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

Negative Framing, Fanatics, Females and Forwarding

Just as putting your head in the sand and pretending there are never any problems between groups is foolish, focusing too much on the evil in others is destructive.

I received an e-mail with a link to a disturbing YouTube video in which a woman wearing typical Western dress is asked by a woman with a veil “who are you trying to seduce?!” It shows Muslim men and women chanting “UK go to hell! UK Police go to hell!” The e-mail said simply “An eye opening video about the strength of the Muslims and their beliefs and how it gets when there are enough of them”. I was upset when I watched it. I was disturbed by the extremism of the marchers and the implied generalisation. The common thread is a narrow and negative perspective about others.

To put the clip in some context, a Gallup poll found that “About two-thirds of Muslims in London (64%) say they have confidence in the British government, compared to just 36% of the British public overall[i]”. Another survey found that while 84% of British Muslims surveyed endorsed a literalist view of scripture, “with regard to national identity, 58% reported that they “very strongly” belong to Britain and 29% “fairly strongly[ii]” a total of 87%. In another version of the video we are told that less than 100 of the 30,000 Muslims living in the area were are at the protest. In the version that I was sent, with 1.4 million views, we don’t see any of this. This post, seeking guidance in Torah sources, examines the attitudes of the protesters, the creation/editing of the clip and its circulation.

Assertiveness without prejudice- don’t you call me a racist!

It is not racist to criticise members of minority groups about specific behaviours. Although expressing hostility to the government is protected by the principle of free speech, it is right for other citizens to robustly object to these attitudes. A wholesale condemnation of the country one lives in, rather than demonstrating against specific policies should be criticised. Denigrating others for their choices, such as suggesting that someone with a different idea about clothing is promiscuous is wrong. At the same time, if a critique generalises the problem to a whole group, rather than the individuals involved, it is racism or bigotry.

Groups are entitled to assert themselves and their legitimate rights. In doing so, it is vital to keep a sense of proportion and a broad perspective of the whole picture. Exaggerating the threat posed by the “other” is apparently the reason for the killing of Trayvon Martin, and exaggeration is also reflected in the ridiculous rants of the mass murderer, Breivic, in Norway.

The divider, the law of the “Metzorah”  

One problem common to the demonstrators and their critics is divisive speech, an issue which the Torah deals with harshly. It mandates isolation for the Metzorah (problematically translated as a leper), which is a person exhibiting very specific skin or hair discoloration[iii] that does not conform to any scientifically known conditions[iv]. Predominantly, the condition is understood to be result of engaging in “Lashon Harah”, evil talk, (telling people about the bad things another person has done for no constructive purpose (among other sins)[v]. In a play on words, the word Metzorah מצורה is equated with Motzi Rah, מוצי רע one who “brings out” evil. One who highlights and calls attention to the faults and misdeeds of others.

Isolation of the divider

Isolation is declared to be a fitting punishment, “just as he separated by his evil talk between a husband and wife and between a man and his friend, so too should he be separated (from others)[vi]”. Not only must the Metzorah leave the camp and live alone, he is also forbidden to talk to others, be greeted by anyone[vii] and needs to shout out “I am impure” and dress in a way[viii] that will keep people away. The Metzorah, gossiping about the evil of others, does not value the community in which s/he lives, indifferent to the division his negative speech is causing. Being forced out of the community provides an opportunity to consider the value of community[ix].

But it’s True…

Significantly, this harsh punishment is not for slander and false accusations, the definition of Lashon Harah, “evil talk” includes talking about incidents that are true. Perhaps the problem with telling the truth about the faults of others is that it dwells on this one aspect of the subject and the narrow focus distorts that person’s reputation which should take into account the full person. Following the Yiddish saying, “a half truth is a complete lie”. It’s the missing tile syndrome. Our eyes are drawn to the one missing tile but ignore the rest of the beautiful mosaic.

A narrow perspective

When the demonstrators shout UK ‘go to hell’, they are dwelling on certain aspects of the UK that they object to, an arrest they don’t agree with among other things, and ignoring the virtues of that society. A Muslim friend told me yesterday about a Sheik who teaches his students that there is no need to seek Sharia law as a system of government. He argues that 95% of the principles of Sharia such as care for the vulnerable etc. are already part of Australian law.

As demonstrated in the second paragraph, the film that portrays these people is giving an extremely narrow picture of a small group of people. We also know almost nothing about the people portrayed except that they have a negative attitude and on a given day expressed their hostility. We don’t know if they are productive tax paying citizens, honest, loving family members, have a sense of humour or love cricket.

The Constructive clause

Some would argue that circulating the video is not Lashon Harah/evil speech because of the constructive purpose clause that allows reporting evil deeds to protect the innocent, eg. it is permissible to tell a prospective employer about the bad habits of the person they are seeking to employ. They would argue that this video raises awareness of an important social problem. When employing this justification, it is important to be accurate in reporting which this video is not. Certainly the comments left about the video are far from constructive; many are hateful, some even calling for extermination and mosque burnings. 

Reintegration of the “divider

The Torah response to divisive speech is assertive but humane. In spite of the gravity of the offense, and the harshness of the response, the humanity of “divider/Metzorah” is not forgotten. The Talmud sees a second purpose in his shouting out that s/he is “impure! impure!” is to make known his pain to many, and many (people) will ask for (divine) mercy for him[x]”. Once the Metzorah has “served his time” s/he must be given an opportunity to again be an upstanding member of the community. This process begins with a leader of the community going out of the camp to where the Metzorah is[xi], symbolising the leadership seeking to understand the situation of the “outcast”[xii].  Asserting a standard of behaviour does not preclude understanding the situation of those who fail to adhere to that standard. Typically the leading Kohen/priest would be joined by many other people. This meant that the Metzorah was honoured with a large welcoming delegation[xiii]. The ceremony uses a red thread, a hyssop and cedar wood. The symbolism being that the Metzorah who was previously red with sin in the sense of the verse “if your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow[xiv]”, and was humbled from being like a tall tree to a lowly hyssop through his sins can now be restored by God’s forgiveness to his place and (tree like) height. A bird is released symbolising that like a caged bird feed to socialize with its fellow birds, the former “Divider” is now welcome to be with his community[xv].

 

In conclusion

Not all criticism of minorities or government is wrong. There are some substantial issues that fuel division or anger. I think, the exaggerated perception of those differences is a far more significant factor. The Muslims at the demonstration as well those who edited, and promoted the video as being representative of all Muslims are allowing a focus on the negative to divide us.

---

[i] http://www.gallup.com/poll/27409/Muslims-Europe-Basis-Greater-Understanding-Already-Exists.aspx

[ii] http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2010/clive-field-on-attitudes-to-islam-and-muslim-attitudes-in-britain/

[iii] Leviticus 13:46

[iv] Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh and Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman cited in Nachshoni, Y (1991), Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Vayikra, Artscroll, New York, p. 723. At face value this would seem to be simply about the fear of contagion  (Daat Zekainim Mbaalei Tosafot, on Leviticus 13:44, Bchor Shor) of a natural disease. However, it is more useful to set aside arguments about the facts of “leprosy” and focus on how this phenomenon is understood in context and tradition, which is that these conditions are understood to be a supernatural phenomenon (Maimonides commentary to Mishna, Negaim 12:5, cited in Leibowitz, N, (1993) New Studies in Vayikra Leviticus, the World Zionist Org, dept. for Torah Education pub. p. 188). This view is not shared by all commentators, Ralbag states that it is caused by moisture and heat. Even Maimonides himself attributes some natural aspects to it in the guide for the perplexed (3:44). Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh and Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman both argue strongly that is not a natural disease. Some of proof includes instances where concern about contagion would require isolation yet the law does not require it. If the discoloration spreads to the entire body the person is declared “pure”. A groom celebrating in the week following his marriage and anyone celebrating during the pilgrimage who has the symptoms  is exempt from being examined and declared impure until the end of the celebration (Maimonides laws of the Impurity of the Metzorah 9:8) . If we thought this was a contagious disease we certainly would not allow someone to be among so many people during the celebrations. (This over-riding of the laws of the Metzorah would only apply to an non-declared condition, if it has already been declared the festival would not over-ride the status of the Metzorah and he would remain isolated – Talmud Moed Katan 14b)The bottom line is that the predominant understanding among the religious Jews I grew up with was that this was a direct sign from God rather than some normal illness.  

[v] Midrash Vayikra Rabba 17:3, Talmud Arachin 16a, other sins said to result in this condition in the Talmud are murder, stealing from the public, adultery, false oaths, arrogance and ungenerous attitude to others. All of these result in the destruction of community and relationships

[vi] Talmud Arachin 16b, Rashi and Baal Haturim to Leviticus 13:46

[vii] Talmud Moed Katan 15a

[viii] Leviticus 13:45

[ix] Oznayim Latorah, cited in Nachshoni, Y (1991), Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Vayikra, Artscroll, New York, p. 744

[x] Talmud Sotah 32b

[xi] Leviticus 14:3

[xii] Siach Hasadeh, cited in Greenberg, A Y (1992), Torah Gems, Vol 2, Y. Orenstien, Yavneh Publishing, Tel Aviv, p.293

[xiii] Sifsei Kohen

[xiv] Isaiah 18:1

[xv] Bchor Shor

Niqab Nicky, Modesty, Torah & Coexistence Beyond Relativism

Image by Charles Roeffy
http://fr.fotopedia.com/items/flickr-410575408
Used under Creative Common License
See terms
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

“Nicky[1] has gotten married and will now be wearing the Niqab, she will even be covering her eyes”. This piece of news was about a talented young woman I have worked with. I was taken aback.

Some would say, so what?! The relativists or post-modernists might say that I have no right to an opinion, because all cultural or religious decisions are basically equal. I think that, in a way, saying that all behaviours are equal can be a cop out from dealing with our own opinions or biases. I am interested in considering this from a more robust coexistence perspective, how comfortable am I with this? Do I have reservations? A useful starting point in seeking to make sense of this for myself is to consider some religious ideas in my own tradition about women’s beauty. 

There are various views about female beauty in Jewish tradition; some of these are expressed about a donation of women’s mirrors. The Torah states, “And he made the washbasin of copper[2] and the base thereof of copper, of the mirrors of the serving women that did service at the door of the tent of meeting[3]”. The Midrash tells a story about two responses to this donation. “when the Israelites were involved in back breaking work (as slaves) in Egypt, Pharaoh decreed that they should not sleep at home…the women would go down to draw water from the Nile, God will prepare small fish for them in their jugs, they would sell these and cook some of them and they would buy wine and go out to the fields and feed their husbands…as they were eating and drinking they would take out the mirrors and look at their them with their husbands, she would say I am prettier than you, he would say I am better looking than you and through this they brought themselves to desire and were fruitful and multiplied…(much later when the tabernacle was being created in the desert) the women brought these mirrors to Moses. When Moses saw them he was angry with them. He said to the Israelites, take sticks and break their thighs! These mirrors, what are they needed for?! But God said to Moses, Moses, these you despise?! These mirrors are the ones that (are responsible) for the rising legions (of Israelites) in Egypt. Take them and make the washbasin for the priests, from it the priests will be sanctified[4]”.   

  

The attitude in this source sees feminine beauty as a positive thing, at least in the context of a marriage. This view is perhaps taken further in the anecdote about the Lubavitcher Rebbe visiting a dormitory in a seminary for single women and he expressed concern about why there were no mirrors in the rooms[5]. 

On the other side of the argument are the views that what was positive about the donation of mirrors was the symbolism of rejecting vanity implied by giving them away. “It is the way of all women to beautify themselves, looking at their faces in mirrors… each morning to adjust their hair coverings…as the custom of the Israelite women was like the custom of the Arabs till today. But there were among Israel, women who worshipped the Almighty and distanced themselves from the desires of this world. They contributed their mirrors to the Tabernacle since they no longer had the need to beautify themselves. Instead they came every day…to pray and listen to hear matters of the commandments[6]”. This rejection of vanity, by the modest women[7], led to them having the spirit of God rest on them[8].

In orthodox practice today, there is an insistence on modesty. Women in particular are expected to be careful to cover up much of their bodies, although these laws also apply to Men. There is the added requirement for married women to cover their hair, just as Nicky is not increasing her degree of covering. I can also still remember the on-going nagging/urging girls within my orthodox Jewish upbringing, to better cover themselves, an endless talk about socks, elbows and knees etc. The parallels between the traditions don’t make the idea of the Niqab comfortable for me, I am concerned about the limits it places on women. But the parallels help me recognise similar reactions by religions to the challenges presented by lust or perhaps more noble ideas about modesty. There is a strong argument that women should have the right to wear as little or as much as they want. Certainly in western countries, this is the culture and that must be and is respected by many of those with other ideas and ways. I can also see the point of religious people trying to focus minds on the spiritual and preserve sexual restraint wanting to minimize the temptation. 

Then there are the questions of male domination and gender equality. Of course male power is a problem outside religious communities as well as within the “patriarchal religions”. In at least one case that I am familiar with, the woman is wearing the Niqab over the objections of her deeply devout husband. She has made the decision, rejecting her husband’s scholarly opinion with her own formidable scholarship. Without first-hand knowledge, I still think there is a legitimate concern that in some cases and places such as Iran male coercion is the motivation which I strongly object to. I also think there is merit to the argument that if men have a problem than they should bear the burden, rather than it being borne by women. This might even relate to the argument about whose responsibility it is to avoid being damaged, the one doing the damage or the one being damaged[9]. One extremely pious Rabbi who recently passed away, went so far as to walk down the street with his eyes closed, guided by an attendant. 

It saddens me to think that while Nicky will never be able to use her winning smile or expressive eyes to argue a case, equally devout men only need to wear a white gown, cover their knees but can have their face uncovered which means they can participate more easily in the world. Perhaps it would be nice for Muslim men to be required to wear a burqa, and Jewish men to have to worry about covering their elbows and hair, so as not to tempt women with their handsome good looks. In my own tradition, women’s desire is taken very seriously and according to some views[10], the significance of the mirrors relates to the test administered to the suspected straying woman[11] who drank water from the very basin created out of the mirrors donated by these pure women[12]. 

Perhaps, more important than all the intellectual arguments is the following bit of context. Nicky is passionate about interfaith and has done a lot of work with Jews, Christians and even Agnostics. She believes it is her duty as a Muslim. In my dealings with her, I have always been impressed by her intelligence, and integrity.  She has done very well academically and comes across as a completely normal young Australian woman. Nicky’s mother told me about her own mother who migrated to Australia from Lebanon where she wore the Niqab. When Nicky’s grandmother arrived in Australia it was explained to her that she needed to leave it behind and assimilate. She tried so hard to fit in that she did not dare teach her daughter about her faith. At school the Christian children went to a religious class once a week, while she went to the library for “non-scripture”. One day Nicky’s mother came home and asked her mother why they did not believe in anything! That began a journey back to practicing the faith. Still, the granddaughter was discouraged from being too religious or wearing a headscarf, or hijab. She insisted. Now she has taken it to the next level and closed the circle.

I find it hard to imagine a God who would not be impressed by Nicky’s sincerity. I still don’t love the Niqab and I am sad about the limits it puts on Nicky, but I deeply respect the integrity of her decision and continue to value her as multi-faceted precious human being. If I see someone in a Niqab walking down the street, I will not make any assumptions about the person wearing it, for all I know it could be Nicky, or someone like her.

---

[1] Not her real name, however she also goes by an English rather than an Arabic name.

[2] Other translate it as brass or bronze

[3] Exodus 38:8, translation mostly from http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0238.htm , much of the translation is contested

[4] Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei 9, Rashi

[5] http://machonchana.org/about/our-history/

[6] R. Avraham Ibn Ezra, and Seforno

[7] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel

[8] Baal Haturim

[9] Talmud Bava Basra 18b, both options are discussed but generally the onus is on the one causing the damage

[10] Bchor Shor, Klei Yakar

[11] Numbers 5:12-31

[12] Bamidbar Rabba 9:14

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

Sotah, Modesty, Suspicion & Peace- A Womanless photo & Strauss-Kahn. Naso

Photo that has two women photo-
shopped out

The editing of a photo to remove Hilary Clinton’s image was met with widespread ridicule. People who did not just fill in the blanks must have wondered ‘what were they thinking?’ In our Torah reading this week, the modesty issue raised is more substantial than Clinton’s face in a photo. Perhaps it is more like the situation involving Mr. Strauss – Kahn, the issue is the treatment of allegations of sexual misbehaviour. Like Strauss-Kahn's treatment in the court of public opinion, in the Torah’s case there is no presumption of innocence. However, unlike the case of DSK, the accused is female, the alleged act consensual and the whole scenario challenging to modern sensibilities. In this post I explore questions of the presumption of innocence, the treatment of women, modesty, sexual morality, the importance of marriage and peace in the home.  

“The Straying Woman”

We read the case of a woman accused of adultery. She is described as a “Sotah”  סוטה which is a word that is related to the idea of straying.  The procedure outlined in the Torah is no longer practiced for technical reasons [i]. Essentially, if a married woman was suspected by her husband of infidelity with a particular man, he warned her to stay away from him. If she was found alone with this man she would be given a choice to either accept a divorce or go through a humiliating [ii], public, and supernatural procedure in which she drank water in which God’s name had been erased and would die a horrible death if she was guilty (as did her lover [iii]) but if she is exonerated and proven innocent then she would be blessed [iv].  

The Torah Context

In the Torah adultery is not just a betrayal between two married people but also a betrayal of God. This is hinted at in the repetition of the word 'man' in the Torah verse that introduced the topic: 

אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי תִשְׂטֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ מָעַל  “a man, a man if his wife will stray [v]”. The repeated word 'man' hints that she betrayed, the “Divine man of war” as well as her husband [vi]. While I don’t know how common adultery is in the non-religious world, there is definitely an advantage for marriages to exist within a worldview in which adultery is considered a shocking crime.

Modesty

Following the principle of “make a gate around the Torah”[vii] there are various laws designed to keep people away from compromising situations. The laws include a prohibition of “Yichud” (literally: being at one with), which is a prohibition for any man and woman not married to each other (except for immediate family) to be in a locked room together, unless others have keys and can come in at any moment. 

These laws combine with placing a high value on modesty. While modern observant Jewish women are far from invisible, orthodox Jewish thinking is guided to varying degrees by the phrase “all the glory of the daughter of the king is within”[viii]. This verse is interpret as relating to a standard of modesty[ix]. ‘Like Abraham and Sarah, Abraham is at the front of the tent welcoming guests[x] and Sarah is behind the scenes [xi] “in the tent”, shy and reserved yet also rising to the occasion whenever a crisis hits[xii] or critical action when it is called for’[xiii]. 

Taking it too far

Our tradition warns against husbands expecting women to stay at home all the time. The phrase “a man, a man”, according to one interpretation, hints at the husbands being perhaps too "manly”, seeking to keep women locked up at home. A story is told of Yehudah Ben Pappos who locked his wife in the house every time he left. This should not be done “because this causes hatred to arise between husband and wife and leads her to commit adultery”[xiv].

Male Dominance

I think today there is generally an egalitarian dynamic between Orthodox Jewish husbands and wives, reflecting the principle that a man must his honour his wife more than himself[xv]. Classical sources on this issue reflect other ideas, one the one hand, men are advised to be easy going and overlook problems in their house, if wine spills or there is damage he should not fight with his wife, but on the other hand it states “but if he hears something relating to his manhood/role as a husband, stand up like a man, to the one whose master you are show your authority with all your ability, that is why it say, a man, a man”[xvi]. The husband also brings an offering on his wife’s behalf[xvii].  Of course there is also no opportunity for a wife who suspects her husband of infidelity to warn her husband, nor is there a male equivalent of the Sotah. As someone who values and imperfectly practices equality (can do better with the house work), yet lives my life by the guidance found in these sacred texts this is far from comfortable.

You are a suspect based on this photo from 1968

Presumption of innocence and past misbehaviour

In spite of teachings about judging others favourably[xviii] and guidance not to accept reports about others’ wrongdoing as true there is clearly no presumption of innocence in this case. (Arguably the concept is not part of the Halachic system[xix]). In terms of process at least a judge is told “When the litigants are standing before you, let them be in your eyes as wicked[xx]”.  

It seems that the ethical imperative of giving people the benefit of the doubt is linked to having an untarnished reputation, “anyone who suspects “Kosher” (people) receives (the punishment of) lashes on his body”[xxi].  While this helps people with a record of being Kosher (Chezkat Kashrut), it is of little use to DSK who allegedly had a track record of improper behaviour around women. It also works against the straying woman, who in spite of the lack of sufficient proof must undergo the humiliating ordeal. Her hair is uncovered and un-braided, which is deemed culturally humiliating[xxii].  The reason for proceeding is because “this matters has legs, as he (her husband) had already warned her”[xxiii] on the basis of witnesses reports of her secluding herself with a man who was not her husband.

She is told during the process, [xxiv]וְאַתְּ כִּי שָׂטִית תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ which in context would be translated as “And as for you, if you have gone astray [to another] instead of your husband”, homiletically the word כִּי (which could be understood as if) is interpreted in its more usage of “because”. She is presumed guilty at least of great immodesty and she is told “you are fitting for humiliation because you strayed, as your husband had formally expressed his jealousy and still you secluded yourself [xxv]. Quite jarring stuff.     

On the other hand when the offering is brought it is labelled “a remembrance of sin[xxvi]”, which one commentary explained it as being brought because of one of the two options, either the sin of the woman or the sin of the husband who suspects her[xxvii].  Another view is that even if the wife is proven innocent the husband is not considered to have sinned because he was required to deal with his suspicion because he would not be allowed to continue to be married to her without clearing up the matter [xxviii].

Peace in the home

It has been argued that the great shame involved in this ordeal would serve as a deterrent to both women and men, for the former to conduct themselves in a way that is always above suspicion, for the latter to avoid frivolous accusations. The end result of this fear would be to prevent domestic tragedies[xxix]. One of the messages drawn from this reading is the importance of peace between husband and wife. If she is innocent, she this procedure with her face shining, finding good will from her husband [xxx]…, the couple able to continue their marriage, hopefully putting this episode behind them. This is so important that the name of God can be erased [xxxi] in the pursuit of this objective.

None of this justifies removing the face of Hillary from a newspaper photo, nor does it all sit comfortably with modern ideas about equality and rights, but it opens a window into thousands of years of religious thinking about various ways men and women with the support of their communities can handle their urges and suspicions and preserve the sanctity of marriage.

---

[i] The procedure was only done when the people were at a higher level of righteousness. It was discontinued thousands of years ago, when it could no longer be expected that men who suspected their wives of infidelity were themselves innocent.

[ii] Her hair was uncovered, she brought a sacrifice of animal feed, a Cohen held on to her clothes and if they tore, they tore, if the stiches came apart, they came apart until her heart is revealed, (Mishna Sotah 1:5). There is a similarity to the text in Hoseah 2, where Israel is compared to an adulterous wife and is told “lest I strip her naked, and set her like the day she was born”. 

[iii] Rashi on Numbers 5:22

[iv] Numbers 5:11-31

[v] Numbers 5:12

[vi] Rashi

[vii] Pirkey Avot 1:1

[viii] Psalms, 45:14

[ix] Talmud Yevmot 77a

[x] Genesis 18 Genesis 21:9-10

[xi] Genesis 18:9

[xii] Such as the need to protect her son from negative influence of danger as in Genesis 21:9-10

[xiii] Soloveitchik Rabbi J.B, quoted in Insights a Talmudic Treasury, by Rabbi Saul Weiss, Feldheim, New York, Jerusalem,  p 202

[xiv] Talmud Gittin 90a

[xv] Maimonides, Laws of Marriage, 15:19.

[xvi] Bamibar Rabba 9:2, with commentary by M”HRZV, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol. 36, p.167

[xvii] Numbers 5:15

[xviii] Pirkey Avot 1:6

[xix] On the website “Jewish Virtual Library” a writer asserts “There is no explicit presumption of innocence in Jewish law; the requirements of proof of guilt are, however, so stringent and rigorous, and the possibilities of establishing a valid defence so wide and flexible, that a conviction is much more difficult and an acquittal much easier to obtain than under a rebuttable presumption of innocence.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0006_0_06166.html see also  http://www.oceansidejewishcenter.org/rebmark/TORAH_TABLE_TALK/5769/TTTshoftim69.pdf

[xx] Avot 1:8

[xxi] Talmud Shabbat 97a, Yoma 19b

[xxii] Numbers 5:18 and Rashi’s commentary

[xxiii] Talmud Sotah 3a

[xxiv] Numbers 5:20

[xxv] Chizkuni on Numbers 5:20

[xxvi] Numbers 5:15

[xxvii] Chizkuni on Numbers 5:15

[xxviii] Bchor Shor on Numbers 5:31

[xxix] Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:49, cited in Munk, Rabbi E, The Call of the Torah, Bamidbar p. 49

[xxx] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel

[xxxi] Numbers 5:23