I came across an interesting article at the failedmessiah website today that was written by one of the most creative Orthodox rabbinic scholars today, Professor Marc B. Shapiro. I thought it would be intriguing to focus a little bit on this question, primarily because the problem continues to grow within the Haredi community.

He writes:

“…There is another theory as to why the sectarian hasidic world in particular has had so many cases of covering up and defending child sex abusers. It is that they simply do not regard these people as so terrible. The evidence for this appears obvious, in that in case of after case we see that they continue to allow sex abusers to teach and refuse to turn them over to the authorities and warn the parent body. Had they caught the rebbe eating at McDonald’s, you can be sure he would have been fired, but not so when it comes to fooling around with kids. The question is why do they have this outlook, and how come they don’t regard child sex abusers as so terrible? Here is a possible answer (which a wise person suggested). Look at where these societies get their information about human nature, the information that they regard as authentic and true. It does not come from modern psychology, but from Torah sources and folk beliefs. If you look only at traditional rabbinic literature, you won’t conclude that child sex abuse is as terrible as modern society views it. Yes, it is a sin and the person who commits it must repent as he must do with all sins, but there is nothing in the traditional literature that speaks to the great trauma suffered by the victim. How do we know about this trauma? Only from modern psychology and the testimony of the victims. Yet this type of evidence does not have much significance in the insular hasidic world (unless it is your own child who has been abused). Certainly modern psychology, which is often attacked by figures in that community, is not given much credence, especially not when they are confronted with an issur (prohibition) of mesirah (informing upon Jews to the secular authorities). This theory makes a lot of sense to me and I am curious to hear what others have to say.”

Is the professor correct?

It is written in the Mishnah: “A girl of three years and one day is betrothed (as a woman is acquired) by intercourse…if one of those forbidden to have relations with her according to the Torah does have relations with her, he is killed because of her, and she is exempt. If she is younger than that, (less than three years and a day), it is as one who sticks a finger in the eye” [1]

Maimonides similarly rules:

“When an adult male enters into relations with any of the women forbidden in connection with the above transgressions who is three years and one day old or more, he is liable for execution, koreth (“excision,” i.e.,  premature death or spiritual death in the hereafter) or lashes and she is not liable unless she is past majority. If she is younger than this, both participants are not liable, for the act is not considered as sexual relations.”

Note that neither the Talmud nor Maimonides prescribes lashes for sexually molesting a young infant girl under the age of three. This law shows how antiquated the ancient world looked upon this type of behavior; it also explains why little stigma was placed on adults who sexually abuse children in this way.

Maimonides continues: “Similarly, when an adult woman enters into sexual relations with a minor, if he is nine years and one day old, she is liable for execution, koreth, or lashes and he is not liable. If he is younger than nine years old, they are both free of liability.” [2]

Here too, it is not enough to simply state that such behavior is “free of liability,” corporeal punishment would have been a much more apropos way for a medievalist like Maimonides to rule. Note, however, only if it is a male child who violated at a young age, Maimonides recommends that corporeal punishment be administered! He writes further:

“If a minor of nine years and a day or more is involved, the man who enters into relations or has the minor enter into relations with him should be stoned and the minor is not liable. If the male minor was less than nine years old, they are both free of liability. It is, however, appropriate for the court to subject the adult to stripes for rebellious conduct for homosexual relations  although his companion was less than nine years old.” [3]

In defense of the ancients, they simply did not realize the evils of pedophilia like we do today—plain and simple. The study of human psychology hardly existed in the rabbinic world as a discipline like it is today.

Thus far, Professor Shapiro is certainly correct. However, there is a more basic explanation that deserves consideration.

The Haredi attitude and thinking really believes that revealing sexual scandals about its inner circle constitute a far greater sin than a specific incident of pedophilia. The same phenomena can be seen whenever there is also a spousal abuse, or child abuse–especially when it results in the wrongful death of a child.

Simply put, the Haredi leadership is terrified that their religious world could unravel. As is often the case with family dysfunction, keeping secrets about its sordid behavior is vital in order to maintain the “appearance” of normalcy. I would argue that the tendency to look for newer stringent decrees in Halachic minutia reflects a desperate psychological attempt to mask their more insidious problems. After all, it is much easier to worry about bugs in lettuce or schach than it is to deal with the real hard issues that confront their society like pedophilia and child abuse.

As with the case of the famous story of the “Emperor’s New Clothes,” the Haredi rabbinic leaders would much rather act as if everything is really “normal” in their society, but unfortunately, it is not. Once the Haredi communities adopt a zero-tolerance approach like the Catholic Church seems to be trying, I believe they will have taken one major step in solving this terrible moral disease that has infested their yeshivas and homes.

With respect to the Catholic Church, the Pontiff missed a golden opportunity when his associates failed to define pedophilia as a “mortal sin.”  Religious leaders need to take ownership of their sins of omission/commission,  cowardice, and apathy. Our hands will never be collectively clean until we protect society’s most defenseless citizens and victims.

===========

Notes:

[1] Mishnah Niddah 5:4.

[2] Maimonides, MT, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 1:13

[3] Ibid, Halacha 14.

=======================

Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis. . . adroitly moderates a virtual conversation between traditions and thinkers. This book is a wondrous springboard into a rewarding dialogue between  biblical scholarship and the philosophical perspective.

Micah D. Halpern, author of THUGS, The Micah Report, and Jewish Legal Writings by Women

“A fascinating, learned, and wide-ranging commentary that creatively blends the  insights of ancients, medievals, moderns, and post-moderns. . .Readers will enjoy this book.”

Prof. Warren Zev Harvey, [Chair, Department of Jewish Thought], The Hebrew University of Jerusalem ,

===========

I believe that all who carefully read this book are in for a deeply rewarding experience. A study of the text and commentary of Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: The Timeless Theological Commentary will contribute greatly to an understanding of the rich and diverse fabric of biblical narrative and provide an appreciation for its creative application to the problems of the modern world . . . Birth and Rebirth through Genesis is a book for Jews and Christians.

Prof. Marvin R. Wilson, Author of Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith

===========

The book is a profound exploration of the important metaphors, symbols and archetypal structures of Genesis. . . Most remarkable about this stunning array of insights is that it leaves space for personal discovery, and time to hear the beat of heart-thoughts behind the words.

Paul Pines, author of My Brother’s Madness.

===========

Rabbi Michael Samuel’s Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation frees the reader from the confines of the theological spin of particular interpretations . . . . this work is spiritually fresh and relevant for a new generation of readers regardless of their religious background and faith.

Rabbi Dr Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, co-author of Jewish with Feeling

==========

While this is a book written by a rabbi well-versed in the rabbinic tradition, one cannot read more than a few pages to discover that his research, his interests, and his appreciation of critical thought span the centuries of both Jewish thought and Christian, while encompassing the best of the non-faith-bound philosophers of these same millennia . . . Rabbi Samuel is fearless in drawing on their works and their thinking in order to provoke his reader to leap beyond the well-worn paths of the past.

Allan C. Emery III, PhD, Senior Editor of Hendrickson Publishers.

Have you ever wondered about the beginning of Genesis in the context of the three thousand years of pondering prompted by these seminal three chapters? . . .  This magnificent interdisciplinary work will prompt, will compel, its reader to consider fundamental issues of the dynamic among text, self, and others within the context of cultures and time. . . . and deals superbly with  nothing less than everyone’s journey of “Birth and Rebirth.”

Paul Borgman, Author of Genesis: The Story We Haven’t Heard

Frankly, I am not surprised at all by the series of events that ensued. Surprisingly, Agudath Israel spokesman Rabbi Avi Shafran admitted that the issue whether women may become rabbis or not is not a matter of “Torah law,” or not; in his opinion, it is morally wrong. Shafran remarked, “[If] Weiss had the backing of a world-class posek (halachic decisor) he would have a claim that he’s not departing [from the mesorah], but he does not have any such backings on the recognized Orthodox spectrum, chareidi or central. He’s changing the face of mesorah without anyone of stature behind him.”

I am curious: Where does the Torah speak about rabbis in the first place, since “rabbis” did not exist in biblical times?

But wait, it gets more interesting than just that.

Rabbi Shafran further argues that the ordination of a woman ran counter to the concept of tzniut, (modesty). It includes the idea that women are demeaned, not honoured, when they are placed in the public eye,” said Rabbi Shafran, “and that a position like the one suggested here is violative of that concept.”

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of Teaneck, NJ, expresses a similar position in his blog: “There are two greater objections: the utter disregard of norms of tzniut, with which ModOs generally struggle, and the corruption of the methodology of psak that transmits the Mesora and Jewish cultural norms and societal values. The only way to consider in this context the compelling Jewish value of “the glory of the King’s daughter is within” (kal kevuda bat melech penima- Tehillim 45:14) is essentially to discount it and say it has no relevance in the modern Western world. Thus, this ideal of Jewish femininity – the disinclination to seek a public spiritual role, cited by Chazal hundreds of times – is simply written out of the Torah system. And why ? …”

Both of these men’s argumentation are interesting. For now, let us raise the obvious question: Is the idea of a female “poseket” (Halachic decisor) truly without precedent in rabbinic law?

One of the famous questions asked in the Halachic literature concerns the famous biblical heroine, Deborah, whom the verse explicitly states: “ At this time the prophetess Deborah, wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel” (Judg. 4:4). The verse clearly says that a woman can serve as a judge, despite the fact this position was normally reserved for men. Faced with the awkwardness of the biblical text, a number of different responses have been offered–which for the most part, prove to be mutually contradictory.

(To be continued)

At this point one could ask: What sort of teachings might have inspired Rabbi Judah to formulate these three blessings? There may be two possible sources: Greek or early Christian writings. Of the two choices, I believe the Greek influence is more dominant. However, as we shall soon see, the liturgical texts found in the Cairo Geniza  suggest that the early medieval liturgical scholars may have had Christianity in mind, since the  Graeco-Roman culture was supplanted by the Catholic Church. This, I think, is pretty historically plausible.

The 3rd century biographer Diogenes Laertius  writes,  “In his Lives, Hermippus refers to Thales (what has been sometimes attributed to Socrates) . . . .He thanked fortune for three things: first of all, that he had been born a man and not a beast; secondly, that he was a man and not a woman; and thirdly, that he was a Greek and not a barbarian.” [1]

One could argue that the negative rabbinic statements concerning women must be seen within a broader social context; that is to say, the rabbis’ opinions were formed to a certain extent by the dominant cultural attitudes of its time, which happened to be decidedly Graeco-Roman.

Moreover, the originator of this liturgical blessing, Rabbi Judah HaNasi, (ca. 135-219) used to frequent the company of many of Romes’ high society members, and was believed to even been intimate with the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (ca. 122-180 CE.).

Charles Carlston sums up the Greco-Roman world’s view of women: “ . . . on balance . . . the picture drawn is a grim one. Women . . . are basically ineducable and empty-headed; vengeful, dangerous, and responsible for men’s sins; mendacious, treacherous, and unreliable; fickle; valuable only through their relationships with men; incapable of moderation or spontaneous goodness; at their best in the dark; interested only in sex–unless they are with their husbands, in which case (apparently) they would rather talk. In short, women are one and all ‘a set of vultures,’ the ‘most beastly’ of all the beasts on land or sea, and marriage is at best a necessary evil.” [2]

A Second Possible Source of Rabbi Judah’s Statement

As we mentioned above, Rabbi Judah may have been directing his criticism to new Christian faith. According to Paul, “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian,  slave, free; but Christ is all and in all” (Col. 3:11-13). In Paul’s vision of the new Christian faith, the traditional distinction that characterized the old rabbinic view of Judaism no longer applied. For him, the gospel doesn’t confer on one class of people a privileged position in the social order–God doesn’t play favorites; God saves us all in the same way and for the same end.

Do not think for a minute that Paul was necessarily a social liberal–he definitely wasn’t. But he did know how to appeal to perspective converts! For the record, Paul had no problem encouraging slaves and women to mind their societal places–all of which he wholeheartedly endorses. Paul was the world’s greatest salesman–he knew what to say in order to sell his faith–but we shall have to return to this point in another discussion.

This passage is interesting because if we read the Geniza texts of the Siddur, we find language that is very similar to the Pauline passage cited above: ברוך אתה יי אלהינו מלך העולם אשר בראת אותי אדם ולא בהמה ואיש ולא  אשה וישראל ולא גוי מל ולא ערל חופשי ולא עבד “Blessed are You …who has created me a human and not beast, a man and not a woman, an Israelite and not a gentile, circumcised and not uncircumcised, free and not slave.”

Early rabbinic passages also do not reflect particularly well on women:

Sometimes I Think She’s a Spy–My Baby Got Distaff Eyes

It is hard to interpret the statement of Rabbi Judah HaNasi without taking into consideration the many other nasty aphorisms we find regarding women in the Talmud. That is not to say that all the statements regarding women were decidedly negative. There are many positive statements, which far exceed the negative ones. However, the negative attitudes do express a misogyny we dare not ignore. For examples:  “He that talks much with women brings evil upon himself and neglects the study of the Law and will at last inherit Gehenna” (Aboth 1:5), or “Every man who teaches his daughter Torah is as if he taught her promiscuity” (Mishnah Sotah 3:4).

One of the strongest stories reads: “A matron asked R. Eliezer] ‘Why did the worshipers of the Golden Calf suffer from three kinds of death, since  they were all guilty of the same essential sin?’ However, Rabbi Eliezer dismisses the woman with a curt response].  He says to her a woman has no hokhmah (“wisdom”) except with her distaff as it is written, “And every wise-hearted woman spun with her hands” (Exod. 35:25).  His son replied, ‘Since you refused to give her a proper learned response from the Torah, you have gone and cost me an annual tithe of 300 kor.’ He said to him,”Let the words of Torah be burnt rather than handed over to women!’” [3].

When one considers how serious a crime willfully destroying God’s Name in a Torah, it is clear Rabbi Eliezer considered the possibility of a class of learned women an even greater moral affront to Judaism. Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus probably would have found even today’s Haredi and Hassidic communities as being too liberal, for even they teach Torah to their female family members.

One of the leading Modern Orthodox theologians and Holocaust rabbis of the 20th century, Rabbi Eliezer Berkowitz  candidly admits, “It is surprising that such negative opinions could find their place beside the most positive expressions of appreciation of the function of a woman in the life of the people.” [4]

==============

Notes:

[1] Diogenes Laertius, I, 33-34 [Life of Thales].

[2] Charles Carlston, “Proverbs, Maxims, and the Historical Jesus,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 99 (1980), 95-96.

[3] JT Sotah 3:4 [19a].

[4] Eliezer Berkowitz, Crisis and Faith (New York: Sanhedrin Press, 1976), 100.

“Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler the universe who has not created me a woman.”

The Original Rabbinical Source of the Blessing

The origin of this prayer is found in the Tosefta to Berakhot 6:16 that reads:

R. Judah says: “A man is bound to say the following three blessings daily: (1) ‘[Blessed are You . . .] Who has not made me a heathen’, ‘. . . . (2) Who has not made me a woman’; and  (3) ‘ . . . who has not made me an uncouth person.’”

The Tosefta then explains its rational:  (1)    “. . . a heathen,” because it is written: ^{ ‘}Before him all the nations are as nought, as nothing and void he accounts them,’” (Isa. 40:17). (2)   “. . . an uncouth person,” because it is said, “an uncouth person cannot be pious” (Avot 2:5). (3)   “. . . a woman,” for women are not legally required to observe all the precepts.

To what is this matter (i.e., gentile, uncouth people, women who perform the precepts) analogous to? A mortal king once said to his servant, ‘Go cook a meal for me.’ However, unbeknownst to the king, the servant had never cooked a meal in his life! After cooking a meal, the king got upset with him. Another analogy: A king once asked his servant to hem a garment for him, but having never hemmed a garment before, the servant ruined the garment, thus angering the king. [The moral of the story: Let those who are unfamiliar with the observance of the commandments be exempt from observing them, lest they be an affront to their Maker.]

It is interesting to note that unlike the canned apologetic responses seen in subsequent rabbinic literature, which purports that women are essentially exempt from the performance of certain time-bound precepts because of her family obligations, the Tosefta dismisses such a perspective. Her legal exemption from the commandments is because of incompetence and not because of the lack of opportunity.

Re-interpreting the Tosefta

The Talmud discusses part of the Tosefta in BT Menachot 43b:

A learned discussion began: “ R. Judah [1] used to say, ‘A man is bound to say the following three blessings daily: ‘[Blessed are You . . .] who has not made me a heathen’, ‘. . . . who hast not made me a woman’; and ‘ . . . who hast not made me a brutish man.’

One of the Sages, R. Aha b. Jacob, once overhead his son saying ‘[Blessed are You. . .] who has not made me a brutish man’, when he immediately said to him, ‘Isn’t this blessing a tad bit presumptuous?’ (Who says the rabbis didn’t have a wry sense of humor?) His son retorted, ‘OK, what would you have me say instead?’ Surely it is better to say, ‘. . . Who has not made me a slave.’ Once again his son retorted, “ How is this blessing different from that of a woman (seeing that neither one is fully obligated to carry out the precepts of the Torah; in fact they are on equal footing in terms of their obligations)?  His father rejoined, “A slave is more contemptible” (since his character is generally prone to licentious behavior, which is not the case with women).

Now the 2nd century Roman emancipated slave Epictetus would have certainly took serious offense to the Talmudic discussion, had he been included as one of the respondents–but that too, is another discussion for a future date.

Intimidation tactics were routinely carried out for several decades until the last of the Jim Crow laws were banned once and for all by 1971, In 1971, the Supreme Court, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, upheld desegregation busing  of students to achieve integration.

Of course these laws also affected poor and illiterate Americans. Jews, blacks, and Asians could not purchase homes in certain restrictive neighborhoods until 1948, when the Supreme Court outlawed some forms of private discrimination in Shelley v. Kraemer 334 US 1 (1948).

Who would ever suspect that Jim Crow Laws would find a comfortable new home among the Haredim?  But this time the Haredi Jim Crow Laws target women. Consider the following examples:

Over the past few months, Israeli society has witnessed a whole series of newly constructed practices for what are undoubtedly extreme views of the need for gender segregation:
•  Separate sides of the street designated for a Sukkot holiday public festival in Jerusalem.

•  The corpse of a woman removed from its burial place because it was next to a man in Tiberias

•  Separate cashiers at the supermarket for men and women in Ramot.

•  Separate public buses for men and women in Bnei Brak, Jerusalem, and more

•  Separate El Al airline flights for men and women

•  Separate offices for men and women in Modi’in Illit (some companies will not hire women in a company where men work)

•  Separate exit times from synagogue in Safed (women were locked inside until all the men left)

•  Banning of women from cemeteries in places including Elyachin, and silencing of women’s cries of mourning.

•  The removal of all pictures of women from public advertisements – even women politicians, like Kadima head and former prime ministerial candidate MK Tzipi Livni

•  The Photoshopped “erasure” of women cabinet members from Orthodox newspaper photos

•  The covering up of dancers during a bridge opening ceremony in Jerusalem.

•  Soldiers walking out of an army convocation ceremony because women were singing.

•  Separate sections in the pharmacy for men and women in Bnei Brak.

More recently, women wearing prayer shawls also got arrested because they wanted to worship at the Western Wall.

Obviously, we cannot become a light unto the nations until we first become a light unto ourselves.

=================

Posted by: Yochanan Lavie |

Any good Christian bible reader knows that cross-dressing is forbidden in the Torah. Men are forbidden to dress as women, since the proscription reads, “neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment, neither may a man wear a woman’s garment ” (Deut. 22:5).

The law aims to maintain gender distinctions, while preventing potentially licentious behavior.  Cross-dressing during Purim is nothing new in Halachic literature; pious Jews have been cross-dressing on this holiday for several centuries.

In the 16th century, somebody asked Rabbi Moshe Iserseles (a.k.a., “Rema”), whether cross-dressing on Purim was permitted or not. Rema cites two opinions, one says, “Yea!” while the other says, “Nay!” (and the cross-dresser says, “Hurray!”). Rema rules that it is permitted to follow the more lenient opinion. [1]

Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan (1838-1933), author of the Mishnah Berurah,  cites several halachic authorities who recommend that the custom of Purim cross-dressing be abolished and prohibit this practice. [2]  R. Kagan notes, “Likewise, as far as I can see, the vast majority  of later rabbis who discuss this issue in their Responsa is to prohibit the practice, citing other earlier authorities who call it wicked.”[3]

Based on Jungian psychology,  the Haredi cross-dressing reflects the men’s unconscious desire to consciously integrate its feminine side, which he terms the anima.

In a sexually repressed and rigid society where the anima is not integrated with the animus, people will inevitably but unconsciously try to unite feminine and masculine aspects of their personalities together. While cross-dressing may look like innocent fun, the Purim celebration really “masks” (pardon the pun) a much different kind of psychological dynamic that may not be too obvious to the non-discerning eye.

In broad terms, the entire psychological process of the individual, men need to get in touch with their anima development by becoming aware of his  feelings and emotions. By doing so, men will gradually become more receptive to experiencing broader spirituality that will enable them to get in touch with the intuitive processes, creativity and imagination.  Ultimately, he will show more psychic sensitivity towards himself and others.

======

Notes:

[1] O.H. 696:8.

[2] Cf. Shach an dCTaz on YD 182.

[3] MB on O.H. 696:8.

=============

On Shabbat eve, he went and broke down the wall between them, thus transgressing “Remember and observe the Sabbath.” As if that weren’t enough, he then rapes the woman whom he lusted after, and in the process he violated the proscriptions of “Do not covet,’ and “Do not commit adultery.”

Alas, his appetite for the forbidden knew no bounds. After having his way with his neighbor’s wife, he helps himself to the family jewels.  The woman cried out, “Is there no end to your base character?” To silence her, the sinful man murders her, thus violating the law, “You shall not murder.”

After breaking a medley of biblical precepts found in the Ten Commandments, the man’s parents castigated him. And in defiance, the sinful son struck his parents, thus violating the precept commanding him to “Honor your father and mother.”

When he was arrested, he was taken to court and he cleverly testifies falsely with the help of his friends, that he had taken only his own property (i.e., also known as “The O.J. Simpson Defense”). He claimed that everything he took, was really his. Until now, he could not reclaim his property. However, once the robbers had broken the wall and killed his wife,  the opportunity was ripe for him to collect his property. Such a person has also transgressed, “Do not testify falsely.”

And kept on denying the accusations, one after the other. In doing so, he also transgressed “Do not swear falsely.” But in the end, his evil was revealed and his offense publicized. His shame was so great that he gave himself up to corruption and denied the Living God, thus transgressing “I am the LORD your God.” Finally, he became addicted to idol worship and bowed down to and served idols, thus transgressing “Do not have any other Gods beside me” and “Do not bow down to them and do not serve them.” And all this was caused by coveting. We see, then, that he who is covetous is close to transgressing the entire Torah. [1]

=========

Notes:

[1] Orchot HaTsadikim, Chapter 14: The Gate of Jealousy.

“Anyone who covets a servant, a maidservant, a house or utensils that belong to a colleague, or any other article that he can purchase from him and pressures him with friends and requests until he agrees to sell it to him, violates a negative commandment,even though he pays much money for it, the Torah states,  “Do not covet” (Exod. 20:14). This is not the kind of commandment that would be subject to corporeal punishment, for the thought of coveting does not involve a deed. However, once a person takes possession of the article he covets, “Do not covet the gold and silver on these statues and take it for yourself” (Deut. 7:25), then he has transformed the thought of coveting into a deed . . .

Anyone desiring a home, a wife, utensils, or anything that belongs to another that he can acquire from him, is guilty of violating the biblical proscription regarding coveting–-from the time he thinks in his heart, “How is it possible to acquire this from him?” and his heart is aroused by this matter, as the Torah states “Do not desire” – “desire “ is directed only within the human heart.”

Thus according to Maimonides, there are two prohibitions: the covetous desire and the act that is involved in obtaining his neighbor’s property. Some rabbinic scholars differ. [2]

Maimonides adds, “The moment one entertains the thought how to obtain a neighbor’s possessions, e.g., a  home, a wife, utensils, he violates the injunction against coveting, for the Torah makes it clear: “Do not desire….”  (Deut. 5:18), for desire belongs to feelings of the heart and nothing else. Coveting is so serious because it leads to  robbery. Should an owner refuse to part with his property, the one who covets may act upon his desire and decide to rob his neighbor of his belongings, as it is written, “They covet fields, and seize them; houses, and they take them; They cheat an owner of his house, a man of his inheritance” (Micah 2:2). In the event the victim stands up and attempts to rescue his property, the covetous man may decide to murder his victim, as we see in the story of Ahab and Naboth in  1 Kings 21:1-29.” [3]

On the other hand, Ibn Ezra asks a famous question: How can the Torah forbid a person to covet? Actions are surely easier to control, but how can one control a feeling? If one has a desire for something that another person has, is it reasonable to expect him to banish that desire?

Ibn Ezra provides an intriguing psychological response: Suppose someone told a greedy person that in a far-away kingdom, there are mountains of gold and precious gems, and that one could literally  become wealthy by hauling off buckets of gold and jewels. Although he might desire such opulence, he would never indulge his fantasy by giving it serious thought since it is so far removed from him. In other words, consider whatever you desire to be unattainable and beyond your reach.

However, some Jewish medieval moralists take sharp issue with this point. One early 15th century rabbinic scholar (who kept his name anonymous) argues that the Bible is concerned about acting upon one’s impulses. It follows that the more one obsesses about another person’s wealth or belongings, the more one is apt to actually sin. Thus it is not the flickering thought of coveting that is forbidden here, it is when one seriously takes the time to actualize a sinful thought. The following story may serve as an example:

There was once a man who had a wicked neighbor whose property was separated from his own by a wall- This wicked man lusted after his neighbor’s wife and some of his possessions. One Friday, he heard his neighbor telling his wife: “I want to go away for the day on business,” and he did so.

What did this wicked man do?

======

Notes:

[1] Maimonides, MT Hilchot Gzelah v’ Avedah 1:9. There are several other interesting laws Maimonides mentions regarding coveting, but in the interest of time, we will save them for a future posting.

[2] S’mag and Saadia Gaon consider coveting as only one general proscription. S’mag argues, “If Maimonides were correct, it would suggest that the Torah considered desiring a neighbor’s house to be as serious as desiring his wife! However, we must conclude that when the Torah utilizes the terms “desire” and “covet,” they must be understood as synonyms.”

[3] MT Hilchot Gzelah v’ Avedah 1:10-13.

Although the Buddhist tradition does not speak of a Fall in the Western theological sense, it does speak of a state of Original Ignorance that occurred at the dawn of human creation. From ignorance came greed, anger, jealousy, and pride; and from these emotional energies come misdeeds that lead to suffering. The first sin among the ancients that perpetuated the Fall was the prejudice of appearance—those of brighter skin began to look down on those with darker skin. Ignorance led to the formation of gender, which eventually gave rise to desire and passion.

One ancient Pali Buddhist text [known as the Pâli Aggañña-suttam and the Prâkrit Mahâvastu, also known as “Aphorism on the Knowledge of the Beginning”] dating back somewhere between the 5^th and 1^st century B.C.E., records an ancient memory of humanity’s original spiritual descent that invites comparison to the Fall narrative of Genesis 3:

Then the organ of womanhood appeared in the woman and the organ of manhood in the man. And the woman offered to the man strong drink in excess, and the man unto the woman. And as they did so, passion arose, and suffering entered into their bodies. By reason of the suffering they indulged in the act of sex.[1]

Like the Augustinian perspective, the Buddhist doctrine believes that desire is a principal manifestation of the selfish craving, grasping, or a blind state of want. And it is for this reason, desire is considered to be at the root of human suffering; the ultimate goal of Buddhism since is the extinguishing of all desire. In Judaism, desire in itself is neutral—providing one learns how to sublimate it and master it. Jewish tradition also teaches that without desire, the human race would have died in its infancy.

[1] Albert J. Edmunds, A Buddhist Genesis (Chicago, IL: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1904), 211-213.