hatred and self-loathing is an interesting contrast to Amnon’s post rape reaction. In the end, however, what matters is the common lack of consent by their “love interests,” and their shared, utterly selfish disregard of their victims’  will and dignity. In fact, the Midrash puts Tamar’s exact words (15) into Dina’s mouth, she too says “and I, where will I take my shame?” (16). If we are ever caught up in our inner spiritual needs in our relationships, let us remember that spiritual narcissism is contemptible!  

The message of tuning in to one’s partner is conveyed strongly in the law of the exemption from war given to newlywed men who must, instead, spend a year making their wife happy (17). This message is read in three ways. One translator alters the meaning somewhat to replace a man selflessly making his wife happy to say that he should rejoice with his wife (18). It is healthy when joy is mutual and for spouses to be assertive and proactive about meeting their own needs and desires, while also being attentive to their partner. This variation from the plain meaning of the text is emphatically rejected as a “mistake” by another commentator, perhaps seeking to keep the emphasis on the value of focusing on the needs of one’s spouse (19). A third commentary suggests that physical intimacy for 364 nights over that first year is hinted at in the numerical value of the Hebrew word “VSimach” ושמח - to make happy (20). The bottom line is that it is not about how one expresses care and true love of another, but the authenticity of truly loving them, rather than loving only one’s self.    

For the full lesson on this topic click here  

Notes

1. Deuteronomy 21:15, 21:6, 22:13, 22:16, 24:3
2. Alshich - beginning of Ki Tetze, p. 237
3. Rashi to Deuteronomy 21:14, based on Sifre to 21:14 and Talmud Sanhedrin 107a
4. Deuteronomy 21:10-14
5. Deuteronomy 21:15
6. Samuel II, 13:1-2
7. Samuel II, 13:11-14
8. Samuel II, 13:15-17
9. Samuel II, 13:18-20
10. Abarbanel and Malbim’s commentary. 

אברבנל: הפועל המגונה זה דרכו שבהשלמתו יקנה האדם  ממנו חרטה רבה ושנאה גדולה, וכמאמר המדיני הרשעים מלאים חרטות, ולכן אמנון לא עצר כח לראותה עוד בהתחרטו ממה שעשה.
מלבים: וישנאה אחר שהיה תאוה כלביית מיד שנכבה רשף התאוה חלפה האהבה שלא היתה אהבה עצמיית, ואז בהכירו תועבת הנבלה הזאת שב לשנוא את הנושא שעל ידו נסבב לו זאת, וזה שכתוב גדולה השנאה מהאהבה שהאהבה בעצמה סבבה את השנאה שכשזכר תועבת האהבה הזאת, אשר היתה עתה לזרה בעיניו, נהפך לבו בקרבו לשנאה גדולה:

11.           The designation of Shechem as a rapist in Genesis 34:1-11  is less clear than the case of Amnon but is supported by Ramban’s commentary to Genesis 34:2 

12.           Genesis 34:3 & 8

13.           Alshich to Genesis 34, p. 305

14.           Genesis 34:3  

15.           Samuel II, 13:13

16.           Bereshit Rabba to Genesis 34, 80:10 

17.           Deuteronomy 24:5   

18.           Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel  

19.           Rashi to Deuteronomy 24:5 

20.           Baal Haturim, the Gematria of the word ושמח is 364. The night of Yom Kippur is the one exception to this recommended daily expression of love. 

 

Angry Moses: You spared all the females?! Mattot

Image by Bas Leenders,  used under Creative Commons License
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) 

The words scream accusingly off the page. Moses, himself, raged against the officers of his army returning from a war of vengeance against the nation of Midian. Moses asked rhetorically, “Have you allowed all the females to live?” (1)

I wrote about this two years ago, but the words don’t fail to disturb me anew. How can I reconcile my belief in the inherent worth of all humans, while also affirming the holiness of this sacred text? I don’t have an answer but I still feel compelled to explore and probe this text. First, by providing the context for how this text is read today in contrast with its historical context. Secondly, by reviewing how traditional scholars have responded to the text in their commentary and, finally, by offering a comment of my own.

Context

Judaism does not permit this kind of behaviour today. This was an instruction, for a particular time over 3000 years ago, by the prophet Moses. Jews no longer have prophets and, therefore, no- one has the authority that Moses had (2). Most modern Jews are not aware of this particular passage. As for those who are aware of it, it is understood in more abstract and metaphoric terms. One example of this is the teaching that Midian, who attacked the Jews with no provocation, is symbolic of baseless hatred which we must eradicate from ourselves (3).

The context of the passage above was a battle ordered by God and presented in the text as revenge against the people of Midian. They (and the Moabites) sought to deliberately destroy the Israelites’ spiritual lives, by sending their daughters to seduce Israelite men and then pressure them to worship the false god Peor, thus incurring upon themselves Divine wrath(4). Theirs was a hostile act that attacked our way of life, at its core (5).

While it may still not justify the deeds in this story, we need to recognise the difference in the conditions of war today, among those who adhere to the Geneva Conventions, in contrast with the conditions of all-out war in ancient times. Today, nations can resort to sanctions to deter others from trampling on their rights, or engage in a limited military operation to protect their interests. In order to survive in ancient times, it is argued that you needed to be as cruel as other nations were (6).

Commentary

Disturbingly, from a modern critical perspective, our earliest commentators did not appear at all concerned about Moses’ desire to see the women dead. On the contrary, we find that Moses had asserted that the battle against Midian was God’s revenge, not that of the Israelites because he argued that “if we had been idol worshippers the Midianites would not hate us or pursue us” (7). Because of this perspective, Moses had a great desire to witness the revenge against Midian before he died (8). The Midianites led the Israelites to sin and ‘leading a person to sin is considered more serious than killing him!’ (9).

However, a later commentator read the phrase “have you allowed all the females to live?” not as a complaint that the Israelites did not kill all the women, but that they allowed all the women to live, including those who had been recognised as being the perpetrators, who seduced the Jewish men and then pressured them into worshiping idols (10).

Another argument was advanced that Phineas and the soldiers did not judge the women to be deserving of punishment because they would have been under the control of their husbands and forced into offering their bodies for the war effort (11). In addition, while two nations engaged in these bizarre battle tactics of using women to lead the Israelites to sin, revenge was taken on only one, Midian, while Moab was spared. This is explained by the fact that Moab felt genuinely threatened by the Israelites (12). These commentaries reflect that, at least, some value was placed on the lives of the Israelites’ “enemies” in our tradition.

Comment

My exploration of this text is far from comprehensive. As I did on my blog two years ago, (2), I leave this matter unresolved. I take some comfort from the fact that I am not the first to be concerned about these deeds. Scholars believe that questions were asked at the time and that Moses himself was disturbed and angered by aspects of the killing (13).  A senior editor of Chabad.org wrote that the “war of retribution on the Midianites...sends chills down my spine” (14). He asserts that “Jews are supposed to ask these questions, even if the answers are not satisfactory”. In asking these questions, we emphasise our abhorrence of genocide and racism, and our tendency to read these texts primarily as metaphoric messages about the importance of rejecting senseless hatred and the disruption of the cultural and spiritual lives of others.

Notes

1)       Numbers 31:14-15

2)       https://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/defensive-genocide-wrestling-with.html

3)       The Chasidic discourse known as “Heichaltzu” is a prime example of this.

4)       Numbers 25:18, 31:1-2, read in relation to Numbers 25:1-3

5)       Samson Raphael Hirsch on Numbers 31:3

6)       Rav Kook, Igros Hareia, vol 1, p. 100, cited in Sharki, R. Uri, Jewish Morality in War, Parshat Matot, מוסר יהודי במלחמה , לפרשת מטות - דברי הרב אורי שרקי  http://rotter.net/forum/politics/23960.shtml,

7)       Bereshit Rabba on Matos, 2.

8)       Bereshit Rabba on Matos, 5, also in Midrash Tanchuma

9)       Etz Yosef on Bereshit Rabba on Matos, 5

10)   Seforno on Numbers 31:15

11)   Ohr Hachayim Numbers 31:16. However, in the end this argument was countered by the argument that the women had of their own volition and initiative manipulated the Jewish men to worship the idols, which went further than the acts that they were coerced into by the men.

12)   Ralbag, on Numbers 15, Balak, Toelles 1, Mosad Rav Kook edition, p. 135, and Chizkuni

13)   Chasam Sofer, Klei Yakar on Matos

14)   Freeman, T., http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2494730/jewish/Torah-and-Genocide-FAQ.htm

Managing Lust and Shaking a woman’s hand/a Cross-Cultural/Interfaith Perspective – Tazria

Julie Bishop in Iran, image from news.com.au

Julie Bishop is Australia’s tough talking foreign minister and a conservative politician who had personally taken on Putin and got what she wanted (1).  She disappointed some of her fans this week when she arguably ‘caved in to the religious demands of the Iranians’ by covering her head. Different ways of dealing with lust certainly stir the passions. In this post I explore my traditions’ teachings on this issue and explore how one might deal ethically with these differences. 

Judaism is quite concerned with managing lust. Jewish men are commanded to place strings on the corners of our garments to prevent us straying after “our eyes and hearts” (2).  Jewish women as well as men are instructed to avoid physical contact between people of opposite genders except close family members.  A woman putting out her hand to shake the hand of a strict Jew or Muslim might find her hand left awkwardly hanging because of these kinds of laws.  Should she? Shouldn’t a man living in the west just shake her hand?

From a cross-cultural ethical perspective, a useful question is whether the requirement from either party is a preference or a need. For some religious Jewish men and women, the prohibition against physical contact with the opposite gender is an absolute prohibition (3). To insist that he or she violate their divine law is to demand an act against their conscience.  On the other hand the religious person needs to be aware that their reality is meaningless to someone outside their own religious culture. Their refusal to shake hands will be experienced as sexist and hurtful and as unreal as the monsters children see under their beds,  and in the case of a black man and a Jewish woman, even as  racist.

One approach within Jewish law is to consider the context of the original prohibition: the avoidance of sexual touch or at least affectionate touch (4), which is completely different to the meaning of a modern handshake. A second argument is that to avoid causing embarrassment to someone who puts out their hand and it is left hanging should be the main consideration (5).  This second argument is one I have also heard from Muslim Imams who would choose to shake hands with a woman for this reason.

Yet, for the very religious Jew who follows the view that the cross-gender handshake is forbidden, the Torah is the primary context. While sex within marriage is a considered a virtuous deed in the Torah, there is a concern about the corrupting potential of lust and the call for men to “sanctify themselves” during sex (6). Judaism is also concerned that a man might focus on satisfying himself rather than on his wife’s pleasure. To address this, although not politically correct, the Talmud promises men who ensure that their wives climax first, the reward of male sons (7).   This promise is based on the verse in the Torah: “a woman, when she “seeds”, she will give birth to a male (8)”.  Loving appropriate sex that is “sanctified and tempered by mutual respect”, is contrasted with self-centred and dominant sexuality. The quest for the former and negation of the latter is linked to the symbolism of Circumcision (9).  

Of course there are various ways in which to love and have respectful sexual practices. Strict religion has no monopoly on ethical sex. On the other hand, the strict orthodox Jewish approach does have some benefits. Young men and women are free from being pressured into having sex and all that can come with it (10), before they are ready. Some even escape body image preoccupations until they are in their 20s and are ready to marry. Fidelity in marriage is high, adultery and sexual harassment is low.

Ultimately, what is required is cross-cultural respect. Shaking a woman’s hand when it is offered is one way some religious people show respect by prioritising her dignity. A non-religious man showing understanding for a religious woman who won’t shake his hand is another. Julie Bishop putting on a head scarf also showed respect for people with a different way of being. That is a strength.

Notes
1)     http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/foreign-minister-julie-bishop-secures-guarantee-from-russian-president-vladimir-putin-to-allow-investigators-to-visit-mh17-crash-site-again/story-fni0cx12-1227094454333
2)    Numbers 15:39
3)    http://revach.net/halacha/tshuvos/Rav-Menashe-Klein-Shaking-Hands-With-Women-Permissible-on-the-Grounds-of-Malbim-Pnei-Chaveiro-and-Derech-Chiba/2443 “In Mishneh Halachos (6:223)  Rav Menashe Klein is asked about shaking hands with a woman who offers her hand and it would be embarrassing to her if rebuffed.  Rav Menashe Klein states: “that this is absolutely not a heter” (excemption, or grounds for special dispensation).  “Not embarrassing someone is not a sufficient reason to transgress "Abizrahu D'Giluy Arayos"; an ancillary prohibition to illicit relationships…”
4)    This distinction is discussed in various contexts. The Shach (Sifsei Cohen – Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 157:10 states that Maimonides only stated (in a discussion of the prohibition of contact between the sexes) “when one does hugging and kissing, in a way that is sexually affectionate”. However the counter argument by Rav Menashe Klein is that the case of the Shach is a Doctor taking the pulse of a woman.  Since it is in the course of carrying out a professional duty the Shach is lenient. This might not apply to social gestures where there isn’t that hyper focus of the professional such as a doctor with a patient. A question was asked of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein about travelling on the New York subway in which men and women come into contact with each other on the crowded trains. He explains that the prohibition of physical contact discussed by Maimonides is “only in the way of desire/lust”. (Igros Moshe, Even Haezer, vol. 2, 14). Rabbi Feinstein does not apply that distinction to handshaking, which he suggests is forbidden although he acknowledges that Rabbi Yaakov Gershon Burstein (in Igros Moshe, Even Ezer, vol 1, 56) “who said that he saw God fearing (people) that are lenient about this, one can judge favourably that they rely on the principle that if she puts out her hand to them that they would not be doing it in a way of affection and lust, but it is difficult to rely on this… this is not a contradiction to what I permitted for people to travel on buses, because in that case there is not, for anyone, any situation of affection” (Igros Moshe, Even Haezer, vol. 4, 32:9). A detailed argument to permit handshaking is made by Henkin, Rabbi Y, http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%204%20Henkin.pdf
5)    Sherlo, Rabbi, Y., http://www.ypt.co.il/show.asp?id=40541 http://matzav.com/hesder-rabbi-men-may-shake-womens-hand  Rabbi Cherlow is Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Hesder Petach Tikva. One blogger claimed that “Among many, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky has been quoted as saying that one should shake hands and not embarrass others at the expense of one’s Chumros (stringencies)”.  http://haemtza.blogspot.com.au/2008/02/platonic-touch-between-sexes.html a second hand account stated: “Rav Schachter - conflicting reports. A friend of mine saw him shake a woman's hand in the bank, and on being asked about it he explained that it wasn't possible to explain and wasn't derech chiba and he'll probably never even see her again. I have heard similar statements from him. I have also heard from him that it should be avoided if possible to do so in a polite way, which seems fair…(in terms of the first story) I can vouch to its authenticity, since my chavrusa was there, although that doesn't help the rest of you” http://www.hashkafah.com/index.php?/topic/6410-shaking-hands/page-4
6)    Talmud Shavuot 18b, this is also related to the verse in Leviticus 12:2, but linked to its proximity to a the commandments about sanctifying oneself “you shall sanctify yourselves and you should be holy because I am holy” found 4 verses earlier in Leviticus 11:44
7)    Talmud Nida 31a
8)    Leviticus 12:2
9)    Sacks Bris Millah, http://www.rabbisacks.org/the-circumcision-of-desire-tazria-metsora-5775/, circumcision is also discussed at the beginning of our Torah reading this week, Tazria, Leviticus 12:3
10)    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-online-porn-is-warping-the-behaviour-of-boys-with-girls-20150424-1ms7jw.html