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 19^th 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

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

 

Religious attitudes about sexuality in the context of harming LGBTI youth - Tazria

River is the name of an Australian high school student who is homeless. Although born female, River does not identify as a girl, but rather as “gender fluid”. Like other LGBTI youth River has been subjected to abuse and hostility ultimately leading to homelessness. On a radio program this week[i], I heard one LGBTI young person who turned to a religious based service for emotional support but found that the minute they identified as gay, there was a dramatic shift in the mood away from compassion and empathy to distance. “When I asked for the help that she (previously) mentioned she said ‘It is not for me’”.

The hostility toward the Safe Schools program that addressed some of the anti-gay bullying in schools has come under fire by religious people. Of course for Jews and Christians there is the Biblical prohibition against homosexual sex. Still, out of the 613 commandments in the Torah this one generates disproportionate passion[ii].  This got me thinking more broadly about religions’ reservations about sex as one possible factor that makes empathy with and acceptance of LGBTI people harder for some religious people.

The Torah reading this week begins with an unusual expression “A woman who will seed and she will give birth to a male[iii]”. It proceeds to declare her ritually impure for seven days as a result of childbirth. I find this puzzling as in Judaism we regard death as the source of spiritual impurity. That being the case I would have thought the miracle of a new life would be a completely positive thing. To put it another way, “the key to birth is in the hands of God and has not been handed over to any messenger (such as an angel), how can this result in impurity?[iv]”

One commentary about this verse references the fact that the laws about human impurity follows the laws about animal based impurity. This sequence is meant to lead to humans feeling humbled by reflecting on the fact that both in creation and in listing of the laws they come later than animals. In addition, the Torah seeks to foster humility by drawing a person’s attention to “his lowliness and his disgusting formation from a putrid drop^[v] that he was formed from… and how polluted is his birth so how can he be arrogant?![vi]” This commentary does not accord with my view that birth is the most beautiful miracle from conception to delivery.

An alternative[vii] is that on the contrary the “impurity” relates to “the greatness of the human, the chosen one of creation”.  It is precisely because of the holiness of the new life that it draws negative energies[viii]. In this mystical approach, a spiritually neutral situation does not attract the forces of darkness but where something holy is present these spirits are drawn to it, to try to (appear?) similar to the holy. This approach is similar to Newton’s law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 

A similar explanation is that the impurity is not a result of birth itself but comes after the birth. It is related to the reason for impurity of a dead body. “The place has been emptied of holiness - that is the soul of the person,   therefore the forces of impurity seek to dwell there. The same is true with a woman giving birth. Because God himself was the one opening (the womb), and therefore when the Divine presence leaves, the forces of impurity desire to attached themselves to her[ix]”.

Despite the problems some sources have with sexual desire, even linking it to an idea of original sin[x], there are clearly some sources in Judaism that see sexual desire as a positive thing. The Talmud refers to the sexual act as “Shalom Bayit”, peace in the home. Recognising the relational benefit to the marriage and broadening its legitimacy beyond procreation.

Another teaching relates to the verse at the start of this blog post. The Talmud infers a practical message about managing male desire from a creative interpretation of this verse. If a woman seeds (climaxes) first she will give birth to a male...this is only that they (the males) delay themselves… so that their wife should seed first (and as “reward for this”) their children will be male.... ^[xi] Let us put aside the implications about gender equality arising from male offspring being offered as a reward. This is an ethical teaching about the obligations of men to concern themselves with female desire rather than just their own.   

Male sexual desire is also seen as a positive thing in another context. The basin used by the priests (Kohanim) to wash themselves in the temple was made from the mirrors that the Hebrew slave women used in Egypt to attract their husbands’ attention^[xii]. “Moses despised the mirrors because they are made for the evil inclination, but The Holy One Blessed Be He said to him, accept them as these are dearer to me than everything. It is through these (mirrors) that the women stood up many hosts in Egypt. When their husbands were exhausted from the back breaking work they would go and bring food and drink and feed them, they would take the mirrors and each one would see herself and her husband in the mirror and she would coax him with words, saying “I am more pretty than you” and through this would bring their husbands to desire and they would attend to them and they would become pregnant and give birth^[xiii]”.

I don’t know if this kind of exploration of positive religious teachings about sexuality in general can lead to better outcomes for LGBTI young people. Perhaps what is needed is more direct action to ensure that the ideals of compassion and the dignity of all people are extended to LGTBI people, especially in “safe schools”. On the other hand maybe a healthier understanding of this beautiful part of being human can help religious people more calmly see variations of sexuality and gender in context, as just aspects of how various humans are, without losing sight of the humanity of people like River.

---

[i] http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2016/04/bbg_20160403_0805.mp3

[ii] Boteach, Rabbi S., http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704361504575552203494330686 and others

[iii]  Leviticus 12:1

[iv] Shem Mishmuel in the name of the Rebbe of Kotzk, quoted in Greenberg, A. Y, (1996) Iturei Torah, p. 64 Yavneh, Tel Aviv

^[v] Pirkey Avot – Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 3, Mishna 1

[vi]  Yaffa, Rabbi Mordechai (1604) in Levush HaOrah, on Leviticus 12:6 (note, the Hebrew word that I translate as Polluted is מזוהם)

[vii] This is by a student of Rabbi Yaffa, but he declares his interpretation to be “the opposite, from one extreme to the other” to that of his teacher.

[viii] Eilenberg, Rabbi Y.B, (1623) in Tzeda Lderech, Eilenberg was a student of R. Yaffa, another layer to this I heard in the name of Rav Frand, is that the birth of a daughter requires twice as long to deal with the “impurity” because not only is there one miracle of life but the double miracle of the creation of a child who will herself also bear children.

[ix] Shem Mishmuel in the name of the Rebbe of Kotzk, quoted in Greenberg, (1996)

[x] See Rabbenu Bchai, Tazria 12:7, “it can be explained that the sacrifice was not because of her own sin but because of her mother's sin (Eve) the mother of all the living. Because were it not for that sin, man  would cause birth with his wife not in the way of lust and desire but rather in a completely natural way just like the nature of the tree that brings forth its fruits every year without lust. This woman giving birth, (it can be said of her) like mother, like daughter in the act of sin. Because the branches are rotten with the rot of the root. Therefore she is required by the verse to bring an offering to atone for that primordial sin. ...

^[xi]  Talmud, Nida 31a&b see also Rabbenu Bchai, Tazria 12:7 One who can conquer his (evil) inclination and delay himself so that she “seeds” first he receives his reward…

^[xii]    Exodus 38:8

^[xiii]   Rashi on Exodus 38:8, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flawed Idealists, Hasidim, Prejudice & Storks

The Hasida and the Hasid kind to one's own kind,
ignore the the outsider

Today the 27^th of Nissan, is Yom Hashoah, Holocaust remembrance day. Last night I attended a moving ceremony in Sydney. Writer Eliot Perlman told a compelling and vivid account of one aspect of the Holocaust told from the perspective of two witnesses, one a registrar at Birkenau and the other a worker in the crematorium. We heard of a polish grandmother and her brave grandson Tadeus who saved the life of the mother of one of the speakers. Along with remembering, the compelling message was to fight prejudice in whatever form it takes. I dedicate this discussion to those who were murdered and those who survived, and to the victims of other genocides and ethnic based inhumanity including Rwanda, Bosnia, and Liberia that the world failed to prevent in spite of the lessons of the Holocaust.  

My effort to counter prejudice begins with me, extends to my own group, then wider. Over the Passover festival I read a moving story called the “The Ballad of the Monkey’s Wedding”.[1] A Black maid named Willomeena is portrayed with deep respect and affection. This should not be a big deal but unfortunately, it is somewhat rare in recent ultra-orthodox and Hasidic Jewish literature. In one inspiring story a Roma woman named Chungarabi saves the life of the main protagonist at great risk to herself and her husband. Yet, the translator can’t help herself and suggests that perhaps Chungarabi was not a ‘real Gypsy, instead she might have been a descendent of a Jewish child kidnapped by the Gypsies’[2]. I wanted to scream when I read that.

More broadly, I want to explore how people who are conscientious in certain aspects of our lives get it wrong in other areas. I will consider the example of my Hasidic community. My exploration will touch on the stork as a symbol, because this bird is called חסידה Hasida in Hebrew, essentially the same word as Hasid[3], both words relating to kindness and piety. 

UnKosher but kind Stork/Hasida and the Hasidim

Description of the Stork in
morality tale  from 1831

The Hebrew word for the White Stork Hasidah, means "kind" and the reason given for this name is because it does kindness with “her friends”[4]. It is said to actively gather food for its friends[5]. This view extends beyond Jewish sources; the stork has been described as affectionate in a book from the 1830’s that encourages children to be kind like the stork[6].

Despite the positive characterization of the stork, it is a non-kosher bird[7]. This is puzzling, as Non-Kosher birds were thought to have cruel characteristics, “they eat their prey while they are still alive[8], their blood is hot to cruelty and black…it puts cruelty in to the heart” (of the person eating it)[9].  A Hasidic resolution of this problem focuses on the limited scope of the stork’s kindness; “its friends”[10]. Kindness that is restricted in this way is certainly not kosher.

This criticism of the stork resonates for me. In my Hasidic community we have great generosity, giving to the poor is considered simply an act of justice rather than charity[11]. An enduring image from my childhood is of people throwing dollar bills into Mr. Shimshon Stock’s bag as he walked on the backs of the benches, then he came back for a second round with the line “there is a hole in the bag”.  In my own experience, I would spend lunchtimes almost every day as a 14-15 year old visiting sick Jews in hospital, praying with them and chatting. Yet our kindness focused almost exclusively within the community. I find it staggering that I was never told about Martin Luther King Jnr’s “I have a dream speech” and the change he called for.  

Piety

While other teenagers have focused their idealism outwardly, our moral teachings directed me inward. For example when I was in London as a 16 year old, I never bothered to visit the sights because I saw that as a distraction from worship. More broadly, we learned to view the sensual with suspicion. In Hasidism we are taught that nothing is neutral. Everything, either contributes to worship or is seen as aligned with “the other side[12]”.

The stork is said to be the most pious of birds, therefor angels have been compared to it[13]. In some commentaries the stork is said to immerse itself in water after mating[14]. Many Hasidim will immerse in water prior to prayers every day, at least in part to purify themselves of any spiritual impurity relating to emission of semen. I wonder if the degree of priority Hasidim devote to the focus on the containment of the physical aspects of life, risks leaving less head space for issues like prejudice. Of course, self-denial could work the other way and sensitize Hasidim to others, including non-Jews and minorities. Either way, meticulous attention to any one area of virtue, be it social justice, ritual or any other cause, does not make us “Kosher”.

Transcendence, idealism, the letter Chet and the number 8

According to the mystics the Hebrew names of everything tells us about its character, the first letter is the most significant[15]. The first letter of both Hasida/the name of the stork and the Hasid is Chet ח. It is the 8^th letter and symbolizes transcendence, coming after seven which relates to the days of a week and the normal cycle. The appearance of the letter ח is related to a gateway to another dimension[16].

In striving to go higher, some idealists neglect more mundane worldly obligations to family or others. Nadav and Avihu the two sons of Aaron (the brother of Moses) passionately wanted to add “love to love[17]” and spontaneously brought an authorized offering to the temple[18] with great joy[19]. These two men were said to be closer to God than Moses and in such spiritual ecstasy that their souls left their bodies out of intense longing for God[20].  Yet, in their enthusiasm, they disregarded the authority of Moses, might have been drunk, neglected the ritual washing (unlike the stork), and are even said to show impatience to replace their father and Moses.  “A bit more, and these oldies will die and we will lead the congregation[21]”.

Nadav and Avihu neglected one critical bit of the letter Chet. It is linked strongly to the word for life, Chai, or Chayim as it represents the pulse of life, which includes both running to God but then returning to the world to carry out our obligations here[22].     

Humility and Self criticism

One of the strengths of Hasidim and many idealistic people is an emphasis on humility and Self- criticism. We are told that Aaron was hesitant to carry out his role as the high priest in the initial offering of the new temple. He was concerned of his past failings. Moses tells him, not to worry, “for this, you have been chosen[23]”. Another take on Moses’ reassurance is that it is precisely, “this”, namely, Aaron’s concern that he might not be worthy that is his most admirable quality and makes him worthy to undertake his high role[24].

Conclusion

As we strive to be better, we need to be alert to how we might fall short, especially in areas that are we not focused on. I need to contribute to and care for my own community and “friends” as the Hasida does, but also beyond its limits. There is value in activity, ritual and “washing”, but it takes more than that to be “Kosher”. Like life itself, there is a pulse and a rhythm, one moment to try to ‘touch heaven’ but then the next minute to get back to our task here on earth with all its challenges and its great diversity of precious people.

May the memory of all who perished be for a blessing.

---

[1] Shapiro, S ed., (1991), An Anthology of Jewish Women’s Writings, Our Lives, Targum Press, Southfield, MI, p.15

[2] Cohen, M, (2007) A Daughter of Two Mothers, Feldheim Publishers, Jerusalem

[3] Another connection between Hasidim and the stork relates to the Aramaic translation of the word Hasida/white stork as “White/chivarta ”. Hasidim typically face ridicule because of their devotions to the point that “the color drained from their faces”, yet they do not abandon their pious practices (Paneach Raza, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol 28, p.105).  The early history of the Hasidism includes many episodes of mockery, even violence from others who did not share their convictions and practices. This aspect could motivate Hasidim to work for the dignity of all, such Hasidic pioneer of coexistence, Lee Wiseman of Jihadi Jew http://jihadiyehudi.blogspot.com.au/ and http://www.facebook.com/groups/jihadijew/ .

[4] Talmud, Hullin 63a, Rashi on Leviticus 11:19

[5] Maor HaAfeila, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol 28, p.105

[6] Simpkins, N.S, S.G., (1831), Descriptive Scenes for Children, Boston http://www.archive.org/stream/descriptivescene00bostiala#page/n0/mode/1up,

[7] Leviticus 11:19

[8] This is the interpretation of Dores by Rabbenu Tam, Rashi has an alternative view

[9] Ramban on Leviticus 11:13

[10] Chidushei Harim, also attributed to the Rishiner

[11] The Lubavitcher Rebbe in Likutei Sichos

[12] Tanya, R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi, chapter 6, “Similarly, all words and all thoughts that are not directed to G‑d and to His Will and His service are all garments for the animal soul. For this is the meaning of the term sitra achra — literally “the other side,” i.e., not the side of holiness. Thus, whatever does not belong to the realm of holiness is sitra achra. But what, in fact, does the realm of holiness encompass? (In the Lessons in Tanya version)

[13] R. A, of Germaiza, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol 28, p.105

[14] Chemdat Yamim Part 1, p.69, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol 28, p.105. I have not been able to find any clear reference to this practice in other sources. I found the following statement “Breeding White Storks prefer lowland open habitats of wet pastures, flooded meadows, and shallow lakes and marshes with scattered trees for roosting and nesting.” http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/Birds/Facts/FactSheets/fact-europwhitestork.cfm

[15] Ginsburgh, Rabbi Y, The Hebrew Letters, www.innermedia.org

[16] http://www.inner.org/hebleter/chet.htm

[17] Torat Cohanim

[18] Leviticus 10:1

[19] Torah Cohanim

[20] Ohr Hachayim on beginning of Acharie Mot

[21] Torat Cohanim

[22] Ginsburgh, Rabbi Y, The Hebrew Letters, http://www.inner.org/hebleter/chet.htm

[23] Rashi to Leviticus 9:7

[24] Mincha Belula, cited in Greenberg, A, Y, Torah Gems, Vol. 3, Y Orenstien/Yavneh Publishing/Chemed Books