So recently I've been thinking a lot about God. Actually, I've been thinking a lot about God since I was three. I am not a fan of trying to convince other people to believe in God. I can give reasons that I believe in God, but I think, that while there are rational arguments both for and against God's existence, ultimately, the decision to believe, like the decision to disbelieve, requires a leap of faith.
I recently realized however, that while many people disbelieve in God on the grounds that it is "irrational", no one seems to disbelieve in human emotions, like love or happiness, even though they are not rational. How can I prove happiness exists? I can say I feel happy. I can say people say they feel happy. I can also say I feel God and know people who say they have felt God's presence - why is one more irrational than the other?
I think this is especially true in the case of love: How do we know love exists? Maybe it is psycho-sexual tricks our mind and body play on us, that we call love. We simply mislabel: Evolutionarily, we were meant to reproduce, and if we realized our bodies are duping us for that purpose, we wouldn't want to be in relationships, so our minds came up with this adaptation, this myth of love that enables us to create stable families, which up our chances of producing offspring that survives to pass on its genetic material to the next generation. We already know that our bodies and minds are capable of a) playing tricks on us b) coming up with adaptations to better enable us to pass on our DNA - yet most people, even staunch atheists, would rather agree in this wholly irrational, inexplicable theory of love. Why?
I mean, I can't even prove I have a soul, or that I exist. I can make logical, rational arguments for the latter, but I can't prove it, beyond the shadow of that doubt - I take a leap of faith. Yes, this leap is based on reason, but at the end of the day, it is faith that moves my belief in my own existence from "highly probable", to "certain".
I think human existence is composed of faith, of things that can not be explained purely by reason, and to try to do so, is to underestimate human nature and the richness of human experience on this earth. Yes, it is important to use logic: Do not buy the car you can't afford just because it looks pretty - that would be irrational. Yes, take the medicine the doctor prescribed, using an evidence-based scientific method. But don't expect the reason you love your wife and only your wife, from among the hundreds of beautiful woman you've come into contact in, to be explained solely through science or logic. Some facets of human life can not be reduced to empirical evidence or rational arguments - and that is ok. To my mind, one of the flaws of modern, secular culture, is that it is too quick to discount that fact of human nature. Life does not mean having to choose. It can mean being an engineer and a passionate lover, even if you can't rationally explain the reason behind your love. It can mean being a scientist, or even a Biblical critic, and still believing in God.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
On Torah, Habit, and Prayer
Today I told a teacher of mine not to make blanket statements about Judaism, only to realize that in my blog, I constantly make blanket statements about Judaism. So, to be clear: When I say, "Judaism....", what I mean is, "My personal opinion, based on sources I've seen/research I've done, is that Judaism....", realizing someone equally or more knowledgeable could provide you with a diametrically opposed view of Judaism, also backed up by research and sources - as they say, there are 70 faces to the Torah. But I did want to apologize for the generalizations.
Having said that, I am about to engage in a generalization: To me, part of Judaism's beauty is that it uses the power of habit: Praying 3 times a day, saying blessings on various things throughout the day, having to base decisions about what one wears or eats around religion - all these cause Judaism to be seamlessly integrated into one's routine, encompassing a constant awareness of God's presence.
Science is just now beginning to understand the power of habit, which happens to be the title of a new book by Charles Duhigg. Essentially, we shape and are shaped by our habits - but we also have the ability to change those habits, although it does take a lot of work. Habit formation involves the strengthening of certain neural pathways, which means, when we get into the habit of praying, we are literally making prayer part of our body, for we are changing the chemical pathways inside our minds.
Perhaps the rabbis understood this when they said that one should act upon the mitzvot even if they do not feel them (shelo lishmah), understanding that soon such mitzvot would become habit. Since studies show we tend to adjust our perceptions of the world and our actions in order to better our self-image, it is only natural that once I do a, I will come up for a reason why a is a worthy action - so from the shelo lishmah habit, I create the lishmah reason for that habit.
I do not mean this to be cynical; halachik Judaism's grasp of human nature is so magnificent, it may even be taken as evidence for the argument that there is some Divine spark that ignited it all. I wish to give here two examples: 1. Blessings. Having to say blessings before and after eating, after going to the bathroom, when I hear thunder/see lightning, and in a myriad of other daily occurrences, means that taking a moment to acknowledge God's presence in my life (and to be grateful for that presence) is not something I need to think about or schedule in - it's part of my daily routine, almost as natural as eating or drinking coffee. This makes having those moments of acknowledgement easier. 2. Prayer: Having scheduled prayer three times a day is extremely powerful. If you pray everyday, and all of a sudden you miss a day, you really feel its absence, like an avid news junkie who doesn't have time to read the paper one morning. Prayer encompasses thanking God and generally giving gratitude - and taking time to feel gratitude is considered psychologically healthy by the psychological establishment. It also encompasses asking for personal requests - which can be a great time to clarify for oneself what one really wants, or just even to express anxiety about a minor anticipated event of the day. Again, a psychologically practice. Then, there is also the custom to pray for others (the rabbis say that's the best way to get one's own prayers answered). Many prayers are communal - we ask for God to heal "us", the collective we, as in, all who are sick. We pray for the good of the world and the Jewish people - the Amidah includes requests for peace, for "us and all the people of Israel", and also asks for God to redeem the Jewish people. Recent studies show that taking some time to hope for the well-being of others increases one's own psychological well-being. This means that daily prayer is the institutionalization of habit that encompasses three practices that lead to emotional well-being.
Of course, I do not think that one's halachik obligation rests upon the observable benefits of observace: If God is beyond human comprehension (which I believe - if He created us, She must be greater than us), then it is logical that His ways (i.e. halacha) would be as well. I believe in what Yeshayahu Leibowitz says: Halacha is about doing God's will, independent of observable benefits. However, I do also believe that because God loves humanity, He designed the system in such a way that as it works as intended, it does benefit humanity - often, though not always, in ways we can see. However, God, in Her desire to empower humans and give us freedom of choice, gave power to the rabbis to run halach, and rabbis are human and thus flawed, which is why halacha does not always work as intended. Luckily, like any legal process, halacha has built-in mechanisms for correcting its own flaws, but recently, for political reasons, rabbis have been afraid to use those mechanisms.
Still, even if I believe the system as it currently operates is flawed, I do have faith in the system to redeem itself. This is similar to how one may disagree with a Supreme Court decision, but accept it anyway, because one recognizes the Constitutional system that gives the Supreme Court to make decisions that are binding upon you even if you think they completely mis-interpreted the Constitution, and that, because the Constitution has self-correct mechanisms built in, you just have to wait for a new court for the law to change. Thus, accepting the system in its totality means accepting what you view to be the flawed interpretation of that system, for the moment.
As to why I believe in the system, it is very simple: I believe in a God who gave the Torah to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai, along with a component of Oral Law, that eventually morphed into the Talmud. As for how Biblical and Talmudic criticism factor into that statement, that is really too big for me to attack in one blog post. Suffice it to say, I do not simply reject secular, academic study of Judaism or its conclusions.
Having said that, I am about to engage in a generalization: To me, part of Judaism's beauty is that it uses the power of habit: Praying 3 times a day, saying blessings on various things throughout the day, having to base decisions about what one wears or eats around religion - all these cause Judaism to be seamlessly integrated into one's routine, encompassing a constant awareness of God's presence.
Science is just now beginning to understand the power of habit, which happens to be the title of a new book by Charles Duhigg. Essentially, we shape and are shaped by our habits - but we also have the ability to change those habits, although it does take a lot of work. Habit formation involves the strengthening of certain neural pathways, which means, when we get into the habit of praying, we are literally making prayer part of our body, for we are changing the chemical pathways inside our minds.
Perhaps the rabbis understood this when they said that one should act upon the mitzvot even if they do not feel them (shelo lishmah), understanding that soon such mitzvot would become habit. Since studies show we tend to adjust our perceptions of the world and our actions in order to better our self-image, it is only natural that once I do a, I will come up for a reason why a is a worthy action - so from the shelo lishmah habit, I create the lishmah reason for that habit.
I do not mean this to be cynical; halachik Judaism's grasp of human nature is so magnificent, it may even be taken as evidence for the argument that there is some Divine spark that ignited it all. I wish to give here two examples: 1. Blessings. Having to say blessings before and after eating, after going to the bathroom, when I hear thunder/see lightning, and in a myriad of other daily occurrences, means that taking a moment to acknowledge God's presence in my life (and to be grateful for that presence) is not something I need to think about or schedule in - it's part of my daily routine, almost as natural as eating or drinking coffee. This makes having those moments of acknowledgement easier. 2. Prayer: Having scheduled prayer three times a day is extremely powerful. If you pray everyday, and all of a sudden you miss a day, you really feel its absence, like an avid news junkie who doesn't have time to read the paper one morning. Prayer encompasses thanking God and generally giving gratitude - and taking time to feel gratitude is considered psychologically healthy by the psychological establishment. It also encompasses asking for personal requests - which can be a great time to clarify for oneself what one really wants, or just even to express anxiety about a minor anticipated event of the day. Again, a psychologically practice. Then, there is also the custom to pray for others (the rabbis say that's the best way to get one's own prayers answered). Many prayers are communal - we ask for God to heal "us", the collective we, as in, all who are sick. We pray for the good of the world and the Jewish people - the Amidah includes requests for peace, for "us and all the people of Israel", and also asks for God to redeem the Jewish people. Recent studies show that taking some time to hope for the well-being of others increases one's own psychological well-being. This means that daily prayer is the institutionalization of habit that encompasses three practices that lead to emotional well-being.
Of course, I do not think that one's halachik obligation rests upon the observable benefits of observace: If God is beyond human comprehension (which I believe - if He created us, She must be greater than us), then it is logical that His ways (i.e. halacha) would be as well. I believe in what Yeshayahu Leibowitz says: Halacha is about doing God's will, independent of observable benefits. However, I do also believe that because God loves humanity, He designed the system in such a way that as it works as intended, it does benefit humanity - often, though not always, in ways we can see. However, God, in Her desire to empower humans and give us freedom of choice, gave power to the rabbis to run halach, and rabbis are human and thus flawed, which is why halacha does not always work as intended. Luckily, like any legal process, halacha has built-in mechanisms for correcting its own flaws, but recently, for political reasons, rabbis have been afraid to use those mechanisms.
Still, even if I believe the system as it currently operates is flawed, I do have faith in the system to redeem itself. This is similar to how one may disagree with a Supreme Court decision, but accept it anyway, because one recognizes the Constitutional system that gives the Supreme Court to make decisions that are binding upon you even if you think they completely mis-interpreted the Constitution, and that, because the Constitution has self-correct mechanisms built in, you just have to wait for a new court for the law to change. Thus, accepting the system in its totality means accepting what you view to be the flawed interpretation of that system, for the moment.
As to why I believe in the system, it is very simple: I believe in a God who gave the Torah to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai, along with a component of Oral Law, that eventually morphed into the Talmud. As for how Biblical and Talmudic criticism factor into that statement, that is really too big for me to attack in one blog post. Suffice it to say, I do not simply reject secular, academic study of Judaism or its conclusions.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
In Which I Blog About Pee
I am not generally a fan of finding significant implications in the technical requirements in the Talmud: I don't feel the need to question why 4 amot is the amount allotted for personal space, and not 3, and if I give any credence to an attempt to do so, it is only because as a post-modernist, I believe that any meaning one can find in the text is valid, regardless of authorial/editorial intent, so if you want to find some hidden, esoteric message - go ahead.
But today, when I was reading the Rambam's definition of ilan/ilanit (a man or woman who does not show the signs of physical/sexual maturity, and thus, biologically, while having a sex, retains a pre-pubescent body), I was struck by two things: 1. The definition of both ilan (male case) and ilanit (female case) listed difficulty or inability to have proper sexual relations as a sign of being an ilan/ilanit.* 2. In the case of defining a male ilan, there was a big discussion, both in the Talmud and in Rambam, about male urine: Apparently having the right type of urine, and being able to pee in the right way, was considered an essential sign of masculinity.**
Immediately, I was reminded of "Urinalysis: Standing Up To Pee", by Leigh Shoemaker, published in the book "Bitchfest". In the article, Shoemaker shows the way the man's ability/woman's inability to pee standing up has been used in gender discourse, to prove the superiority of man/inferiority of woman.
Thus, for example, Camille Paglia writes in Sexual Personae: Concentration and projection are remarkably demonstrated by urination, one of male anatomy's most efficient compartmentilizations...male urination really is a kind of accomplishment...a woman merely waters the ground she stands on. There is no projection beyond the boundaries of the self.***
I am not so interested in either Paglia's argument or in Shoemaker's article per se, as much as a) the durability of the act of male urination as a marker of male identity**** b) the way that the ancient often connects to the modern.
As a matter of fact, this marker of male identity not only post-dates the Talmud, but predates is as well: In Samuel 1, Chapter 25, when David threatens to kill the men of Naval's household, he says, "Thus may God do unto the enemies of David, and may He add to it: If I will leave from anything he (Naval) has until the morning, a urinator on the walls."
It might be hard to tell due to my awkward translation, but David uses the term "urinator on the walls" to refer to man. I think it's one of the best Biblical phrases, and a perfect way to describe a man, whether you wish to denigrate him by referring to his urinating habits, or to praise him by referring to his uniquely male ability to projectile pee onto a wall. It's all in the tone, and the context.
So basically, Jewish sources have some pretty cool - and maybe even funny - things to say about stuff that's as mundane as pee, and something as mundane as pee can also be mined for clues into historical constructions of gender identities.
On a more serious note, the incorporation of mundane physical needs into the corpus of Jewish, especially halachik, source material, not as something to be shunned, but rather, as a natural part of life that should be accepted, or even elevated through the mitzvot, is something that makes Judaism special. It embraces human nature in its totality, thus offering a philosophy of approaching the mitzvot through positivity, self-affirmation, and comfort with one's body.*****
* Note: This does not mean if you have bedroom troubles, you are considered an ilan/ilanit. You have to have a whole slew of signs showing you did not have proper sexual development, and inability to have sex properly is one of them. If you have a fully mature, post-pubescent body, but merely have sex troubles, that would not be enough to make you considered in ilan/ilanit - either in the Rambam, or in the Gemarah in Yevamot.
** The rabbinic dictum to not hold one's penis while peeing, lest one become hard/tempted to masturbate, also points to the act of peeing as a potential locus for male sexuality. Peeing while standing, the male act, stands in contrast to the un-virile act of onanism, and to change one for the other would be to convolute one's own male identity, literally through misappropriation of one's maleness i.e. one's penis.
*** Paglia then goes on to lament the longer restroom lines for women as evidence of female inferiority. Shoemaker, in turn, goes on to deconstruct Paglia's argument, by examining the various factors behind the longer lines (bathroom design. number of stalls, the amount of layers/clothing women must wear, the social aspect of ladies rooms (related to the privacy they afford, in comparison to men's rooms), etc.), and concludes by arguing that a) quicker is not always better b) what does the "sequestering" of women in private stalls v. the more public male bathroom scenario say about society's attitudes towards different gender's bathroom needs, and how does it affect men and women's perceptions of their own bodies and bodily functions?
**** As a matter of fact, the ability to pee standing up is considered a "rite of passage" for a female-to-male transgendered individual, an act of performing the male identity that enables one to be a true member of the male community. There are even guides telling trans men how to pee standing up, and prosthetics available to help them do so. If there is another trans perspective out there, I would love to hear it, but that is the one that I have seen so far, in my research on the issue.
*****Yeshayahu Leibowitz would disagree with me for saying that, since he does not believe that halacha is about the needs of man, but rather about the "desires" (so to speak) of God: Halacha is about doing the will of God as expressed through halacha. What the content of that will/Halacha is, is irrelevant. To a certain extent, I agree with that, however, I would argue: If a) halacha stems from some sort of Divine revelation b) that Divine wants what is good for people, then by it's nature, halacha could not help but be in (wo)man's best interest even if that is not its primary goal. I also think Leibowitz's theory is hard to reconcile with certain instances of Jewish jurisprudence where halachik rulings were issued based on statements such as "Its ways are ways of pleasantness and peace", unless one argues, it so happens, that there is a halachik principle of "It's ways....", and that's pure coincidence.
But today, when I was reading the Rambam's definition of ilan/ilanit (a man or woman who does not show the signs of physical/sexual maturity, and thus, biologically, while having a sex, retains a pre-pubescent body), I was struck by two things: 1. The definition of both ilan (male case) and ilanit (female case) listed difficulty or inability to have proper sexual relations as a sign of being an ilan/ilanit.* 2. In the case of defining a male ilan, there was a big discussion, both in the Talmud and in Rambam, about male urine: Apparently having the right type of urine, and being able to pee in the right way, was considered an essential sign of masculinity.**
Immediately, I was reminded of "Urinalysis: Standing Up To Pee", by Leigh Shoemaker, published in the book "Bitchfest". In the article, Shoemaker shows the way the man's ability/woman's inability to pee standing up has been used in gender discourse, to prove the superiority of man/inferiority of woman.
Thus, for example, Camille Paglia writes in Sexual Personae: Concentration and projection are remarkably demonstrated by urination, one of male anatomy's most efficient compartmentilizations...male urination really is a kind of accomplishment...a woman merely waters the ground she stands on. There is no projection beyond the boundaries of the self.***
I am not so interested in either Paglia's argument or in Shoemaker's article per se, as much as a) the durability of the act of male urination as a marker of male identity**** b) the way that the ancient often connects to the modern.
As a matter of fact, this marker of male identity not only post-dates the Talmud, but predates is as well: In Samuel 1, Chapter 25, when David threatens to kill the men of Naval's household, he says, "Thus may God do unto the enemies of David, and may He add to it: If I will leave from anything he (Naval) has until the morning, a urinator on the walls."
It might be hard to tell due to my awkward translation, but David uses the term "urinator on the walls" to refer to man. I think it's one of the best Biblical phrases, and a perfect way to describe a man, whether you wish to denigrate him by referring to his urinating habits, or to praise him by referring to his uniquely male ability to projectile pee onto a wall. It's all in the tone, and the context.
So basically, Jewish sources have some pretty cool - and maybe even funny - things to say about stuff that's as mundane as pee, and something as mundane as pee can also be mined for clues into historical constructions of gender identities.
On a more serious note, the incorporation of mundane physical needs into the corpus of Jewish, especially halachik, source material, not as something to be shunned, but rather, as a natural part of life that should be accepted, or even elevated through the mitzvot, is something that makes Judaism special. It embraces human nature in its totality, thus offering a philosophy of approaching the mitzvot through positivity, self-affirmation, and comfort with one's body.*****
* Note: This does not mean if you have bedroom troubles, you are considered an ilan/ilanit. You have to have a whole slew of signs showing you did not have proper sexual development, and inability to have sex properly is one of them. If you have a fully mature, post-pubescent body, but merely have sex troubles, that would not be enough to make you considered in ilan/ilanit - either in the Rambam, or in the Gemarah in Yevamot.
** The rabbinic dictum to not hold one's penis while peeing, lest one become hard/tempted to masturbate, also points to the act of peeing as a potential locus for male sexuality. Peeing while standing, the male act, stands in contrast to the un-virile act of onanism, and to change one for the other would be to convolute one's own male identity, literally through misappropriation of one's maleness i.e. one's penis.
*** Paglia then goes on to lament the longer restroom lines for women as evidence of female inferiority. Shoemaker, in turn, goes on to deconstruct Paglia's argument, by examining the various factors behind the longer lines (bathroom design. number of stalls, the amount of layers/clothing women must wear, the social aspect of ladies rooms (related to the privacy they afford, in comparison to men's rooms), etc.), and concludes by arguing that a) quicker is not always better b) what does the "sequestering" of women in private stalls v. the more public male bathroom scenario say about society's attitudes towards different gender's bathroom needs, and how does it affect men and women's perceptions of their own bodies and bodily functions?
**** As a matter of fact, the ability to pee standing up is considered a "rite of passage" for a female-to-male transgendered individual, an act of performing the male identity that enables one to be a true member of the male community. There are even guides telling trans men how to pee standing up, and prosthetics available to help them do so. If there is another trans perspective out there, I would love to hear it, but that is the one that I have seen so far, in my research on the issue.
*****Yeshayahu Leibowitz would disagree with me for saying that, since he does not believe that halacha is about the needs of man, but rather about the "desires" (so to speak) of God: Halacha is about doing the will of God as expressed through halacha. What the content of that will/Halacha is, is irrelevant. To a certain extent, I agree with that, however, I would argue: If a) halacha stems from some sort of Divine revelation b) that Divine wants what is good for people, then by it's nature, halacha could not help but be in (wo)man's best interest even if that is not its primary goal. I also think Leibowitz's theory is hard to reconcile with certain instances of Jewish jurisprudence where halachik rulings were issued based on statements such as "Its ways are ways of pleasantness and peace", unless one argues, it so happens, that there is a halachik principle of "It's ways....", and that's pure coincidence.
I'm Back! (Please don't judge this - I'm out of practice.)
Sorry for taking a break; I was extremely busy and also experienced hesitation about blogging per se, but I guess this forum for sharing my thoughts is too irresistible.
So here goes:
I am currently reading a book called "Sichot im yetzer harah", edited by Asa Kedar, published by Yediot Acharonot.* In the course of reading an essay by Shlomit Wiler, within the book, I came upon the following:
1. Rabbi Chiya says that women "save us from sin" (Yivamot semech-gimmel, ayin-alef).
2. A man without a wife is without a wall, i.e. protection against the evil inclination. (there, samech-bet, ayin-bet)
These two statements point to a Talmudic stream of thought that envisions the woman as the savior from sin, as man's guardian against the evil inclination, which stands in direct contrast to the Christian view of woman as the root of sin, as the evil inclination and temptress par excellence. I believe that this Christian view of women, based on the first chapters of Genesis, was influenced by the Greek story of Pandora as the temptress par excellence who brings a variety of ills to the world. As a matter of fact, Pandora (i.e. woman) was sent to men as a punishment, for angering Zeuss - just as Eve was sent to man, in Christian (primarily Catholic) mythology as a sort of stand-in for Satan - perhaps not as a punishment exactly, but as a test man was doomed to fail, as something negative. This is in contrast to the mainstream Jewish view, where woman is sent to man as a gift. In the plain Biblical text, God sends woman to man because "it is not good for man to be alone", as an act of kindness, and woman comes from man, bespeaking an innate equality between the two sexes - an equality that only gets tampered with as a result of the woman's actions, when the natural gender equality of the world is upturned: Gender inequality is tied up to punishment and the state of banishment. The Edenic ideal is one of equality between the sexes. The Biblical view of woman as gift is buttressed by Talmudic statements such as the ones above. There are counter-streams of Talmudic statements that do view woman more negatively, however, we must ask ourselves how much such statements have been influenced by the Hellenistic, Christian, and Zoroastrian streams of thought that pervaded Talmudic society. It would be interesting to see if there is a historical trend within the Talmud, from more misogynistic to less or vice versa, which could help us understand the different non-Jewish intellectual influences on Talmudic thought as pertaining to the essential nature of woman: Is she good, bad, or a bit of both - and if she is a mix of both, is there more Talmudic ambiguity concerning the nature of woman than there is the nature of man? It seems that with the current trend in gender studies, looking at gendered language in the Talmud regarding women is a hot topic, but I wonder how much scholarly work there has been regarding the Talmud's gendered language concerning men.
* In the spirit of "Whoever says something in the name of its sayer bring redemption to the world" (which I learn in Mr. Shwarz's Brachot class), I should acknowledge that a recent shiur by Amit Gvaryahu that touched upon yetzer hara is what inspired me to read the book. This shiur took place at Drisha.
So here goes:
I am currently reading a book called "Sichot im yetzer harah", edited by Asa Kedar, published by Yediot Acharonot.* In the course of reading an essay by Shlomit Wiler, within the book, I came upon the following:
1. Rabbi Chiya says that women "save us from sin" (Yivamot semech-gimmel, ayin-alef).
2. A man without a wife is without a wall, i.e. protection against the evil inclination. (there, samech-bet, ayin-bet)
These two statements point to a Talmudic stream of thought that envisions the woman as the savior from sin, as man's guardian against the evil inclination, which stands in direct contrast to the Christian view of woman as the root of sin, as the evil inclination and temptress par excellence. I believe that this Christian view of women, based on the first chapters of Genesis, was influenced by the Greek story of Pandora as the temptress par excellence who brings a variety of ills to the world. As a matter of fact, Pandora (i.e. woman) was sent to men as a punishment, for angering Zeuss - just as Eve was sent to man, in Christian (primarily Catholic) mythology as a sort of stand-in for Satan - perhaps not as a punishment exactly, but as a test man was doomed to fail, as something negative. This is in contrast to the mainstream Jewish view, where woman is sent to man as a gift. In the plain Biblical text, God sends woman to man because "it is not good for man to be alone", as an act of kindness, and woman comes from man, bespeaking an innate equality between the two sexes - an equality that only gets tampered with as a result of the woman's actions, when the natural gender equality of the world is upturned: Gender inequality is tied up to punishment and the state of banishment. The Edenic ideal is one of equality between the sexes. The Biblical view of woman as gift is buttressed by Talmudic statements such as the ones above. There are counter-streams of Talmudic statements that do view woman more negatively, however, we must ask ourselves how much such statements have been influenced by the Hellenistic, Christian, and Zoroastrian streams of thought that pervaded Talmudic society. It would be interesting to see if there is a historical trend within the Talmud, from more misogynistic to less or vice versa, which could help us understand the different non-Jewish intellectual influences on Talmudic thought as pertaining to the essential nature of woman: Is she good, bad, or a bit of both - and if she is a mix of both, is there more Talmudic ambiguity concerning the nature of woman than there is the nature of man? It seems that with the current trend in gender studies, looking at gendered language in the Talmud regarding women is a hot topic, but I wonder how much scholarly work there has been regarding the Talmud's gendered language concerning men.
* In the spirit of "Whoever says something in the name of its sayer bring redemption to the world" (which I learn in Mr. Shwarz's Brachot class), I should acknowledge that a recent shiur by Amit Gvaryahu that touched upon yetzer hara is what inspired me to read the book. This shiur took place at Drisha.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)