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.
No comments:
Post a Comment