Kashrut, Rules and Spirit An Interfaith Perspective

Religion can be expressed either as self-transcending and compassionate or as ritual and rules. On the fourth day of Passover, I listened to a Muslim scholar, Dr Samir Mahmoud, assert that all things are alive and sentient, that the Prophet Mohamed listened to pebbles whispering and that Halal should, more rigorously, include ethical considerations such as the conditions in which animals are kept prior to slaughter. I felt moved as I listened to him.

Our weekly Torah reading contains many mundane laws for Kosher food [1], which come across very differently from Dr Mahmoud’s talk. This begs the question: is Judaism more interested in the rules than the spirit?  

Rules!

There is no denying that there are a lot of rules in Judaism. On Passover, when my family and I performed the Seder, we read about the “clever son” who asks a question about the three types of rules of Passover [2]. The question annoyed me; it seemed so technical and to miss the awe-inspiring bigger picture of the Exodus, such that I felt like crossing out his question and replacing it with: “How can the Exodus story inspire me and our community to be better versions of ourselves and to maintain hope in trying times?”

One way of understanding the rules is that they lead to self-transcendence. This idea is expressed in this teaching, “What does God care whether one slaughters an animal from the throat or from the nape? Thus, we learn that the mitzvot were given only to refine the people” [3]. In other words, the rules are a means to an end. As we prepare and eat our food, we think about divine rules and this leads us to think about our creator, develop self-control and become better, more mindful people [4].  Indeed, the ending of the Kashrut chapter in Leviticus includes a call to holiness. [5]

 

Laws Beyond Rationale

Another way to think about Kashrut is that we do it because God commanded us to do so. When the laws are introduced in Leviticus, it says nothing about mindfulness. This animal is permitted as food because it has split hooves and chews its cud; the other one is forbidden because it does not [6]. This is the way many Jews experience Kashrut [7] and how I would usually relate to it.

Harmful Food

Two more approaches assume that the problem with unkosher food lies in the food itself, that either these foods are harmful to your health [8], or that they contain spiritual or chemical properties that dull your spiritual sensitivity [9] and they create cruelty in your heart in the case of eating the flesh of predators [10]. Hasidism teaches that there are divine sparks in all things – similar to Mahmoud’s point – but the sparks in Kosher foods can be elevated by eating with positive intention, while non-Kosher foods are “tied down” and cannot be elevated, regardless of one’s intentions [11]. 

Evidence

However, the health thesis has been strongly rejected on the basis of evidence [12]. We see non-Jewish people who eat non-Kosher food and are healthy. However, this same logic surely applies to the spiritual properties approach, one of the arguments being that if these foods are spiritually harmful, then non-Jewish people who do not keep Kosher should be of inferior character, which is manifestly untrue. Furthermore, if these foods are so inherently spiritually harmful, shouldn’t non-Jewish people be protected from them [13]? 

About the person, not the food

A careful reading of the Torah text in Leviticus suggests that the problem with these foods is more about the person eating them than about the foods alone. Sixteen (16) times in this passage, we have variations of the idea that these are a problem for you [14]. According to the Midrash, the prohibition of these foods will be reversed in the messianic era and are only forbidden now to see if we will obey the divine command [15].

Our tradition teaches us not to proclaim that we do not want to eat the flesh of the pig, but rather to say, “I want to eat it but I won’t because my heavenly Father decreed that I should not” [16]. The process of self-denial itself transforms the person who overcomes their desires [16].   Experiments by psychologist, Roy Baumeister, found that intentional eating, or eating “virtuous food”, such as radishes or celery while resisting the temptation to indulge in chocolate takes a lot out of us. The people who ate radishes “will [tend to] give up earlier than normal when faced with a difficult cognitive task” [18]. If one practices the Kosher laws as intended according to this approach, it could be a taxing, and intense but ultimately might be a rewarding effort

Chewing it over

The link between spiritual and personal growth and Kosher eating is linked symbolically to one of the signs that an animal that is “chewing the cud”, literally and figuratively, is Kosher. After the animal swallows its food, it regurgitates it and chews on it again. “… we have to constantly re-evaluate our situation – reflect and prob our conscience - and make certain that we are on the right path” [19].

Conclusion

In the interfaith encounter we must not exaggerate or understate our similarities. Dr Mahmoud’s understanding of his faith and the nature of all things and its relationship to Islamic dietary laws is different to the teachings I cited about Kosher. On the other hand, the striving for the transcendent and compassionate is expressed in both our faiths and in the strivings of people of all faiths or none. As a Hasidic Jew, I too am taught to see spiritual life in all of creation [20] and to see links between my practice, ethics [21] and spiritual growth, following the unique pathways and rules of the Torah.  

 

Thank you to Hazel Baker for editing this blog post. Her edits have made this post clearer and stronger. Thank you.

Notes

 

1)       Leviticus 11

2)       The Passover Haggada, the four sons.

3)       Bereshit Rabba, 44

4)       R Bchaya on Leviticus 11, R Haim Donin in To be A Jew.

5)       Leviticus 11:44-45

6)       Leviticus 11:3-7, according to Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:46, there signs are not reasons, they are only ways of identifying which animals are Kosher or not-Kosher

7)       Orenstien, W. and Frankel, H, (1960) Torah as our Guide, Hebrew Publishing Company, p. 27, “unlike many other laws in the Torah, the reason for these [dietary] laws is not given… Learned men of every generation have tried to explain them, but to this day no one has found the reason for them. But we observe these laws because they are the will of God.

8)       Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:46

9)       Talmud Yoma, 39a as interpreted by others such as Mesilas Yesharim 11, the Talmud itself is talking about sin in general rather than specifically the properties of non-kosher food. “…sin stupefies the heart of a person, as it is stated: “And do not impurify yourselves with them.””

10)    Ramban, Leviticus 11:13

11)    Tanya Chapter 8

12)    Arama, R. Yitzchak in Akeidat Yitchat, Gate 60, Abarbanel on Shemini,

13)    An internet user going by the name Maximilian asked a question along these lines on the Ask Noah forum: “Hello! Is it alright according to Torah if I [as a non-Jewish person] avoid eating ‘unclean animals’ like G-d spoke in Leviticus 11? Even before Noah was on the Ark G-d spoke about clean and unclean animals, in Genesis 7,2. I can imagine that trying to avoid these spiritually unclean animals can help to get a better relationship with G-d? I feel better eating just animals which G-d called clean, is it okay if I do so?”

14)    Leviticus 11:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 37, 40. Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman in his commentary to Leviticus page 216, makes the point that in Judaism the animals are not intrinsically bad, unlike his understanding of Zoroastrianism. It must be said that the Torah does attribute an element of “not pure” or pure to non-Kosher and Kosher animals respectively, in Genesis 7:2, I don’t think that attribute cancels the sixteen references to “Lachem” to you, in Leviticus 11.

15)    Midrash Tehillim 146:3 (explaining the verse "He permits what is forbidden”). What is meant by permitting what is forbidden? Some say that all the animals that became impure in this world, God will purify them in the future. As it says (Ecclesiastes 1:9) “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again.” They were pure for the children of Noah. And He also said to them (Genesis 9:3) “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all.” Just as I have given you the green plants, I give you everything. Why did He forbid it? To see who accepts His words and who does not. And in the future, He will permit everything that He forbade

16)    Sifra on Leviticus 2:26.

17)    Arama, R. Yitzchak in Akeidat Yitchat, Gate 60.

18)    Buameister, R, in Kahneman, D., (2021) Thinking Fast and Slow, Penguin Books, p. 42.

19)    The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Likutei Sichos Vol 1, as reworked by Yitzi Hurwitz

20)    R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi in the Tanya, section 2, Sha’ar Hayichud V’Haemuna

21)   The problem of how animals are treated in preparation for human consumption is addressed under the laws of cruelty to animals, Tzaar Baale Chayim.

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

“Jewish Soul”, Is it a software thing? Yitro

The idea of the Jews being a “chosen people” (1) can motivate us in worshiping God (2) and service to humanity. I don’t think of it as me being better, or more worthy than virtuous people I know and admire who are not Jewish. However, there is a risk that the idea of being ‘chosen’ - if it is taken to mean that there is an intrinsic difference to the Jewish soul - can make some Jews feel less connected to, or to devalue their non-Jewish neighbours (3).

How we choose to understand ethnic identity can be compared either to computer software - that is installed and added on but not essential, or to hardware, in that we regard it as intrinsic to who we are (4). If it is software, the brotherhood of mankind is more plausible than if it is hardware. Jewish scholarship on this question is mixed and complex.  

Image by Steven Depolo, used under 
Creative Commons Licence 3.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0

On the hardware side of the argument is the idea of a unique Jewish soul (5) which, according to a mystical perspective, is “a part of God” (6). However, this needs to be taken in the context of the belief that God is present in everything in existence. Even rocks, according to the mystics, contain a “divine spark” (7), although these “sparks” are deemed to differ between inanimate objects and different peoples (8). 

We should not overstate the concept of the “Godly soul” because, according to its chief proponent, it is quite marginal to the lived experience of the Jew. The day-to-day life of the Jew is an experience of an “animal soul” rather than a Godly one. It is this animal soul that is the true everyday identity of the Jewish person (9). The Godly soul is something “that has been placed within him” (10) but is not him or her (11). It seems more like an obscure “plug in”, than a core element.

On the other side of the argument stands Maimonides (12). Repeatedly, he emphasises that it is an individual’s knowledge and motivations that are key to one’s spiritual standing. “Every person can be righteous like Moses” (13). “Every single person from all inhabitants of the world whose spirit guides him and whose intellect leads him to understand, to separate himself and to stand before God...to walk straight as God created him...he is sanctified [with the greatest holiness],“Holy of Holies”...” (14). 

A Chasidic master put it: “Holiness is not found in the human being in essence unless he sanctifies himself. According to his preparation for holiness, so it comes upon him from on High. A person does not acquire holiness while inside his mother. He is not holy from the womb, but has to labor from the very day he comes into the air of the world” (15). Indeed, whatever faults one might attribute to a non-Jewish idol worshipper’s soul would also describe our Jewish ancestors when we worshipped idols in Egypt, “with no difference!” (16). Clearly holiness is determined by behaviour.

Regardless of hardware or software, the idea of chosenness is linked to service (17). One form of this service is the role of the Jews in bringing an understanding of monotheism to all humans and uniting them in worship (18). This emphasises the importance of humanity as a whole, and sees the role of the Jewish people to benefit mankind rather than one of self-centeredness. This is because “all humans are cherished by God, and the Righteous of the Nations are precious to God without a doubt” (19). Furthermore Jews are urged to approach this concept with humility (20). 

I will end with a quote from one of the Rabbis, who, despite being aligned with the inherent differences approach, still strongly embraced love of all humanity. He wrote:

“The highest state of love of creatures should be allotted to the love of mankind, and it must extend to all of mankind, despite all variations of religions, opinions, and faiths, and despite all distinctions of race and climate. It is right to get to the bottom of the views of different peoples and groups, to learn, as much as possible, their characters and qualities, in order to know how to base love of humanity on foundations that approach action. 

For only upon a soul rich in love for creatures and love of man can the love of the nation raise itself up in its full nobility and spiritual and natural greatness. The narrowness that causes one to see whatever is outside the border of the special nation, even outside the border of [the people of] Israel, as ugly and defiled, is a terrible darkness that brings general destruction upon all [efforts at] building of spiritual good, for the light of which every refined soul hopes" (21).

 

Perhaps hardware or software does not matter quite as much as it would seem, as long as we can embrace all of humanity. 

 

Notes: 

I acknowledge Rabbi Hanan Balk and his essay referenced in the notes below as the basis of much of what I have written above. 

1. Exodus 19:5-6, Isaia 41:8-10
2. Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel to Exodus 19:6
3. Ohr Hachayim commentary to Exodus 22:20
4. Murray, D. (2019) The Madness of Crowds, Gender, Race and Identity, Bloomsbury
5. Zohar, Genesis 170, & 171, Kuzari, 1:41-43, in In Balk H., (2013) The Soul of a Jew and the Soul of a Non-Jew, p. 49, 
6. An Inconvenient Truth and the Search for an Alternative in Hakira, vol 13, http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2016%20Balk.pdf 
7. Eitz  Chayim gate 5:2, Tanya chapter 1 and 2 by R. Shneur Zalman of Liady (1745–1815), and Nefesh ha-Ḥayyim sha’ar 1, ch. 4, by R. Ḥayyim of Volozhin (1749–1821)
8. Tanya, Shaar Hayichud V’Haemuna, chapter 1
9. cited in the discussion between the Lubavitcher Rebbe and Hilel students, cited in Balk, H.,  p.51 
10. With the exception of the extremely rare super saint or tzadik as defined in Tanya chapter 1
11. The text of the morning prayer Elokai Neshama, my God, the soul that you placed within me...
12. Tanya chapter, 29
13. Balk, H., (2013) ibid, see also his strong approach to the interpretation of the coerced divorce
14. Maimonides, Yad Hachazakah, Laws of Repentance 5:2
15. Maimonides, Yad Hachazakah, Laws of Sabbatical and Jubilee Years, 13:13
16. R. Simḥa Bunim of Przysukha, Kol Simḥa, Parshat Miketz, p. 47 and Mesharatav Eish Lohet, p. 228, quoted in Noam Siaḥ, p. 263. In Balk, p. 47
17. Ohr Hachayim commentary to Exodus 22:20, נשמות ישראל עצמם היו טבועות בקליפה ואם כן יהיה גר זה כאחד מכם באין הבדל
18. Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel 
19. Seforno on Exodus 19:5-6  
20. Seforno ibid
21. Chatam Sofer on Yitro, p. 38-39
22. Kook (Mussar Avikha (Jerusalem, 1985), p. 58, no. 10; Orot ha-Kodesh (Jerusalem, 1990), vol. 4, p. 405. In Balk p.54

Acknowledging our shadow selves and prejudices - Lech Lcha

In striving to improve ourselves and transcend our prejudices, we invariably fall short. It is imperative to be aware of our own limitations. One can aim too high, with destructive results. My colleague Donna Jacobs Sife taught me to acknowledge any prejudicial thoughts that may arise in my mind and to deal with these rather than remain unaware of them. Let us explore the case of Sarah, the partner (1) and wife of Abraham, in how she related to Hagar, who happened to be an Egyptian woman, after her own terrible experience with Egyptians. 

 

Sarah was a prophet (2). Alongside her husband, she converted non-believers to ethical monotheism (3). Yet, she afflicted her maidservant, Hagar (4), physically - throwing shoes at her face (5) - emotionally and verbally (6), to such an extent that Hagar fled their home. Her harsh behaviour is criticized as sinful (7) and as a failure of ethics (8). Here is some more of her story.   

 

Sarah and her husband were promised children and blessings by God (9). However, instead of blessing, they faced a famine (10). To escape the famine they travelled to Egypt. On arrival there, Abaraham asked Sarah to lie about their relationship, instead she should say that she was his sister rather than his wife because he was afraid that he would be killed by the Egyptians, who would be attracted to his beautiful wife. Indeed, Abraham was left alone while Sarah was taken to the Pharaoh to become his wife. She narrowly escaped this fate (11).  

 

After this ordeal, Sarah remained childless. Yet, unlike other biblical women who appeared very distraught about this (12), Sarah seemed quite matter of fact about it. She requested that Abaham have a child with her maidservant Hagar and gave her to him to become his second wife (13). Sarah appeared to reflect a “deep sense of security and personal connection to her husband, [to such an extent that] she was willing for Abraham to have children by another woman because she felt certain that the ties between them (14)” were far deeper and spiritual.     

 

It did not quite work out so well. Hagar lost respect for Sarah when Hagar fell pregnant while Sarah remained barren (15). The tensions (16) for Sarah at this point reached boiling point. Sarah cried out bitterly to her husband. “I left the house of my birth and my father, and came with you ...I have gone in with you before ...Pharaoh King of Egypt... and I said of you, he is my brother, so that they might not kill you. ...I took Hagar the Egyptian, my handmaid, and gave her to you as a wife, ...But now my honour is cheapened and despised in her eyes. May the Lord judge between me and you, ...that we may not need the son of Hagar the Egyptian handmaid” (17).

 

Perhaps Sarah was too ambitious in taxing her “moral and spiritual powers” when she set aside her inevitable feelings of displacement as Abraham’s wife (18) and chose not to acknowledge her past trauma with other Egyptians and resultant generalised animosity she felt toward them. Sarah might have thought that she doesn’t need to bother with ‘petty little feelings’. Yet regardless of one’s greatness, “every living heart, feels” (19). On another occasion Sarah experienced a lack of faith, yet she denied this was the case because she was afraid (20). She believed that it was improper to acknowledge or “own” her doubts (21). 

 

I am writing in the shadow of the US presidential election and terrorist attacks in Europe. There is an ocean of pain, injustice and anger that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. As always, part of the job to look inward inside ourselves. As we strive to be our best selves, let us never lose sight of our own feelings, and be alert to our unconscious biases, so that we may care for ourselves and do right by others. 

 

Notes

Image by Jo Power https://www.flickr.com/people/23623021@N02 used under Creative Commons License

1.      Steinsaltz, A. (1984), Biblical Images, Men and Women of the book. Basic Books. 

2.      Talmud, Megillah 14a

3.      Bereshit Rabba, 39:24

4.      Genesis 16:6 

5.      Bereshit Rabba, 45

6.      Radak

7.      Ramban

8.      Radak

9.      Genesis 12:2, and 12:7

10.   Genesis 12:10

11.   Genesis 12:11-19

12.   Rachel in Genesis 30:1 says give me children and if not I will die, see also Hannah in Samuel I, 1. Contrast is highlighted by Steinsaltz, A. (1984), Biblical Images, Men and Women of the book. Basic Books, p. 25

13.   Genesis 16:1-3

14.   Steinsaltz, A. (1984), Biblical Images, Men and Women of the book. Basic Books, p. 25

15.   Sacks, J. (2009), Covenant & Conversation, Genesis, p. 91

16.   Genesis 16:3-4

17.   Genesis 16:6 as translated in Targum Yonatan & Targum Yerushalmi

18.   Lebovitz, N. (Undated) New Studies Bereshit, p. 156,

19.   Ohr Hachayim, to Leviticus 9:1 

20.   Genesis 18:12-15

21.   Ohr Hachayim, to Genesis 18:15

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the full lesson on this topic click here  

Notes

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

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

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

12.           Genesis 34:3 & 8

13.           Alshich to Genesis 34, p. 305

14.           Genesis 34:3  

15.           Samuel II, 13:13

16.           Bereshit Rabba to Genesis 34, 80:10 

17.           Deuteronomy 24:5   

18.           Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel  

19.           Rashi to Deuteronomy 24:5 

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