Showing posts with label Sexual Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexual Ethics. Show all posts

Friday, April 28, 2023

Conceived in Sin - A Lack of Soul Connection


I was intrigued by how Jewish teachings interpret King David’s lament in the Psalms that “in sin my mother conceived me (1)”. Surely, Judaism does not regard sex as a sin. I was pleased to find an interpretation that made a lot more sense to me and expressed Judaism’s guidance about genuine intimacy.  

Let us begin with the context of David’s exclamation. It is part of “a psalm by David…after he had come to Bathsheba” (2). David, a passionately religious (3) married man, had become interested in a married woman - Bathsheba. He slept with her, and used his royal power to ensure her husband died in battle (4). In this psalm, David expressed remorse, acknowledged his sins and continuing guilt, and pleaded with G-d for forgiveness.

A Midrash adds some explanation of what David meant. “David said to God; “Master of the worlds, did my father Yishai intend to cause me to stand [be born]?! …his intention was only for his own pleasure. Know that this is so, because after they did their needs, this one turned his face this way and that one turned her face there (5)”.

This seems to imply that David was not concerned about the act itself, but its intention - for pleasure rather than procreation (6).

This is problematic on two counts. The Torah mandates intercourse as a husband’s obligation and a wife’s right (7), regardless of the potential for procreation, for example, when a woman is past menopause (8). A husband’s priority during intimacy should be maximising his wife’s pleasure and he is encouraged to delay his own pleasure so that his wife climaxes first (9). The Torah portrays intercourse as pleasurable, using the euphemism ‘playing’ or ‘laughing’, regarding Isaac and Rebecca being sexually intimate (10). According to Raphael Aron, an Australian Chasidic Rabbi and counsellor, the Torah teaches that the “intimate relationship must be pleasurable (11)”. In 2008 Rabbi Aron wrote that “it is a serious mistake to think that the best way is the strictest way; that denial is the most effective means by which to achieve a ‘Kosher’ marriage (12)”.

To understand what ‘Kosher’ intimacy is, it is worth looking at its opposite. The Talmud lists nine types of children, conceived in situations that were, mostly, not accompanied by a full emotional union. These include children of fear, i.e., where the wife was afraid of her husband and engaged in sexual intercourse with him out of fear; children of a woman who was forced into intercourse by her husband; children of a hated woman; children of drunkenness (and thus the partners are not able to be emotionally present with each other); children of a woman who was divorced in the heart, i.e., the husband had already decided to divorce her when they engaged in intercourse; and children of substitution, i.e., while engaging in intercourse with the woman, the man thought that she was another woman (13).

Considering this list, further commentary written in the 19th century, on the midrash above, can advance our understanding of David’s lament.

This commentary cited a different midrash that relates that ‘Yishai, David’s father, separated from his wife Nitzevet [because of a technical religious concern] (14). Instead, he decided to sleep with his maidservant. The maidservant told her mistress, Yishai’s wife Nitzevet.  Nitzevet then went into the bed, instead of the maidservant, and was intimate with her husband Yishai while Yishai thought he was sleeping with his maidservant. From this deed, David was born’ (15).

The nature of his conception rang in David’s mind during his situation with Bathsheba. Because he felt like he was inherently damaged goods, like a child of a substitution. [one of the nine mentioned above]. …David referenced this in this psalm about his sin with Bathsheba. …David said to God, “I had to sin with Bathsheba (16) because there is, in me, a side of sin, from my father’s side, in that he had no intention of creating me, but only his own pleasure, as he thought he was sleeping with his maidservant. …In this, my father made me like the ‘child of a substitution’. This rumbled inside of me when I sinned with Bat Sheva.” [perhaps, also, that he felt additional shame as he reflected on his sin, because he saw it as linked to his essentially damaged spiritual state because of the nature of his conception (17)].

This remarkable commentary can be understood to be critical of an act that was completely selfish. Yishai was not cementing his relationship with his wife in an act of love and togetherness – in the way the Torah says a man will leave his parents and cleave to his wife and become one flesh (18). He didn’t even know who he was sleeping with! (It is also unlikely that he had quickly formed a deeply committed relationship with his maidservant.) This understandably ‘messed’ with the head of his son, David, who regarded it as sinful.

I find this explanation very useful in an age that, although shameless in some ways, is in other ways excessively shame prone. So many of us feel ashamed of our bodies, telling ourselves we are fat etc. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to feel ashamed of themselves when they violate valid standards. However, for a religious Jew, being a considerate lover, giving and receiving intimate pleasure, in a committed loving relationship, sanctioned by marriage, is certainly not one of them.   

 

Notes

1)   Psalms, 51:7

2)   Psalms, 51:1-2

3)   Samuel II, 6:14 is one example, his authorship of the psalms is another.

4)   Samuel II, 11

5)   Midrash Rabbah, Vayikra 14:5

6)   Chanoch Zundel Ben Yosef (1829) in Anaf Yosef commentary on Midrash Rabba, Vayikra 14:5, in his first comment. Anaf Yosef links the objection to pleasure to a comment in the Talmud whose context suggests it does not mean what he suggests it means. The Talmud in Nedarim 20b relates a description of intercourse by a woman named Ima Shalom who described her husband’s behaviour as follows… My husband does not converse with me [a euphemism for sex] neither at the beginning of the night nor at the end of the night, but rather at midnight. And when he ‘converses’ he reveals a handbreadth and covers a handbreadth, and it [the sexual experience] is as though he were being forced by a demon. And I said to him: What is the reason? And he said to me: It is so that I will not set my eyes on [think about] another woman, which would then result in his children consequently come to a mamzer [bastard] status. [i.e., the nature of their souls is tantamount to that of a mamzer. Therefore, he engaged in sexual intercourse at an hour when there are no people in the street that might distract him from his attention on his wife because he was afraid of not being fully focused on her]. From his explanation, it is clear that he was not worried about how much pleasure he was having but about his degree of emotional connection with his wife, and that it is not diluted by thoughts of other women.

7)   Exodus 21:10, Maimonides, Book of Women, Hilchot Ishut, 12:2

8)   In Aron, R. (2008), Spirituality and Intimacy, Devora Publishing, p. 81

9)   Talmud Nida 31a, see Rashi there and Raavad quoted in Magen Avraham on Orach Chayim 240:8

10) Genesis 26:8

11) Based on a comment by Rashi on Genesis 2:24 and the Netziv- HaEmek Davar on Genesis 2:23, in Aron, R., p. 84, he also cited Nachmanides that Intimacy should be “amidst an abundance of love and desire”

12) Aron, R., p. 85

13) Talmud Nedarim, 20b

14) As a descendant of Ruth, who was a Moabite woman, he was unsure if the Torah forbids only Moabite men or also Moabite women from marrying into the Jewish people.

15) Yalkut HaMachiri, and Sefer HaTodaah, Sivan and Shavuot, cited by Chanoch Zundel in Anaf Yosef and Rabbi Yisroel Roll in https://torah.org/learning/torahtherapy-alone13/?printversion=1

16) Maharal of Prague in Derekh Chayim (commentary on Pirkey Avot) 3:1:15 explained that David’s intention was not to excuse his behaviour- in the psalm he expressed genuine remorse. It is more an argument of mitigating circumstances.

17) Chanoch Zundel Ben Yosef (1829) in Anaf Yosef commentary on Midrash Rabba, Vayikra 14:5, see more on this in this article, cited by Rabbi Yisroel Roll in https://torah.org/learning/torahtherapy-alone13/?printversion=1

18) Genesis 2:24

Tuesday, March 22, 2022

Body Parts Flung Heavenward and Jewish Sexual Ethics


In the synagogue, a fellow congregant showed me a surprising interpretation of a verse in the Torah about Amalek’s attack on the Israelites in the desert. This is based on Deuteronomy 25:18[i], which is usually translated as Amalek surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear".” However, there is an interpretation of this verse that reads  as Amalek “cut off the Israelites’ penises and flung them heavenward, [to God] saying, ‘This is what You have chosen, take for Yourself what You have chosen[ii].”

This bizarre interpretation leads one to wonder what moral teachings are to be inferred from the symbolism in this story. In understanding Jewish sacred text, it is useful to remember that there are 70 faces of the Torah[iii], eg. Every verse has multiple meanings.  Perhaps, one meaning of this story is alluding to a Jewish approach to sexuality that is nuanced, in that it affirms a positive attitude to sex as joyful, loving, wholesome and even holy, but also harmful if not constrained and directed.  

Amalek performed this brutal gesture to make a point in a culture war against the Israelites. “Amalek was opposed to Israel, and the form of Israel is that they [the males, of course] are circumcised. It is with circumcision that they are Israelites. This is the reason why Amalek cut off their circumcised penises because Amalek was opposed to circumcision[iv].” According to this teaching, circumcision is essential to the identity and idea of the Jewish people.

One way to explain this is to consider Maimonides’ explanation of circumcision. “As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of procreation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate regarding the sexual act…This commandment… is a means for perfecting man's moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that organ does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of procreation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust…[v]”.

This teaching is one half of the picture when it comes to Judaism’s approach to sex. A call to the Jew for moderation in sex and other means of enjoying life makes it possible for him to achieve a measure of holiness[vi].

On the other hand, we have the very positive approach to sex in Judaism. Sex is portrayed as joyful in the verse: “Abimelech, king of the Philistines, looked through the window and behold, Isaac was playing/making laughter [having sex] with Rebecca his wife[vii]”.

Sex is not just a Mitzvah, a positive commandment, when it leads to procreation[viii], but it is regarded as a Mitzva (commandment) and obligation for a man to please his wife and honour her right to sex[ix]. This obligation is understood more broadly as requiring the man to prioritise the woman’s pleasure during sex before his own[x], and an overall responsibility for a man to show understanding and be responsive to a woman’s emotional need to feel loved[xi].

Maimonides provides the following guidance: “[a man] should not be intimate with her [his wife] unless she is willing, and out of chatting and joy. Marital relations are forbidden while [he is] thinking of another woman, nor while drunk, while they are fighting, or in hatred, nor may he force her nor while she is afraid. Nor after he has decided to divorce her[xii]”. I understand this as affirming the value of bodily pleasure while also emphasising the emotional experience of making love and connecting. This is elegantly reflected in the use of the word “knowing” as a euphemism for sex[xiii]. “One should not think that there is anything disgusting, or any ugliness, God forbid, in the proper union[xiv]”, if it is done “as it should be” at the right time and with the proper intent.

One of Judaism’s aims is for us to be part of the world and partake of its pleasures in a measured way. We are invited to appreciate the flavours and textures of food[xv], but also to rise above our urges and bodily needs to attach ourselves to God, and to hold both seemingly opposed stances at the same time.

A descendent of Amalek, Haman, argued that “there is one nation [the Jews]… whose religious laws and ways were different from other nations[xvi] and this difference was a valid reason for them to be annihilated. Perhaps the Jewish approach to be in the world and beyond it, unsettles the intolerant Amalekite who requires conformity for his own emotional security. By throwing the modified sexual organ toward the sky, the Amalekite is asserting there is no place for this ‘deviation’ from his norms, on his earth, but only in heaven. If you choose not to conform fully to the norms of the earth and you choose heavenly approaches, do them there not here[xvii]!  

On Thursday 17 March 2022, we celebrated victory over Amalek and Haman with the religious festival of Purim, which is marked by wine, feasting and food gifts, as well as charity and storytelling. And except for any Jewish astronauts, we do this right here on earth! 

 

Notes

[i] Midrash Tanchuma, Devarim, Ki Tetzei 10, cited in Rashi on 25:18, this translation is more of an interpretation than a translation. It is based on a verb related to the word “tail” (Zanav in Hebrew), that could be translated literally as “he tailed you”. The usual way of reading this verse is that Amalek attacked the tail end of the Israelite people, the stragglers as interpreted by Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, Chizkuni, Ohr Hachayim on Deuteronomy, 25:18

[ii] Midrash Tanchuma

[iii] Bamidbar Rabba, 13:16

[iv] Gur Aryeh on Deuteronomy, 25:18

[v] Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:49, 11

[vi] Ramban on Leviticus, 19:2

[vii] Genesis 26:8

[viii] Talmud, Yavamot 65b

[ix] Exodus 21:10, Raavad cited in Lamm, M. (1980), The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage, Jonathan David Publishers, p. 137

[x] Talmud, Brachos 60a

[xi] The Stiepler gaon, igeres Hakodesh, in cited Abramov Y., & Abramov, T. (1994) Two halves of a whole. Feldheim, p. 178

[xii] Maimonides, laws of marriage 15:17-18, forbidden intercourse 21:12, drawing on the Talmud Nedarim 20b

[xiii] Me’iri, cited in Lamm, M. (1980), The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage, Jonathan David Publishers, p. 135

[xiv] Ramban, Iggeres Hakodesh, chapter 2, cited Abramov Y., & Abramov, T. (1994) Two halves of a whole. Feldheim

[xv] Seforno on Genesis 25:30

[xvi] Esther 3:8

[xvii] Be’er Basadeh, on Deuteronomy, 25:18