Judaism and Love (1)

The Middle Road

 

            In a number of his writings, Rihal distinguishes between "Da'at Elokim" [divine knowledge] and "Da'at Elokim Ba-aretz" [lit., divine knowledge on earth].  The first concept refers to theology, to an abstract philosophical world view.  The second refers to the ramifications of this world view.  Rihal opens the Kuzari with a philosophical-religious conflict between Judaism and Christianity.  To complete the picture, we must add our own discussion of the Jewish and Christian attitudes toward the human ideal.  This is one of the most fundamental elements of the conflict between Judaism and Christianity.

 

            Judaism's legal and philosophical uniqueness finds expression in its attitude toward sexuality.  A good example of this approach can be found in our Sages' commentary regarding the wives of Lemekh, an interpretation brought by Rashi as well:

 

"And Lemekh took two wives, the one named Ada and the second named Tzila" - R. Azaria said in the name of R. Yehuda ben Simon: This is what the people of the generation of the flood used to do: each of them would take two wives, one for procreation and one for copulation.  The one which was for procreation dwelt like a widow, and to the one for copulation he would give a drink which caused infertility so that she would not have children.  And she would dwell with him adorned like a prostitute ... as it is written, And Lemekh took two wives,' 'the name of the first was Ada [Heb: pregnant]'- because she was with child from him 'and the name of the second was Tzila'- because she sat in his shadow [Heb: tzilo]."

 

            Our Sages thus explain that the purpose of the infertile  wife was for beauty, while the second wife fulfilled the purpose of childbearing, and lived the life of a widow.  This approach could only be taken by a person who was capable of separating two "functions," of distinguishing between woman as mother and as lover.  Judaism rejects this approach out of hand.

 

            Lemekh and his wives represent the approach of idolatry.  However, a similar approach can be discovered, surprisingly, in Christianity.  Christianity emphasized Mary's motherhood, while negating her sexual side by seeing her as a virgin mother.  This "miracle" represents the Christian religious attitude towards women.  The source for this approach lies in the assumption that sex in and of itself is a base, negative thing.  Thus, according to this view, the world is by definition populated by those mediocre individuals who cannot control their carnal desires.

 

            Jewish law states that although we are permitted to slaughter a bull, we may not castrate it.  This approach is the complete opposite of the attitude of those priests who considered castration a holy duty.  Sexuality is an integral part of our personality, and it ought to assist us in our development.

 

            The phenomenon of castration was known both in Edom and in Ishmael.  In Edom, priests castrated themselves in order to worship God.  Sadly enough, the phenomenon of child castration also existed.  Its purpose was to ensure that the young boys' voices would not change with their sexual development and thus impede their singing abilities in religious choirs.  However, in Ishmael we find the practice of castration as well.  This was simply the continuation of the idolatrous practice which kings and wealthy people used to "create" safe guards for their harems.  This practice is mentioned in the tale of Esther.  In Edom, castration served the purposes of religion and art.  In Ishmael, it fed the appetites of the privileged few.  Judaism forbids it absolutely in any case.

 

            Judaism views the sexless person as a withered tree.  Yeshayahu comforts the eunuchs, and promises the God-fearing eunuchs that they will be remembered after their death.  However, the Torah blesses man with sons and daughters.  Christian celibacy actually brought about Lemekh's repentance.  A double standard was accepted.  On the one hand, officially, purity and holiness were displayed.  On the other hand, in secret, corruption and prostitution ruled.  However, the Jewish approach to sexuality is not only an attempt to be realistic.  It is the expression of an ideal which exists in the middle ground between celibacy and sexual anarchy.  Judaism succeeded in this attempt by emphasizing the holiness of the couple and the holiness of the family structure, its most important foundation.

 

            In the philosophical approach which was influenced by Greek thought, we find a comment about the sense of touch:

 

"... Aristotle said that this sense [of touch] is shameful to us.  And how proper is his statement.  For truly it is shameful, since we have it because we are animals, nothing else, like all other beasts.  And we have nothing in us of humanity" [Guide For The Perplexed, part 2:33].

 

            However, an important work was written on this topic, called Iggeret Ha-kodesh, ascribed to the Ramban.  In this epistle, we find the emphasis on the need to avoid the following mistake: "And man should not think that in the proper union there is offensiveness and ugliness, God forbid, for this union is called knowledge ... and it is clear that if it did not contain great holiness the union would not be called knowledge."  Following up this idea, the author of the Iggeret attacks the opinions of the rationalist philosophers regarding the sense of touch and sexual relations.  In an apt comment the author of Iggeret Ha-kodesh maintains that their approach is connected to Aristotle's belief in the eternal existence of the world, which sees in matter an entity absolutely independent of God.

 

            The Ramban's philosophy is the prototype for the Jewish approach to sex.  We can see this in various places in his commentary on the Scriptures.  Thus in his explanation of the ritual impurity which is connected to the sexual act: "And a woman with whom a man shall lie ... they shall wash in water and shall be impure until evening" [Leviticus 16:18].  It would seem from here that the sexual act contains some element of impurity.  The Rambam interprets it differently: "[This impurity occurs] even though it [the wasting of sperm] is inherent in the nature of the procreative act, similar to the reason for the impurity of a dead body, because the source [of life] was destroyed, and the ... [participant in the sexual act] cannot know if his seed will be destroyed or whether a child will be created from it.  And in thinking about the impurity of a dead body ... you will understand the [concept of] wasted seed."  From here we see that impurity is connected to death (death of the sperm in this case, or of the egg in the case of a woman's ritual impurity), and to disease.

 

            The Ramban wished to distinguish between pleasure and lust.  He believed that lust became a stronger force as a result of Adam's sin.  "And behold at that time sexual relations between man and his wife were not a fulfillment of lust; rather at the time of mating they came together and had children, and therefore all the organs were to them like faces and hands and they were not ashamed of them, and behold after they ate from the Tree, [Man] was granted the choice, and it was given to his will to choose to do evil or good to himself or to others; and this is a Divine attribute on the one hand, but bad for Man since [Man] is [burdened with]...desires and lust" (Ramban on Genesis 2:9).  According to this approach, evil is not connected to sex itself, but to lust, which is sinful, and is at times connected to sex.  Before the sin, sex and the pleasure which came along with it were functional.  They were another of the natural human functions.  After the sin, lust became associated with sex.  There are thus two types of desire, which parallel, to a certain extent, natural desires and perverted desires, such as homosexuality.

 

            The best way to summarize this issue is to cite the Talmud in tractate Avoda Zara, which describes the correction of Adam's sin through the experience at Mt. Sinai, a temporary reality which reverted back to sin after the sin of the Golden Calf.  During that brief period, Man was granted immortality.  The need for childbearing was over.  And behold despite all this, sexuality and love continue to exist.  The Jews returned to their tents.  At this point, Moshe's behavior is exceptional in that he remains with God.  He had reached a different level.  This was the only exception, bearing witness to Moshe's unique status as the receiver of the Torah.

 

Love and Law

 

            Now we can return to the our attempt to understand the commandments in the sphere of marital relations.  Here, too, we are not trying to find reasons for commandments; rather we are trying to uncover the human personality and society which these norms attempt to construct.  Instead of a theological goal, we must search for an anthropological goal: what human personality does Jewish law create?

 

            It seems to me that it would be accurate to describe the Jewish approach in this area as an attempt to create a system which will take four groups of values into account.  These values surround the individual, the couple, the family, and Man in his relationship with God.

 

            The schematic approach will help us understand the complexity of the problem and its historical development.  Sexuality had great, sometimes overwhelming, importance in various areas.  The way we live our lives has many ramifications.  To use a trivial example, in addition to the obvious effects upon the life of the individual and the couple, our sexual lives have a powerful influence upon the existence of the family, the nation, the human race and even upon life on earth.

 

            These relationships directly influence the structure of the family and the relations within it.  Therefore, the Jewish system cannot take into account only one interest or ideal, but rather must take into account a collage of different ideals.  These ideals complement one another, yet their coexistence also creates contradictions and tensions, which explain the problematic nature of this issue. 

 

            It is hard to exaggerate the importance of the family, the basic unit of society.  The attempts to create other units to replace the family have failed miserably.  The creation of the family becomes possible only through surrounding one's sex life within the boundaries of law.  Rabbi Sa'adia Gaon and the Rambam spoke of this in their respective discussions of the reasons for the commandments.  Although Rabbi Sa'adia Gaon includes the prohibition against sexual relations between certain people among the "mitzvot shim'iyot" i.e., "that the main reason for their existence is God's command," he admits that they posses "useful details," which he discusses briefly.  This is clear with regard to the prohibition of prostitution and incest: "and it is wise to prohibit prostitution, so that people will not be like beasts to the extent that no one will know his own father to give him respect as a return for bringing him up, and [so that] the father will bequeath to [his child] what God has granted him just as [the child] inherited his existence from [the father] ... but the mother and the sister and the daughter, because one is obliged to be alone with them, and the freedom to marry them would encourage incest with them."  The Rambam explains these commandments in a similar fashion [Guide for the Perplexed, part 3:49].  The restrictions upon our sex lives are not arbitrary.  Their purpose is to ensure the existence of various social institutions, with the family at their core.  A large part of our practices are, clearly, the "burden of inheritance" of religion.  These are the remnants of prohibitions which religion placed upon humanity.  However this "remnant" is actually a potent social cement, perhaps the only one which protects the social structure from collapse.  What is true with regard to the family is even more so with regard to the nation.  The prohibition of mixed marriages is the only guarantee we have for the continued existence of our people.

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)