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

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. 

 

Increasing Closeness During Social Distance - Vayirka

Photos taken by me, of the same mushrooms on my
forest morning walks near St Ives, one day apart. 

In a weird way, I am feeling more emotionally connected now than I have felt for a long time. I feel like I’m a bit Aboriginal with their kinship system, or that I am moving from an “I and It” orientation to a “We” centred way of being (1).  

A week ago, there was a moment when I stood looking at empty shelves in the St Ives Coles supermarket. Potatoes, other vegetables, eggs, pasta - all gone! It seriously disturbed me. I am embarrassed to write this. People have died and will continue to die from this disease, while many others have lost their jobs, and spouses and children in abusive homes are suffering extreme distress.  It seems wrong to think about anything else. However, the reality is that we humans are spiritual beings living in animal bodies, and we’re desperately dependent on our next feed. There are things that we describe with pronouns like “it”, that are very important to us.

My children recently arrived back from Crown Heights in New York where the rate of contagion is high. Usually that is an occasion for hugs, but not this time. Fortunately, we have some space in the house to cordon off areas for them to be isolated in, but I am worried about the spread of this plague, so I am self isolating and working from home. While I like my 'things', like my office, it is more important to do my bit for the broader effort and stay home. I must sacrifice an “it” for the sake of the “we” that is the other humans in this city. The Torah’s word for sacrifice is essentially the same word as closeness (2) and the intention of the animal sacrifices in the temple was to create closeness with God (3).

People like me, who are privileged to be able to continue our jobs and earn a living from home, should spare a thought for those who cannot. I think of service workers in the US, such as those described by Jesse Jackson many years ago: “...women, who [put their own lives at risk to] clean out the bedpans of the sick, wipe the sweat of fever on their foreheads, change their clothes - and when they got sick, couldn't lie on the [same] bed they'd made up every day”! (4)

The term social distance is inaccurate (4). What we need is physical distance between bodies, rather than social distance between our spirits. Yet, we are seeing some evidence of the latter. Angela Kim, an Australian nurse with Asian ancestry recently wrote on Facebook: “I just saw a post with a picture of Asians on a bus saying they are hoarding from regional places. If this is true, I'm sorry. I myself am an Asian and I am deeply saddened to see people panic buying and being selfish during the crisis. But myself, my family, my friends and my colleagues being Asian, are not like them... So many times I get called out with racist comments on the street with anger. ...Generalisation occurs easily when there's fear and anger. ...please have an open mind, not all Asians are the same”.

Angela’s anguished post touched me. Other posts address generalisations about religious Jews' compliance with distancing. These are just some examples of the pain people are experiencing. A silver lining for me at this difficult time has been to tune in more strongly to other people. I am using social media and my phone more intentionally as a means of care, compassion and companionship. On Sunday, my family and I got dressed up for a cousins’ wedding in New York and recorded ourselves dancing in Sydney, as a way of being there for a family member. I am noticing wonderful anecdotes of kindness on social media. I hope that the terrible sacrifices and the suffering caused by this virus might lead to a brighter future for some people, in some way. But I am focused on the here and now - to increasingly support each other, as well as care for ourselves.

Notes

1)     From a conversation with Michelle Brenner, influenced by the work of Dr. Alan Watkins and others. 

2)     Korban, קרבן is the word for sacrifice, while Karov קרוב is the word for close. The root of both is ק.ר.ב.

3)     Likutei Torah based on Leviticus 1:2. It elaborates there on the spiritual meanings of various sacrifices, eg. to sacrifice an ox is to commit to reduce aggression, while a sheep represents selfish indulgence as manifest in sheep spending their days eating grass.

4)     https://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/19/us/the-basic-speech-jesse-jackson-from-a-tradition-of-marching-for-jobs-and-rights.html  

5)     Ghassan Hage in a facebook post on 16.03.2020 “we spend so much time teaching students the difference between social and physical distances and here is the world normalising the usage of social distancing to mean physical distancing. what’s required is physical distancing, right?”

Seeing and not seeing - Reflections on my trip to family in New York - Noach

I'm sitting on a flight back home from New York with my young son. Last night both of us danced the night away at the wedding of my niece. I am still savouring the joy of being with family, and observing the delight of my young child. Yet, my tradition, turns our attention to sadness amid joy. A glass is broken during the Jewish marriage ceremony to remind us of loss 1).  Oddly, this sombre gesture is not honoured by a reflective silence, on the contrary, immediately after the crashing noise everyone erupts into joyous exclamations of Mazal Tov! Shifting our awareness away from and almost subverting the touch of sadness. This blog is a reflection on choices relating to seeing and “embracing all that is” 2).

My time in New York has been both happy and sad. I've spent time with my parents and siblings and my oldest three sons who are studying away from home. I feel unsatisfied with the short time we had. Our ten days together were cluttered with tasks and competing priorities. In the story of Noah’s ark, a family is in close proximity but they are so busy feeding the animals, including the nocturnal animals that the husbands and wives don't manage to organise to leave the ark together 3). Yet, it is in the mundane physical domain that love is often expressed, in a meal baked or bought, dishes cooked or cleared.

I was confronted by the importance of the physical dimension of love at a memorial service I attended in New York for Mendel Brickman, a friend and a father who died one year ago in his mid-forties. His spirit was felt strongly in the room in the words of his children and widow, and in a talk by a hospital roommate who was touched by his energetic kindness, and care. His spirit fought courageously against his loss of breath and health. He was always focused on the positive. In a sense, Mendel beat mortality by sheer force of will and his living on in the lives of his family. Still, they miss his physical presence, and so do I and so many others.

In acknowledging our physical humanity, we are confronted by the human imperfections we all have. In the first instance it's about averting our eyes from the embarrassing aspects of the other person. Two of Noah's sons covered their father's nakedness when he was drunk as they chose not to see his disgrace 4). A selective view of others is often appropriate.

However, sometimes we must choose to see and acknowledge disgrace and act. While in the US I learned of the revelations about the abuses of power by a movie mogul that were allowed to go on for too long. Powerful men feeling entitled to women's bodies is referenced in the Bible as a reason for Noah’s flood. “The sons of the Gods saw the daughters of men, that they were good [looking], so they took any women they chose” 5) even without consent 6). The Torah could not be more emphatic in its condemnation of this behaviour.

In summation. There is merit in an approach that generally emphasises the positive and overlooks some faults and sad parts of life. On the other hand, there are challenges relating to human frailties that need to be noticed and talked about in workplaces, communities or families. Ideally, talk would resolve matters in accordance with the teaching that ‘to be reconciled over a glass of wine is to have an aspect of the mind of God’ 7). In other cases people can show support in a range of ways from taking action to simply being there for each other with care.

Back in my seat on this plane I can see daybreak over the Pacific and I can see my content little son sitting beside me. I feel grateful.

Notes

1. The breaking of the glass is symbolic, particularly of the destroyed temple in Jerusalem, but it represents broader loss.
2. Bennett, P. In the Cranky Guru
3. Talmud Sanhedrin 108b Comment on Genesis 8:19 and as explained by Torah Temimah on this verse.
4. Genesis 9:23, see Rashi commentary
5. Genesis 6:2
6. Ramban, Ibn Ezra on Genesis 6:2
7. Talmud Eruvin 65b

Elusive love of the “undeserving” - Toldot

Copyright Noel Kessel 2015, first appeared in
the Australian Jewish News,
Jewish University student walked 8 hours from a Synagogue
in the East part of Sydney to a Mosque in the West. He was
accompanied by Muslim and Jewish friends for parts of the walk.

This post is less about answers than questions.  The fraught quest for attachment to parents and for parental love has scarred many people. I emphatically believe in unconditional parental love which is why I am so puzzled by the way the Torah reading this week seems to contradict this principle. A related, but broader question, is whether love must be earned or should love be our first and fundamental disposition towards all people? A very irate man called me this week to complain about what he described as my loving behavior toward Muslims; he seemed to regard love as something that Muslims, in general, do not deserve.  

In the Torah reading we are told that the mother, Rebecca, loved Jacob [1] but the text tells us nothing about how she felt about Jacob’s twin, Esau, at this point.  Disturbingly, commentary suggests that her love for one son rather than the other was based on them earning this love.  Commentary suggests that every time Rebecca heard Jacob’s voice her love for him would increase”; [2] “when she would hear his (Jacobs) pleasant words and would see his wholesome ways”. [3] However Rebecca is thought to not love her other son Esau [4] because “not only did he not occupy himself with wisdom and the ways of God, but he chose an occupation for himself that put him in danger every day…”. [5] Her love is clearly conditional which I find really hard to accept.

In contrast to Rebecca’s lack of love for the “evil” Esau we are told that “Isaac loved Esau because of the (hunting) game in his mouth”. [6] Far from this being seen as endorsement of unconditional love, by the practice of one of our patriarchs no less, this fathers love for his “bad child” seems a fault according to some of our traditional teachings.

A simple understanding of the text would have us believe that Esau’s hunting of “game from which he (Isaac) would eat” [7] was the reason Isaac loved this particular son. Isaac is portrayed in one tradition as quite particular in his tastes, indulgent and loving all kinds of delicacies, perhaps even spoiled, being the younger child born to his parents in their old age. Isaac consumed meat of the hunted animals and birds as well as choice wine brought to him by Esau. [8]   One Midrash links Isaac’s love to the evils of bribery and the proverb “A bribe is a precious stone in the eyes of the one who has it; wherever he turns, he prospers”, [9] asserting that bribery is like a stone, where ever it falls it breaks things. [10]

Yet, other teachings reflect a reluctance to portray our patriarch Isaac so harshly, instead either blaming Esau for misleading Isaac about his true nature [11] or believing that is was Isaac’s prophecy about a righteous descendent of Esau, named Ovadia, that was the reason for his love [12] rather than loving this boy Esau for himself. 

While the text tells us nothing about Isaac’s love for his “good son”, Jacob, commentary is not comfortable with leaving this as is, instead asserting that surely the deserving son enjoyed his father’s love and explaining away the fact that this is not stated in the text.[13]

As the story unfolds, Esau is eventually so resentful of his brother Jacob that he plans to kill him. Chillingly, Esau’s weak attachment to his mother can be seen in the fact that although Esau is reluctant to kill his brother while his father is alive (instead waiting for the end of the mourning period after his father’s death) [14] he thinks nothing of his mother’s grief.[15]

There is a cryptic phrase toward the end of the story that refers to Rebecca as the mother of both Jacob and Esau [16] when she sends Jacob away to her brother’s house to save him from Esau’s murderous plan. This reference is explained as her being concerned for the safety of both her sons, perhaps because, in a confrontation between the twins, Jacob might harm her other son Esau [17] whom she still cares about. Her brother would protect them both from each other. This suggests that after all Rebecca did love Esau despite her disapproval of him, despite the contrary impression from the texts mentioned above about love needing to be earned.

This discussion is about Midrash rather than Jewish Law which usually stipulates one right or wrong way to do things. When it comes to these moral discussions, there are 70 “faces to the Torah”, which means that a religious Jew is not strictly bound by any particular interpretations of this story. I look forward to learning more about this. I shall continue to advocate unconditional parental love and a presumption of love for all as primary virtues. There are, however, exceptions for me.  Jews, unlike Christians, are not called to love their enemies. I don’t love despots, tyrants, abusers of trust or my closed-minded caller who showed no interest in understanding what I do, or why, and who went so far as to say that I have no right  to call myself a Rabbi. But unless there is very good reason to the contrary, I believe I must approach each and every person with good will and an open heart. As we are taught, the Torah’s ways are pleasant and all it’s paths are of peace . [18]

1. Genesis 25:28
2. Bereshit Rabba 63a, commentary cited in Torah Shlaima, vol. 2, 1030, note 181, highlights the particular word for love in the text is  אוהבתin the present tense rather than  אהבה in the past tense
3. Sachar Tov, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol. 2, 1030, note 181, Jacob’s wholesomeness is also cited in Rashbam, while Yalkut Ohr Afela, (cited in Torah Shlaima, vol. 2, 1030, 182) suggests that the love was the result of Rebecca’s prophecy that Jacob would be righteous
4. Seforno
5. Radak
6. Genesis 25:28
7. Unkelos translation of Genesis 25:28
8. Sechel Tov, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol. 2, 1029, note 177
9. Proverbs 17:8
10. Midrash Tanchuma, Toldos 8
11. Midrash Tanchuma, Toldos 8, also cited in Rashi
12. Midrash Hagadol, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol. 2, 1030, 180
13. Radak asserts that there is no need to tell us that Isaac loved (the righteous?) Jacob, because he loved Jacob more than he Esau, in fact he did not love Esau (simply as a son) except for the fact that he would bring him hunted game to eat.  Seforno also asserts that Isaac’s love for Esau was in addition to his love for Jacob, but that although Isaac would have known, without a doubt, that Esau was not “complete” like Jacob he loved him anyway
14. Genesis 27:41
15. Ohr Hachayim on Genesis 25:28
16. Genesis 28:5
17. Rabbenu Bchai
18. Proverbs 3:17

Thou Shalt Not Hate…! Emotions on command? Kedoshim

Photo by Anita Sarkeesian, https://www.flickr.com/photos/puenteaz/4839483755/
reprinted under Creative Commons License Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/

I feel unmotivated, resentment, anger and even despair sometimes.  ‘I shouldn’t feel like this’ is one thought that appears in my mind. I should be positive and forgiving (toward everyone other than me) is one approach.  But surely that is unreasonable. I feel how I feel and I can’t change it. 

The Torah’s prohibition against hate (1) suggests otherwise.  Clearly, ‘to hate is a choice!’ is implied.

Perhaps, it is not. One scholar reinterpreted the commandment against hate to mean something more concrete, “do not speak smoothly with your mouth” while you hate them in your hearts (2). This fits a pattern of mundane applications of emotional commandments. Love your fellow like yourself is applied as an instruction about not marrying without first seeing your prospective spouse because of the risk that eventually the husband might see something ugly and this would cause her to be despised  (3). Another application is not to do to your fellow what you dislike (4). I think there is great wisdom in this approach because it recognises that in a sense our emotions are involuntary responses to the world around us and that sometimes we cannot be instructed what to feel. Similarly, many would argue that people cannot be told what they are allowed to think. 

On the other hand, the Torah suggests, that our feelings are significantly influenced by our thoughts (5).  We are therefore legitimately called to guide our thoughts to be loving rather than hateful. 

Here is an example. I flew on a fairly empty flight from Dallas to Sydney recently. There was a devout Arabic Muslim couple with a baby seated in the row of four seats in front of me.  They sat on either end of the row. I heard a baby crying for a while and I noticed that the husband/father remained sitting comfortably in his seat, presumably leaving his wife to deal with the baby by herself. I had heard from women in the Arabic Muslim community about some men who are sexist. Immediately a judgmental thought popped into my mind. What is wrong with this man? Why is he so selfish and chauvinistic? Then I noticed the thoughts in my mind and asked myself if I was stereotyping? “I don’t know this man!”. I then checked and found that his baby was actually sleeping soundly on the seats between them and the crying was coming from someone else’s baby. 

A great rationalist commentator on the Torah, Ibn Ezra, states that there are three types of commandments including one that governs what people think in their minds (6). He argues that through our thinking, we can control the impulse to covet another man’s wife. He argues that just as a villager would not covet a princess regardless of how beautiful she is because he knows this is not realistic. Surely then what God has forbidden to one person because it is the possession of another should be even less likely to arouse envy. A great theory, but if this was the case pedophilia would never involve religious people, tragically it does.  

Both approaches reflect part of the truth. It is true that we are commanded to love and think good thoughts and we can some of the time. It is equally true that this is impractical at least some of the time. Self-compassion is in order, accepting that some circumstances will reasonably elicit emotions like anger, or fear and this is ok. Yet we aspire to comply with the commands not to hate but to love instead, by being aware of our thoughts (7) and choosing to think other thoughts, sometimes.

1)    Leviticus 19:17, I acknowledge that this law is specifically when the potential hatred is directed against “your brother, which is disappointing for me because I would love to see a broader directive against all hate
2)    Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel
3)    Talmud, Kidushin 41a
4)    Lekach Tov, cited in Torah Shlaima on Leviticus 1918, p.69
5)    Maimonides, Yad Hachazah, Laws of Teshuva 10:6, Tanya
6)    Ibn Ezra on Exodus 20:2, also cited in Lebovitz, N. New Studies in Vayikra, p. 344
7)    My coleauge Donna Jacobs Sife has taught be that to counter prejudice in ourselves requires vigilance to our thoughts. Thank you Donna for this valuable insight.