Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

• Lilith as an Archetype of the “Terrible Mother”

  The following article comes from my new Neo-Jungian commentary on Genesis, “Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation (Genesis 1-3).” In this selection, we shall explore other aspects of the Lilith archetype based on the insights of the Jungian psychologist Erich Neumann.

Afterwards we shall look at other portraits of Lilith found in a variety of different literary resources, such as: the Talmud and Zohar, archaeological discoveries—and lastly—from the literature of Jewish feminism, which has transformed Lilith into a modern folk-heroine for women. While these portrayals introduce a definite recasting of the Lilith story, one fascinating feature remains: Lilith is a resilient figure of ancient mythology; over time Lilith continues to receive a new facelift to disguise her personality to a new generation of readers—from rabbis who fantasized about her sexual availability, to feminists who find Lilith’s desire for freedom most compelling.  (Note that * are used for paragraph indentations because of the limitations of Word Press word processing)

Jungian psychologist Erich Neumann argues in his psychological study, The Great Mother (2d ed., New York, 1963), that Lilith personifies the archetype of the “Terrible Mother,” while also analogous to the Greek Gorgon and harpies. These mythic figures personify the archetypal image of negativity—that of destroyer—latent in the feminine psyche; as such. Horrified by what they saw, the ancients retold this tragedy in the language of myth. Lilith represents the sinister side of femininity. Neumann shows how this pattern develops cross-culturally:

• And the dark side of the Terrible Female is a symbol for the unconscious. And the dark side of the Terrible Mother takes the form of monsters, whether in Egypt of India, Mexico or Etruria, Bali or Rome. In the myths and tales of all peoples, ages, and countries—and even in the nightmares of our own nights—witches and vampires, ghouls and specters, assail us, all terrifyingly alike. . . . Thus the womb of the earth becomes the deadly devouring maw of the underworld, and beside the fecundated womb and the protecting cave of earth and mountain gapes the abyss of hell, the dark note of the depths, the devouring womb of the grave and of death, of darkness without light, of nothingness. For this woman who generates life and all living things on earth is the same who takes them back into herself, who pursues her victims and captures them with snare and net. Disease, hunger, hardship, ware above all, are her helpers, and among all peoples the goddesses of war and the hunt express man’s experience of life as a exacting blood.

• [1] It is in India that the experience of the Terrible Mother has been given its most grandiose form as Kali, “dark, devouring time, the bone-wreathed Lady of the place of skulls . . .[2] But all this—and it should not be forgotten—is an image not only of the Feminine but particularly and specifically of the Maternal. For in a profound way life and birth are always bound up with death and destruction. That is why this Terrible Mother is ‘Great,’ and this name is also given to Ta-urt, the gravid monster, which is hippopotamus and crocodile, lioness and woman, in one. She too is deadly and protective. There is a frightening likeness to Hathor, the good cow goddess . . .”[3]

Talmudic and Kabbalistic Depictions of Lilith

The Talmud makes ample mention of Lilith’s activities. Lilith is described as a female night-demon whose erotic nature evokes a desire for illicit sexual relationships (succubus). Lilith’s physical attributes are also described in detail; she is depicted as having long hair and wings[4] and the rabbis warn all men not to sleep alone in a house lest Lilith come and seduce them in their dreams (T. B. Shabbat 151b).[5] Lilith is especially popular in the Zohar where she appears as the seductress supreme.[6] In all likelihood the rabbinic stories about Lilith were, in part, intended to prevent young rabbinic scholars from the sins of masturbation and illicit sexual relations which the Zohar equates to the crime of murder. The scholar, Rabbi Joshua Trachtenberg explains:

• As a result of the legend of Adam’s relations with Lilit [sic], although this function was by no means exclusively theirs, the Lilits were most frequently singled out as the demons who embrace sleeping men and cause them to have nocturnal emissions which are the seed of a hybrid progeny. . . . As the demons whose special prey is lying-in women, it was found necessary to adopt an extensive series of protective measures against her. . . . We seem to have here a union of the night demon with the spirit that presides over pregnancy, influenced no doubt by the character of the Babylonian Lamassu, and the lamiae and striga of Greek and Roman folklore.[7]

Trachtenberg’s insight is obviously accurate. According to the Zohar, a man who masturbates in this world will be treated in the next life like one who is worse than a murderer—since he has, in effect, murdered his own seed; in God’s eyes he is considered the most reprehensible kind of human being.[8] In a strange way, the Zohar sees Lilith as the guardian of family purity. Any couple failing to observe the laws governing sexual abstention risks incurring her wrath. Even making love by candle light can result in Lilith causing children to become epileptic and risk being pursued and killed by Lilith.[9] One may deduce from the Zohar’s condemnation that the fate of young men or children dying is a talionic punishment for having spilled seed. The proof text for this is the story of Er and Onan, who died rather than give their seed to Tamar (Gen. 38:1-10).[10]

Archaeology has discovered special incantation bowls that were used to help a person seek protection from “demons, demonesses, lilis, liliths, plagues, evil satanic beings and all evil tormentors that appear.”

• As one scholar notes, “The liliths were but one class of an elaborate taxonomy of malevolent spiritual beings. The sexually aggressive character of the lilis and liliths accounts for the fact that exorcistic texts are often expressed in formal divorce terminology, such as this text (No. 35, Isbell): ‘Again, bound and seized are you, evil spirit and powerful lilith. . . . But depart from their presence and take your divorce and your separation and your letter of dismissal. [I have written against] you as demons write divorces for their wives and furthermore, they do not return [to them].’”[11]

• Recasting Lilith—A Bad Girl Becomes Good—Judith Plaskow’s New Midrash

With the advent of women’s liberation movements, Lilith has undergone a dramatic make-over; now, Lilith is widely regarded by many women as a heroine who is the first woman to insist on having an egalitarian relationship with her mate. Judith Plaskow blames Adam for the expulsion of Lilith from her home, which gave rise to men’s subjugation of women as we have witnessed throughout history. Different from the story recounted earlier from The Alphabet of Ben Sira, Plaskow weaves a short neo-midrashic story about Lilith’s moral rehabilitation, entitled “Applesource”:

• In the beginning, the Lord God formed Adam and Lilith from the dust of the ground and breathed into their nostrils the breath of life. Created from the same source, both having been formed from the ground, they were equal in all ways. Adam, being a man, didn’t like this situation, and he looked for ways to change it. He said, “I’ll have my figs now, Lilith,” ordering her to wait on him, and he tried to leave her the daily tasks of life in the garden. But Lilith wasn’t one to take any nonsense; she picked herself up, uttered God’s holy name, and flew away. “Well, now, Lord,” complained Adam, that uppity woman you sent me has gone and deserted me.” The Lord, inclined to be sympathetic, sent His messengers after Lilith, telling her to shape up and return to Adam or face dire punishment. She, however, preferring anything to living with Adam, decided to stay where she was. And so God, after more careful consideration this time, caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam and out of one of his ribs created for him a second companion, Eve  . . . Meanwhile Lilith, all alone, attempted from time to time to rejoin the human community in the garden. After her first fruitless attempt to breach its walls, Adam worked hard to build them stronger, even getting Eve to help him. He told her fearsome stories of the demon Lilith who threatens women in childbirth and steals children from their cradles in the middle of the night. The second time Lilith came, she stormed the garden’s main gate, and a great battle ensued between her and Adam in which she was finally defeated. This time, however, before Lilith got away, Eve got a glimpse of her and saw she was a woman like herself  . . . One day, after many months of strange and disturbing thoughts, Eve, wandering around the edge of the garden, noticed a young apple tree she and Adam had planted, and saw that one of its branches stretched over the garden wall. Spontaneously, she tried to climb it, and struggling to the top, swung herself over the wall.

• She did not wander long on the other side before she met the one she had come to find, for Lilith was waiting. At first sight of her, Eve remembered the tales of Adam and was frightened, but Lilith understood and greeted her kindly. “Who are you?” they asked each other, “What is your story?” And they sat and spoke together, of the past and then of the future. They talked for many hours, not once, but many times. They taught each other many things, and told each other stories, and laughed together, and cried, over and over, till the bond of sisterhood grew between them. Meanwhile, back in the garden, Adam was puzzled by Eve’s comings and goings, and disturbed by what he sensed to be her new attitude toward him. He talked to God about it, and God, having His own problems with Adam and a somewhat broader perspective, was able to help out a little—but He was confused, too. Something had failed to go according to plan. As in the days of Abraham, He needed counsel from His children. “I am who I am,” thought God, “But I must become who I will become.”[12] Continue Reading

For gay and lesbian Christians and Jews, the phraseology is a source of suffering, discomfort and embarrassment. For the clergy, the passages regarding the homosexual are among the most disturbing to our modern ethical sensibilities. Mark Twain once quipped, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand. …” Here is the verse: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (Lev. 18:22). Well, would this verse qualify?

Traditionally, most biblical translations render  tôʿēbâ as “abomination.”

According to Etymology Online, the noun “abomination”  is a term that means: “feeling of disgust, hatred, loathing,” from O.Fr. abomination,which in turn derives from the  Latin word abominationem (nom. abominatio) “abomination,” from abominatus, pp. of abominari “shun as an ill omen,” from ab- “off, away from” + omin-, stem of omen. Its meaning was intensified by the folk etymology derivation from L. ab homine “away from man,” hence rendering it as, “beastly.”

Thus, abomination is synonymous with  hatred, corruption, and depravity. The Latin root corresponds to the Hebrew term  tôʿēbâ derives from the Hebrew verb  tʿb “to hate” or “abhor,” but the original biblical text of Lev. 18:22  does not explain why homosexuality is so abhorrent.

Aside from its obvious association with homosexuality, tôʿēbâ also has a distinctly religious and idolatrous connotation as in Isa. 44:19, or even for a specific pagan deity, as in 2 Kgs. 23:13 where Milcom is called “the abomination of the Ammonites.” Until recently, it was supposed that homosexual behavior was associated with cultic prostitution. [1]

The distinguished British biblical scholar Gordon Wenham explains:

• Since male prostitutes were sometimes castrated and often took part in ceremonies flaunting their effeminacy, it may well be that aversion to homosexuality partially explains the ban on castrated men participating in the public assembly, or on wearing women’s clothes. The latter is described as ‘an abomination to the LORD’ (Deut. 23:1; 22:5). It could well be that the law is banning anything suggestive of homosexual practice  . . . [2]

However, most modern biblical scholars doubt whether there cultic male prostitutes existed in ancient Israel. Despite the reticence of the modern scholars, given the carnivalesque quality of the ancient fertility rites, homosexual prostitutes most likely played a role alongside with the female prostitutes of antiquity. It seems doubtful their male counterparts would have been excluded.

If the Mesopotamian legal codes are of any relevance to the passage in Lev. 18:22, we may be able to decipher the Torah’s real meaning that the ban against homosexuality may well be referring to (a) father and son incest (as mentioned in the Hittite codes) (b) homosexual rape (as spelled out in the Middle Assyrian Codes), (c) male pedophilia, (d) castrating a male for sexual exploitation.

Bear in mind that ancient Israel was the only civilization to have formulated such a proscription against homosexuality. Indeed, the Talmud in BT Sanhedrin 54b interprets the word “zachor” to also include male child. The word “zachor” in the Bible frequently means “male child.” [3]

If this is indeed the real meaning of the text (and let me remind you that we have no way of knowing for sure), then it is possible that the prohibition was not directed at monogamous male relations, which was not the concern of the biblical writer, but was aimed at male incest, pedophilia,  and homosexual rape, i.e., anyone who sexually preys upon males of any age. In times of war, it was not unusual to rape male captives. [4] The sexual humiliation of a male living in a testosterone-driven society probably filled the biblical writers with complete revulsion. The story of Sodom (Gen. 19:1-11) supports this exposition as well. The ancients may have feared that the moral fabric of society might unravel should males prey upon other males.

According to one rabbinic legend, Ham was guilty because he sodomized his own father while King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon was believed to have sodomized captive kings. Using other biblical texts as a type of intrabiblical commentary provides the rational behind the biblical prohibition of homosexuality and why it is called, “an abomination.”

Lastly, the one likely exposition we have not considered is the possibility that the Torah forbids homosexuality because it goes against the biblical imperative for human beings should ‘be fruitful and multiply’ and does not fit in the scheme of Creation as defined in Genesis 1 and 2. As Wenham notes, “God did not create a male partner for Adam, but only a female counterpart, with whom they could together become ‘one flesh.’ This would also explain why Paul in the Christian tradition regarded homosexuality as being, ‘contrary to nature’ (Rom 1:26), and this would explain why the Bible refers to it as an “abomination.”

While there is some merit to Wenham’s statement, I believe the biblical designation of tôʿēbâ as “abomination” is because the idea of  someone sexually exploiting males–of any age–horrified the ancient Israelite psyche, just as it still does even today. As mentioned above, in modern society, the idea of men being raped still strikes a primal fear in the hearts of men because it is so rare in society, except among prison populations.

It would seem that the biblical writers did not concern themselves with the reality of a loving and monogamous homosexual relationship.

It is worth noting that some of the best known Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) scholars are refraining from using such caustic biblical language to define homosexuals.[5] These devout communities are making a serious effort to be more welcoming and compassionate; their rabbis have criticized parents for shunning their gay children from participating in the family.

These positive changes have resulted in fewer evictions, and more young people are no longer finding themselves treated like family rejects.  The suicide rates have also gone down. However, despite these significant changes for the better, the rabbinic communities still regard the homosexual as someone who is psychologically “sick,” and urge them to undergo discredited “therapies” intended to bring them back to “normalcy.”

For the gay community, the process of change is certainly not moving fast enough; but again, religious communities tend to change more slowly. The rabbis are still tethered to an archaic world view that maintains people are not born “gay.” This writer is faintly optimistic that in time, a more benign attitude promoting complete acceptance will occur sooner or later. Continue Reading

People often ask: “Was David gay?” The question is simple, but the answer is unfortunately complex.

Before examining this question, I wish to make some preliminary remarks about the nature of hermeneutic interpretation as an enterprise of human thought. The comments below are selected from my new book, “Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation (Genesis 1-3).” The issues we shall soon examine have great relevance for how we approach any biblical passage. In the interest of brevity, I have left out some of the longer footnotes so we can focus primarily on the text that is before us.

• With all the literature that has been written on Genesis, this commentary was written utilizing two fundamental interpretive sets of guidelines: exegesis and eisegesis.[1] Exegesis involves a process by which one draws out a meaning or meanings from a text. In contrast to exegesis, the process of eisegesis is a way of reading or imposing a pre-existing interpretation onto the text, especially whenever it supports a predetermined position,[2] custom, or conclusion.[3] To borrow a famous analogy from R. Yaakob Kranz[4] (1741-1804), the process of eisegesis is analogous to a person shooting a bull’s-eye. One way involves using skill to hit the center of the target. The other method involves shooting at a random target and then painting concentric circles around wherever the arrow lands. For this reason, eisegetes are often criticized because they sacrifice objectivity for the sake of subjectivity. One could argue that if there is such a thing as an “objective truth” and an objective standard of right and wrong given by the Tanakh, then eisegesis and subjectivism must be marginalized in favor of exegesis.

• Although eisegesis may seem arbitrary because of its inherent subjectivity, it does permit readers to situate themselves within the text, allowing for certain moral and practical lessons to be deduced and applied. No sermon would ever have the power to inspire a faith community if it did not convey a strong eisegetic message. Eisegesis allows for the text to remain practical and relevant.[5] If the Torah is truly as its name implies—a book of spiritual “instruction”—then its message must transcend the original context of its historicity to reveal a pathway for readers of every generation to experience the Divine. Unlike an exegetical approach, eisegesis allows the text to speak to new situations, thus acknowledging that the sacred text is polyvalent. It behooves a modern interpreter to integrate both exegetic and eisegetic approaches. Any new conceptual applications ought to find its grounding in an exegetical way within the text, i.e., its historical context, language and cultural background, rabbinic models of interpretation, and so on. Albeit such a concept may not be explicitly expressed, nevertheless, its meaning is certainly intimated by the text’s more subtle nuances.

• One might well argue that the distinction between these two categories is not as great as it may seem, since texts are inevitably read in the light of the reader’s beliefs system. Indeed all exegesis involves a certain degree of eisegesis, then paradoxically—exegesis is eisegesis . . .  [6]

Thus far, we have tried to demonstrate the importance of reading the Scriptures through our unique interpretive lenses. The dialogical relationship each of us has with the Bible will yield different results and will produce a different kind of interpretive understanding of a text. In simple terms, we all want someone in the Bible we can identify with.

Our original question about David and Jonathan’s love has intrigued me ever since I taught the book of Samuel in the yeshiva. There is a famous quote from Oscar Wilde, who describes David’s love for Jonathan as, “the love that dare not speak its name.” This phrase comes actually from Lord Alfred Douglas in his poem, “Two Loaves.”

To begin with, it is impossible for a contemporary reader to logically answer this question. The reader inevitably cannot be completely impartial because each individual approaches a text with a certain bias and predisposition to begin with. Those individuals who view homosexuality as an “abomination,” would never think to impute such behavior to someone as beloved as David. Gay theologians and interpreters approach the same biblical text with a special “hermeneutic of suspicion.” For them, there is a possible hidden message that must be extracted from the biblical narratives.

Some scriptural support for this theory derives from a number of passages pertaining to David’s great love of Jonathan. Part of this theory is also based on the idea that soldiers in times of war often developed erotic love for one another, which was especially the case in Greek society, where homosexual love was openly accepted. However in ancient Israel, homosexual love was never something Israelites would openly talk about because of the traditional stigmas associated with homosexuality. In light of this, the biblical narrators were careful to suppress the details of their relationship.

Given what we now understand about psychology, there seems to be a credible case for suggesting that David may have been bisexual in nature.

Consider the verses in question:

I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;

greatly beloved were you to me;

your love to me was wonderful,

surpassing the love of women.

2        Sam. 1:26

Centuries before the term “homosexuality” even existed in the ancient lexicons of Israel, the phrase “surpassing the love of women,” could easily be understood euphemistically as a love between men. Another biblical passage might also be a source for this conjecture:

• Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. ⁴ Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt (1 Sam. 18:3-4).

Saul’s  violent behavior toward his son Jonathan is reminiscent of how “straight” fathers react when they discover that their sons are “gay.” When I was working on my doctorate, many of the gay participants in our collegiate group related similar experiences once they told their fathers that they were homosexual. After Saul learns that Jonathan acquiesced to David’s request to excuse himself from the New Moon meal, Saul explodes with anger:

• Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? ³¹ For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.”  (1 Samuel 20:30-31).

The perspective of the gay theologians and other advocates of this position can yield this type of understanding, but the reader should be aware that eisegetical readings offer merely one way of looking at the text. Evangelical and Orthodox approaches have every right to view the text differently—ultimately, the interpretive process says more about us than it does about the scriptural text. Continue Reading

Jewish tradition has long cautioned the Jewish people not to emulate the religious ways of the non-Jew. Despite numerous biblical and rabbinical proscriptions, urging Israel to walk the straight and narrow, today’s Ultra-Orthodox Jews seem to be borrowing a page from the Taliban, a group not especially known for its tolerance, or for its respect for women.

A couple of years ago, the Haredi rabbis complained about mannequins that were immodestly dressed. In addition, they must never be shown without wearing a head-covering known as “hijab.”  I know what some of you must be thinking: You must be kidding!

Well, you might be surprised to know that the sexiness of mannequins is forbidden in Iran as well. Iranian women have to adhere to a very strict dress code much like the Haredi do in Jerusalem and other cities.

For example: In Iran, men cannot sell women’s underwear, nor are they allowed to wear form-fitting trousers, or any kind of Western styles that are viewed as symbols of Western decadence.

Barbershops have been closed down because these shops offer good grooming techniques for men, e.g., eyebrow-plucking (you see, the uni-brow is the fashion rage in both Haredi and Iranian communities among the men and the women!?), hair-gel for men, bowties.

But wait a minute!! The Haredi are not about to lose the “Modesty race,” and so in the spirit of upmanship, the Haredi have banned all female mannequins; in addition, no woman’s face can even appear on a billboard in Jerusalem. Israeli soldiers have also been told by some of the wacky Ultra-Orthodox Zionist rabbis that Israeli soldiers should rather allow themselves to be shot at a firing squad rather than listen to a woman singing. S0me extremists have adopted wearing the same kind of burka that is worn by the Taliban.

Despite the similarities, there are significant differences between the Haredi women of Jerusalem and the women of Iran. What we do know is that women in Iran regard the entire country like one gigantic prison. Women are stoned for allegedly “committing adultery,” and according to the penalty for adultery:

• The penalty for adultery under Article 83 of the penal code, called the Law of Hodoud is flogging (100 lashes of the whip) for unmarried male and female offenders. Married offenders may be punished by stoning regardless of their gender, but the method laid down for a man involves his burial up to his waist, and for a woman up to her neck (article 102). The law provides that if a person who is to be stoned manages to escape, he or she will be allowed to go free. Since it is easier for a man to escape, this discrimination literally becomes a matter of life and death.[1]

Bear in mind that if a woman in Iran is raped, and she happens to be married—she still gets stoned for having committed “adultery.”

Well, the Haredi would love to treat their wayward wives this way, but the State of Israel prevents this from happening. However, should the Haredi succeed in creating a true Torah theocracy in Israel, I would not be surprised to see corporeal punishment distributed to all the women who are immodestly attired.  The difference is only a matter of degree rather than kind.

Both religious communities are misogynous to the core and both societies have tremendous contempt for Western culture. For the Israeli government, some experts have warned that the Haredi attitude is much more dangerous to the future of Israel than the nuclear missiles Iran is trying to construct.

The American psychologist Abraham Maslow once said that “All pathologies pathologize, and all pathologies dichotomize.” The inability of both societies to respect the freedom of their women is what is at the heart of the fundamentalist war against modernity in our times. Continue Reading

As I mentioned earlier in my posting on Sodom, any society can take on Sodomite values, if it fails to guard its soul from evil. How we treat the outsider and stranger in our midst is a matter of great ethical concern. No country is perfect and even in our country, many Americans have a disparaging view of Hispanics and other nationalities in our country—not to mention, your garden variety of anti-Semites who still think we own the world (as attested by some of the Occupy Wall Street gang).

In Israel, for example, the Ultra-Orthodox Haredi Jews have the awful habit of spitting at (or toward) Greek Orthodox priests in the holy city of Jerusalem. Rarely do the Israeli police even get involved whenever this despicable act takes place; often times, the belligerent clergy are deported out of the country. Sounds like Sodomite justice to me? Instead of standing up for the victim, the victim is sometimes charged with the crime of assault. How sick is this?

Fortunately, that was not the case this time. One strong seminary student actually punched the Haredi Jew in the face, and was taken to court for assault. Narek Garabidian, a Canadian of Armenian extraction, came to Israel to study at the Armenian Orthodox theological seminary in Jerusalem. He got fed up with the harsh insults and spitting. For the past 18 months, Garabidian said last week, he has been spit at and cursed by ultra-Orthodox passersby in the Old City.

About a month ago he was spit at again, but this time, it hit his clothes. Garabidian, a former football player, said: “I pushed the two young ultra-Orthodox men up against the wall and asked, ‘Why are you doing this?’… Fr. Garabidian, Mohammed Ali would have been proud of you. I personally would never have been so kind or patient.

On a positive note, Judge Dov Pollock said in his ruling last Tuesday that the court had heard evidence of daily incidents in which Christian clergy were spat upon by members of the ultra-Orthodox community, something which, the judge added, has been occurring for a number of years and which the police has not acted to prevent.

“Needless to say, spitting toward the accused when he was wearing the mantle of the church is a criminal offense,” the judge said.

Those who do this “hurt not only the people they spit at, but the image of our country, tourism and our values.”

Had I seen the judge, I would have shaken his hand and asked, “What took you so long?” Personally, I think spitting at people of a different faith ought to be a crime, one which would carry a jail sentence of 12-18 months. That would send a strong message to the Haredi and their foolish rabbis, who inspire them to act like hooligans. After a couple of arrests, the spitting would stop altogether. In addition, cameras should be posted in places where these incidents have occurred.

In some ways the Haredi fanaticism poses a graver existential threat to Israel more than the Iranian mullahs.  The Haredi disrespect for the Other knows no bounds. For our Christian readers, the Haredi Jews do not treat us any differently.  They are an embarrassment for Jews everywhere and represent only a small but obnoxious group. The Ultra-Orthodox in Israel are doing everything to promote gender discrimination; their list of other sundry social crimes is even more frightening. Their hatred of Zionism, modernity, women, and so on makes the Taliban pale in comparison.

Personally, I think spitting ought to be a crime, one which would put the assailant spitting in jail for a good 12-18 months. That would send a strong message to the Haredi and their foolish rabbis, who inspire them to act like hooligans. The rabbis ought to stop spitting in the Alenu Prayer for a start (see my posting on this subject). We are no longer living in the medieval world, but Haredi leaders (like their Muslim counterparts) have yet to accept the fact that we are living in the 21st century and not the 12th century or earlier.

Jews and Christians have had a lot of problems getting along over the centuries. Isn’t time we try to promote good will and peace with our gentile neighbors? Unfortunately, the Haredi don’t know how to get along with their Jewish neighbors, let alone their Christian neighbors. Herein is the tragedy of our times. Continue Reading

The ancient Near East has always been a good-old-boy’s club. Testosterum  was (and still is) always in the air and especially in religion and culture; women, especially, lived politically marginal lives. That part of the world has hardly changed. Just look in the Middle East today; whether it is in Iran, Syria, Libya, or even Israel (among the Haredi and Hassidic communities)! Yet, in the same period of human history that witnessed the rise of Cleopatra in Egypt, there arose another great female leader that most of the world probably as never heard about– Queen Alexandra Salome.

Who could imagine that there was actually a female ruler in ancient Judea? Yes, over 2ooo years before Golda Meir became Israel’s first female prime minister, there was a beautiful woman who ruled ancient Judea in one of the most turbulent periods of her history— Alexandra Salome (Ἀλεξανδρα Σαλομε ), also known as Sholom-Zion—“the peace of Zion.” She belonged to the Hasmonean family.

You may recall that the Hasmoneans were the priestly family that took political control of Judea after defeating the Syrian Greeks. They were the heroes of the Chanukah story every Jewish child knows so much about.

Little is known about her, except for what little information Josephus provides about her.[1]

Queen Salome’s life sounds like a story made for the silver-screen. Born in 139 B.C.E., Alexandra Salome may have come from a Pharasaic family. Alexandra’s first husband was a madman named Aristobulus I (Definitely not a nice guy!), who had seized power from his mother, and even left her to starve in prison along with his poor brothers.  After her first husband’s death she recognizes that she too might end up the same way as her ill-fated mother-in-law, she engineers the death of Aristobulus’ brother and successor—Antigonus—and soon, she became Queen! For her first queenly act, she immediately frees her poor mother-in-law and brothers, and marries Aristobulus’ youngest son, Alexander Jannaeus (very bad idea!).

Although she expected him to be weak, she had hoped to influence him to become a part of the Pharisee party. However, all of this backfired against her. Jannaeus proved to be a great enemy of the Pharisees, and his policy led to a civil war that resulted in the death of 50,000 people.

Alexandra’s sons proved to be a life challenge. One good-natured son was named Hyrcannus II (who had become a loyal Pharisee); she also had a more aggressive son who definitely behaved a lot like her former ex husband, named Aristobulus II  (who remained loyal to the Sadducees). In her effort to keep the peace and to avoid the inevitable civil war that would soon follow, she decided to remain as Queen as long as she possibly could. She realized that in a man’s world, survival would prove to be a daunting task.

This conflict set the stage for Alexandra Salome’s reign. The Talmud, a codification of Jewish Oral Law, names her brother (or possibly cousin as some modern scholars now believe) was the famous Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach, one of the early Pharisees who popularized the oral tradition. Queen Salome is mentioned in a number of places in the Talmud.[2]

Queen Salome had a remarkable way of keeping family members from dismembering one another (pardon the pun).

Upon the death of her husband, she had to go through the proper burial rites, and for the sake of peace, she gave him an appropriate burial.

As the Pharisee party grew in popularity, Queen Salome took the steps to expand the influence of the Pharisees by appointing them to key positions throughout the country. The Sadducees soon realized that the political reality had begun marginalizing their influence.

Simeon ben Shatech once again assumed his position as head of the Sanhedrin. Under Queen Salome, the Sanhedrin focused exclusively upon religious issues and questions of justice; Judaism under Queen Salome started to become more of a populist religion for people of all ages, and was no longer viewed as just a priestly religion, as understood and taught by the priestly Sadducees.

Under her influence, Judea became a much stronger military power in the ANE. From time to time, she ordered military expeditions to secure the country. She also built strong garrison cities to ensure the safety of Judea’s borders. In addition, she saw to it that the widows and orphans were cared for by the State. Cities replaced dishonest and crooked judges with honest people who could not be corrupted. Witnesses had to be carefully cross-examined and investigated before a judge(s) arrived at a verdict.

It is unclear how exactly Queen Salome died. Was she poisoned by her ruthless son Aristobulus? Had she not died, she probably would have been forced off the throne by Aristobulus. In any event, after she died, both of her sons competed for control of Judea. Recognizing that Rome was the new world power, each brother tried to bribe Pompey. Pompey later met with both brothers and favored Hyrcannus II, who was also the rightful heir to the throne. Hyrcanus’ powerful chief minister named Antipater, who was Idumean, brokered a deal with Rome in 63 B.C.E.  and Judaea then became a Roman vassal state. Antipater’s second son later became the famous King Herod, who is mentioned in the NT and Josephus.

However, Aristobulus II was not about to give up his throne, so he engaged the Romans in battle. The results were disastrous: 12,000 dead soldiers. The Temple had become a battle zone. Pompey conquered Jerusalem, and Aristobulus II was taken as a prisoner to Rome. The Romans positioned Hyrcannus II as the High Priest, but the Romans banned him from politics.

In summary, Queen Alexandra Salome demonstrated to the world that a woman could do a man’s job and run the country better and more effectively than many believed possible. Jewish history has demonstrated since biblical days that women have always distinguished themselves in so many ways. Queen Salome joins the ranks of Miriam, Deborah, Esther, Golda Meir and others—as women who brought civility and courage to a people that needed compassionate and responsible leadership.

The recent arrest of Rabbi Moishe Turner has sent shock-waves across the insular world of Monsey, N.Y. This 58 year man has been arrested for sodomizing a number of underage boys. Surprisingly, the Haredi (Ultra Orthodox and Hassidic) rabbis of his synagogue were well aware of this man’s behavior and even banned him from attending their synagogue. However, they never called the police, nor did they allow the victims’ families to contact the police. Subsequently, Turner went on to allegedly rape more boys.

As you can see, the Catholic Church is not alone with its scandalous record concerning pedophilia.

While I was reading up on this story, I began to wonder: Why are the Ultra-Orthodox groups so reticent to contact the police when a crime has taken place—especially when it involves the welfare of minors?

The answer to this question has much to do with the cloistered world of the Haredi community; in many ways they share affinities with the Catholic Church. Both communities trivialize crimes against children; both communities prefer hiding behind a cloak of secrecy—lest the outside world find out and expose their complicity and cowardice. Both communities have no moral problem sacrificing an innocent child, if it ensures the general welfare of the collective they share.

Much like in the ancient Greco-Roman tradition, the innocent child has become the scapegoat for their religious communities. His/her sacrifice serves to protect the religious community from scandal and disgrace–but such a delusional attitude does not really work, for the truth will sooner or later come out. The rabbis/Church officials who have both aided and enabled pedophiles to function openly are responsible for this travesty; neither they or their institutions can hide.

There may be other considerations that have been based upon antiquated rabbinical policies that no longer pertain to the United States. In Europe, governments had no qualms about blaming the Jew for any sort of crime—both real and imagined. Given the constant threats these anti-Semitic governments posed, it is almost understandable why the rabbis would have forbidden any Jew to the authorities, for it was never clear whether the accused could reasonably expect a fair trial.

Alternatively, anti-Semites would relish the opportunity to make the entire Jewish community suffer for the crimes of the few. In other words, the Christian community held the Jewish community corporately responsible for the behavior of its citizens. Other arguments assert that the prisons today are so dangerous—even in the United States—that sending an offender there may be tantamount to giving him a death sentence.[1]

Fortunately, the United States personifies the ideal of the “just government.”[2] Corruption and collective guilt really does not exist in this country (except with regard to Affirmative Action). Many of the Haredi Jews living in this country really do not understand the ideals and laws that define the unique identity of the United States. Jews are no longer corporately responsible for the crimes of one of its members. Yet, in their minds, they still see themselves—even three generations later!—as if they are living in Europe during the early part of the 20^th century. Readers may be surprised to know that a large number of these folks can barely read or write English.

I have Haredi family members who still speak Hungarian, or with such a heavy Yiddish accent, one would think they had just arrived off the boat at Ellis Island. Someone should tell them, “You’re not in Russia anymore!” The Haredim need to start respecting the law of the land (dina d’malchut dina).

For both of these Ultra-Orthodox communities, they would be wise to be more concerned with the physical welfare of the victim than the punishment that the offender might receive in prison. By banning parents from reporting these crimes to the police, they are endangering the physical welfare of numerous other potential victims. Are the lives of children somehow halachically considered less important than the life of a predator?

Some rabbis, like R. Jack Simcha Cohen, argue the main reason for turning deviants like Turner in to the authorities is because of hillul Hashem—a desecration of God’s Name.[3] There is something positive to be said about Cohen’s view, even though the prime consideration ought to be the welfare of the child—which is far more compelling than just “looking bad to the gentiles.” By choosing to be silent in the face of this crime, the Orthodox world is broadcasting a message across the world: we are not concerned about Jewish criminals in our midst. Continue Reading

Ever wonder what is really bothering millions of men living in the Middle East today? In the past I have argued that Oriental societies have been painfully patriarchal since the beginning of human history. With the advent of woman’s liberation movements, coupled with the Westernization of values, the Muslim, Catholic, and Haredi (Ultra-Jewish Orthodoxy) feels threatened since they view these values as undermining patriarchal authority.

Although there is considerable literature and testimonies about how husbands control their wives in Iran, and how their very lives depend upon acquiescing to their husbands’ whims, the Ultra-Orthodox world of Haredi Judaism is not too far behind. In some ways, the rabbis are even worse.

Here is a case in point. Let me begin with a brief digression before going into the specific issue I wish to address.

Normally billboards don’t attract too much attention, unless they are the kind of billboards you would see in Las Vegas, or some of the southern cities like Charlotte, N.C. promoting “gentlemen’s clubs.” In fact, often these billboards are advertised next to other billboards promoting churches. I suppose after going to the gentlemen’s clubs, the men probably feel they need to go to church and confess their sins!

Now in Israel, the billboards are no less controversial, but because they portray racy looking pictures of lovely women—but because they show ordinary looking men and women together!  One such billboard was promoting a special program, “Oz Latmura” designed to improve the economic status of high school teachers, while also raising the level and quality of children’s education.

Haredi rabbis and their followers were so upset at these pictures, they decided to deface the photos of women,  despite the fact that the women depicted were modestly dressed! One resident told Ynet News, “Our anger is directed at the company that posted the ads, which violate the agreement with the Municipality. Municipal law bans ads which include pictures of women…. [Posting pictures of women] hurts the Haredi public’s feelings, and therefore we had the woman’s photo [on the billboard] covered [with those stickers]. The signs that include pictures of male teachers only can be posted in the city without any problem.”

Some months ago, the Haredi defaced Hillary Clinton’s picture in the Yiddish newspapers, much to the rabbis’ embarrassment and shame.

After I read these comments, the thought occurred to me that the Haredim wished to blot out to women’s faces.  But why the face? Now that’s an interesting question. I would argue that psychologically, the human face is what really identifies each of us as human beings. The human face is capable of such a myriad of expressions; humanity comes through the human face. Whenever we see a human face anguished or crying, we instinctively feel the pull to help that person. The face, as the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas used to say, “ . . . commands, without commanding in words.” Sometimes when an indigent man comes to us for help, we shy away from looking at the homeless man, for we know if we look at the poor man, we know we must help him. Continue Reading

Many years ago, I remember the time when I was sixteen years old and I asked the obvious question on a Mishnaic passage to my Talmud teacher: “What if the husband refuses to grant his wife a divorce?” He answered, “In New York, whenever the husband refused to give his wife a religious divorce, a number of men in the community would take him to the cemetery and start digging a grave for him. They would then issue the following ultimatum: ‘The Mishnah says that a woman can become free either through a get, or through the death of her husband.’[1] One way or the other, your wife will be free. Now, how do you wish to free her?  You decide.”

There can be little doubt this solution probably worked quite well in the medieval period, but what about now?

Actually, just a few days ago something like the above scenario occurred in the timeless world of Trenton, New Jersey. A Lakewood rabbinic scholar named David Wax, along with his wife, decided to take the halacha into their own hands—quite literally–and they physically threatened to bury an Israeli Orthodox man alive if he refused to grant his wife a get.

According to Reuters News, “Wax and at least two unidentified men administered a beating, showed him a body bag and promised to bury him alive in the Pocono Mountains if he did not agree to the divorce, the complaint alleges. Wax also allegedly forced the man to call his father in Israel, who recorded the call, authorities said.”

Rabbi Wax and his wife may have to spend the rest of their lives in jail for kidnapping. This is serious business.

After reading the article, I remarked to a friend, “Well, I have heard about a shotgun wedding before, but who ever heard of a shotgun divorce?” Perhaps the Chinese are right: we are “living in interesting times.”

Very interesting indeed, but for a rabbi, David Wax acted like a fool. For one thing, there is an important rule that Rabbi Wax completely discounted—with, what I might add, “grave” consequences! The 4th century sage Samuel said, “The law of the State is law.”[2] Secondly, the Bible forbids kidnapping human beings as well as buying or selling stolen or kidnapped persons (cf. Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7). Rabbi Wax should have realized the seriousness of these biblical proscriptions.

Vigilantism is forbidden by law; no man may take the law into his or her own hands; there must be due-process. No rabbinical authority has the right to assert that he is above the law when it comes to matters of physical retaliation.

Rabbi Wax of all people, should have known better especially since he wrote a learned exposition on the 613 Mitzvot.

While a part of me feels no pity for the Israeli sleazebag for getting the scare of his life, the real problem that nobody wants to address is the fact that most of the cases involving the laws of “chained wife” ought to be sent to the Halachic phantom zone where other obsolete laws belong, e.g., the law of executing one’s child for insulting a parent (Exod.21:15, 17); or, when it came to executing a rebellious adolescent  (Deut. 21:1-21).

Historically, the halacha has always allowed for annulment in cases where men abused the Halachic system in order to torture an unhappy spouse. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Haredi Judaism’s greatest hero and champion, always found a halachic way to dissolve marriages of this type. Where there is a halachic will, there is always a halachic way of solving a problem of this magnitude.

If I were Rabbi Wax’s attorney, I would make this case vividly clear. The real solution is simple and the troglodyte “Gedolim” of our time, simply lack the vision and ethics to do something realistic and practical about it.

One of  the great Orthodox scholars of our time, Rabbi Emmanuel Rackman , the former dean of Bar Ilan University wasn’t afraid to retroactively negate the marriage. It is a pity the rest of the Halachic world lacks the moral resolve and courage to do the right thing and free those pathetic women who often remain “chained” for life.

When reading about the tales of sexism that is so prevalent in much of the religious worlds of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, we tend to think of this development as a modern phenomenon. Actually, it is not.

Two thousand years ago, the Jewish community had an entire class of people who delighted in such feats of piety.

The Jerusalem Talmud writes, “Who is a man of piety that is a fool? “He, for example, who, if a woman is drowning, says, ‘It is unseemly for me to look at her, and therefore, I cannot rescue her. . . . Who is the pious fool? He who sees a child struggling in the water, and says, ‘When I have taken off my phylacteries, I will go and save him.’ By the time he arrives to rescue him, the child has already expired. Who is the crafty scoundrel? R. Huna says, ‘He is the man who behaves leniently toward himself, while teaching others only the strictest rules.’”[1]

“Our Rabbis have taught: There are seven types of Pharisees: the ostentatious Pharisee[2], the Pharisee who knocks his feet together and walks with exaggerated humility[3], the Pharisee is one who knocks his face against the wall rather than gaze at a woman[4] The Pharisee who feigns religious piety while constantly exclaiming, ‘What is my duty that I may perform it?’”[5]

Actually, these rabbinic passages support Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees for their ostentatious show of religious piety (cf.  Mat. 6:1-4). Of course, not all the Pharisees behaved in such a weird and strange way, but a number of them did! In every generation there are people who are genuinely pious; and then we have the imitators . . . like we see today.

The foolish Pharisees inspired their Christian cousins too. Will Durant explains in his Story of Civilization, in his volume on “The Age of Faith” writes about the ascetics of the 4^th century, who did their best to escape temptation; they used to punish their bodies and live a hermetic life. The extremes to which they went in their attempts to deny gratification of “physical lusts” are by modern standards, quite incredible.

For example, St. Ascepsimas wore so many chains that he had to crawl around on hands and knees. A monk named “Besarion,” would not even give in to his body’s desire for restful sleep—for forty years he would not lie down while sleeping.

Macarius the Younger sat naked in a swamp for six months until mosquito bites made him look like a victim of leprosy.

St. Marion spent eleven years living in a hollowed-out tree trunk. Others lived in caves, dens of beasts, dry wells—even tombs.

Is cleanliness the closet thing to godliness? Well, this attitude was not always historically the case. Durant points out that the early Christian saints suffered the discomfort of filth, stench, worms, and maggots were considered to be spiritually beneficial and a sign of victory over the body . . .

Some of the most celebrated saints of this era were Simeon the Stylite of Syria and Daniel the Stylite of Constantinople. Simeon spent 37 years on different pillars, each one loftier and narrower than the last. The last pillar was 66 feet high. He died in 460, aged 72.[6] Frankly, I am amazed he managed to live such a long life and not get struck by lightning.

Not to be outdone, Daniel lived 33 years on a pillar, and was not infrequently nearly blown off by the storms from Thrace. He died in 494. I am unsure how long he lived; he might not have been as luck as his colleague, Simeon.

Alfred Tennyson wrote a poem on Simeon Stylites, “Simeon of the Pillar” by surname–Stylites among men—”was the watcher of the column till the end.”

Closed religious societies often create greater social barriers to keep their followers from discovering the outside world.

Despite Weird Al Yankovic’s musical parody, “Amish Paradise,” the Amish actually have a much more enlightened approach for dealing with the threats posed by the outside world. They allow their young people to go out and explore the outside world; more often than not, after seeing the outside world of modernity, they usually return and resume their roles as Amish believers. The Square Hasidim would never adopt a policy like that because the degree of social dysfunction is so malignant, they know full and well that their followers would never return.  It takes a brave soul to leave the Hassidic cults of New York and Israel.

With the Internet and telecommunications, it is inevitable that these communities will do anything within their power to micro-manage the lives of their followers. Many years ago, at the Lubavitcher Yeshiva in Israel, I recall how issues of Time Magazine were confiscated because it had pictures of  women in bathing suits. In the Haredi and Hassidic communities, all pictures of women are expunged or defaced. Recently, a scandal occurred when the Hasidim erased Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s face from appearing in the newspaper.

If you think that Ultra-Orthodoxy suffers from OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), you would most certainly be correct. I am certain that if Maimonides and the Vilna Gaon were living today, they would declare the Square Rebbe and his foolish Hasidim as certifiably “meshuga” (nuts!).

And now you know the rest of the story . . .

Notes

[1] JT Sotah 3:4, f. 19a, line 13.

[2] He behaves like Shechem, who circumcised himself for an unworthy purpose (Gen. 34) The J. Talmud explains: anyone who carries his religious duties upon his shoulder (shekem), i.e., ostentatiously (BT Ber. 14b).

[3] He walks with exaggerated humility. According to the Jerusalem Talmud: He says: Spare me a moment that I may perform a commandment.

[4] The Jerusalem Talmud explains: a calculating Pharisee, i.e., he performs a good deed and then a bad deed, setting one off against the other.

[5] He behaves as if he has fulfilled every religious obligation.

[6] Will Durant, “The age of faith: a history of Medieval Civilization -Christian, Islamic, and Judaic – from Constantine to Dante: A.D. 325-1300″ (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950), 204.