Lo Bashamayim Hi

Parshat Nitzavim

This week we will look at a sequence of verses in the Torah that conflict significantly with the way that Judaism is practiced today. After that, we will look at the specific difference, as exemplified by the Oral Law and the development of Halacha, and how that came to be.


Lo Bashamayim Hi

The verse in question includes the words, lo bashamayim hi, it's not in heaven. It's one of the more stark declarations of the Torah about how it expects people to read its words. The following verses appear as a standalone section, set off on either side by section breaks, the Torah's equivalent to paragraph markers. Let's see what it says (Deut 30:11-14)

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

The 16th century Rabbi, Sforno gives a succinct explanation of these verses which, in my opinion hits at the basic meaning.  He says (my translation):

It is not in heaven: You will not need to go to a prophet in order to figure out what to do. It is not beyond the sea: You will not need the wise men of the generation, who are far away from you, to explain it to you.

We do not Poskin from the Torah
 
The verses and the explanation by Sforno are ironic because that opinion is flatly contradicted by how Orthodox Judaism is practiced today. You might think that if you had a halachic question, you could just crack open a Torah and find the relevant verse and decide on a ruling. Now granted, everything isn't in the Torah, but plenty of laws are. Like, what should you do if someone blinds someone else or if you suspect your wife of cheating.

If you ask any Orthodox Jew why the practice of Jewish religion seems to be different than what it says in the Torah, they may reply with the title of this section, "we do not poskin (make halachic rulings) from the Torah." Rather, to properly understand the Torah, you need to see how its interpreted in the Mishnah and Gemara, a much larger set of legal laws written in a purposefully obtuse manner.

But wait, that's not good enough either. Truthfully, Judaism doesn't poskin from the Gemara either, rather the laws from today are based in the Gemara (which itself is creatively based in the Torah), but the actual interpretation is that from various later authors, the most prominent in Ashkenazi practice being the 14th century Shulchan Aruch. Of course for many questions that's not good enough either and you need to know how it was interpreted throughout the years, keeping track of the various halachic rulings until the present day.

Is this possible for every individual? No, it is obviously not. What needs to be done? The answer given in any Orthodox circle would be to "ask your local Orthodox Rabbi" because only someone with specific theological training is capable of tracing an opinion back through two millennia of Jewish laws to make a ruling on halachic matters (and of course, they must also be male). So, in actuality, God's commandments happen to be very far from most of us, and we're required to completely trust the "wise men of the generation" rather than the Torah to make decisions on what God actually desires.

Now, I'd like to understand how this all came about. How the Judaism that is practice today bears little resemblance to the law of the Torah. To do this, we'll need to recap a bit of history. Afterwards, we'll talk about the big conceit of Rabbinic Judaism.

Sadducees and Pharisees; Karaites and Rabbinic Judaism

Anyone looking at Judaism today will see many distinct groups some close together some far apart. Most of the right-wing sects of Judaism (from Modern Orthodox to Haredim) often describe themselves as representing the true Judaism, the religion that stretched all the way back to Moshe (Moses) at Har Sinai (Mount Sinai). While it's true that the religion is old, it is not actually that old. In fact, at the time that the definitive texts of Rabbinic Judaism, the Mishnah and the Gemara were being written, the Rabbis responsible for them were one of several sects. We've talked a bit on some of these different sects when we discussed Matrilineal Descent, so we don't need to rehash old ground. However, it's important to mention these specific sects, the Sadducees, the Pharisees.

The Sadducees and the Pharisees were often rivals during the second temple period. Of the main theological disputes between the Sadducees and the Pharisees were that the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife, no divine rewards or punishments, no angels or demons, and no resurrection of the dead.

After the second temple period the Pharisees and Sadducees died out, but they each had heirs, if not direct, at least in the allegorical sense. The Pharisees gave birth to the Rabbinic Judaism that we know today, while the Sadducees yielded to the Karaites. If anything the divide deepened here. The Karaites saw the Rabbis adding new things to Judaism and changing the religion in ways that they were not comfortable with. They saw the Rabbis corrupting Judaism with outside influences, not only the eschatological stuff that they imported from Zoroastrianism, but also by inventing new holidays like Hannukah which appeared to include Roman pagan influences, or implementing a Seder on Passover with practices that seem Greek in origin. When an Orthodox Jew today criticizes a Reform Jew for including something like a "Hannukah Bush" into their holiday celebration, one can very easily envision the same type of criticism appearing 1800 years ago, except now it is the Rabbis that are incorporating the non-Jewish elements, the Hannukah candles, into their practice.

The Judaism described by the Rabbis was very different than the Judaism practiced in the Second temple period (forget about the earlier forms in the Torah!). Gone were sacrifices, deemed impossible without a clear divinely sanctioned temple requiring the arrival of a Messiah. Replacing it were community prayers, with their new lists of ordinances. The laws of Kashrut gained the defining features of prohibiting milk and meat together along with specific slaughtering requirements,  innovations that the Karaites saw as unfounded. New holidays appeared, Hannukah and Purim, as well as public fast days like Tisha B'av and the four minor fasts (edit: as pointed out in the comments, Tisha B'av is mentioned in Zechariah 8:19. Tzom Esther and Tzom Gedaliah, however, have no biblical commandment).

The list of differences is very large but we should get to the root of it. The big question is, "How did the Rabbis claim the authority to institute these changes?" Let's look at that.

The Oral Torah

The source of Rabbinical claimed authority was the Torah She'baal Peh, the "Oral Torah." According to the Rabbis, the Torah wasn't the only thing told by God to Moshe on Har Sinai. In addition, God gave a whole litany of extra commandments along with an injunction to not write these commandments down but to transmit them orally (see BT Temura 14b). These commandments were passed down all the way until the Rabbis of the Mishnah, who then fearing that the chain would be broken, began to codify them. Thus, the "innovations" they were implementing, such as not eating milk and meat together, were really there all along. Or so they claimed. Let's see how the Rabbis staked their claim (Avot 1:1, my translation):

Moshe got the Torah from Sinai and taught it to Yehoshua (Joshua). Yehoshua taught it to the elders, the elders to the prophets. The prophets taught it to the men of the great assembly.

The Rambam summarizes the theory of the Oral Torah in the introduction to the Mishnah Torah. He says (my translation):

All the commandments that were given to Moshe at Sinai were given with their explanations, as it says (Exod 24:12) "I will give you the two tablets of stone, and the Torah and the commandments (mitzvah)." Torah is the written Torah, and "commandments" are the explanations. He commanded us to do the Torah in light of the mitzvah. And this mitzvah is the Oral Torah.

Later the Rambam gives details about how it was passed down including some humorous descriptions. Let's read some more:

Even though it was not written, Moshe taught it to his entire court and the seventy elders, and to Elazar, Pinchas and Yehoshua...And many elders learned from Yehoshua, and Eli learned from the elders and from Pinchas (making Pinchas some 300 years old), and Shmuel (Samuel) learned from Eli and his court, and David learned from Shmuel and his court. Ahiyah from Shiloh was from the people who left Egypt, he heard from Moshe and learned from David and his court (making Ahiyah some 600 years old).

Needless to say, the Karaites weren't buying this explanation. To them it looked like a power grab and a way to justify the practices of the Pharisees. Let's turn now to whether this idea of the Oral Torah is plausible and what the Tanach has to say about it.

Plausibility of the Oral Torah

The first question against the Oral Torah comes from anyone that has ever played the game of telephone. We know that things get garbled in translation. Parts may be forgotten, or misremembered. Indeed, the Rabbis at the time of the Mishnah started writing things down because they were afraid of things being forgotten. In the 1500 years before this (according to the biblical chronology) through all the periods when the Israelites were subjugated, exiled, worshiping Ba'al, etc, isn't it likely that they also went through forgetful periods? So in order for the idea of an Oral Torah to be plausible from a rational perspective, one requires some divine miracles to endow the people who are transmitting it with super-human memories. Memories which he suddenly decided to remove at the time of the Mishnaic Rabbis.

But before we even get there that let's look at what the Tanach has to say. The Torah very clearly describes Moshe setting up courts of law in the desert. Holding aside any speculation that these texts were actually written at a later date, and making the fairly radical assumption that this isn't just a description of a bog-standard judicial dispute arbitration, let's assume that this represents the beginning of the Oral Torah transition. What happens next? Well, in Yehoshua, we also see him commanding the elders and the judges (for example, Josh. 24). So far so good. Then what?

Nothing.

There is no indication that any of these courts existed during the time of the Judges, and the first two monarchies. Eli does not have a court, and neither does Shmuel. The closest we get is when we reach Shlomo (Solomon) where there is an indication that courts existed, but these courts were standard judicial courts. Whenever someone needs to know some detail or fact, like what sacrifice to offer to appease God, they don't go to a transmitter of the Oral Torah, they go directly to a prophet who asks God directly for an answer. Why even would you need an Oral Court transmission if you had a direct line to God?

There is no discussion of anything resembling an oral court throughout all the histories in Shoftim (Judges), Shmuel and Melachim (Kings). Neither is there anything in the description of Divrei HaYamim (Chronicles). Even worse, some of the specific individuals named by the Rambam, Amos, Hoshea, Yishayahu (Isaiah), Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah) and Ezra make no mention of it. The Rambam has one prophet specifically learning from another, but none of them ever even talk about interacting with each other!

When we get to the Exile and the Second Temple Period, we still don't see any indication of it. There is no description of it in any of the apocryphal writings like Jubilees or Enoch. The first time we hear about this Oral Torah idea is exactly when the Talmudic Rabbis use it to justify their practices! Any perusal through Tanach contradicts the Rambam's speculation for transmission and makes his chain perfectly laughable. No wonder the Karaites didn't accept the explanation.

Conclusion

Not only is the Rabbinic description of the Oral Torah implausible. It also blatantly contradicts the idea behind lo bashamayim hi. The true understanding of the Torah is no longer visible for anyone to read in an actual document for the first 1500 years of Jewish history, rather the true explanation is restricted to a few prominent individuals who were carrying the direct line. Or so claims Rabbinic Judaism.

Perhaps you might think that the authors of the Talmud were hewing closer to the concept of lo bashamayim hi, and you can make that argument for the Mishnah perhaps, but you certainly cannot for the Gemara, which is written in an obscure style and completely haphazardly arranged so that it is impossible to find a specific ruling without reading the whole thing. And today, if you have a particularly vexing halachic question, you may very well need to travel "across the sea" to get an answer.

Misogyny (part 2)

Parshat Ki Tavo

Last week we saw various passages that give a viewpoint of how the Torah views women.  We stuck mainly to the Torah, since in traditional Judaism it represents the most direct manifestation of divine will.  However, Rabbinic Judaism practiced today by various sects of Orthodoxy is not really based on the Torah, it is more firmly rooted in the Talmud and the Jewish law, halacha, that has been developed throughout the ages.  The Talmud represents the first written account of Jewish law and all subsequent rulings are required to adhere to it. We will begin our exploration of how Judaism treats women with the Talmud.  A bit later we will look briefly at how some of the views on women from the biggest Rabbis in the medieval period (the Rishonim).  Finally, we will see how women are treated in some of the more right-wing sects of Judaism today. We entirely skip the development of the halacha between the Talmud and modern day because that would change this post into a book.

Talmudic Explanations of Misogynistic Torah Passages

In Talmudic times, already some of the biblical laws regarding women were seen as barbaric and old-fashioned.  As such, the Rabbis recast some of them to be less obviously misogynistic.  However, their view of women is still different from our own, and is nowhere near gender equality.  In some cases the view on the Mishnah/Talmud is even more misogynistic than in the Torah.  For example, with regard to the Sotah (suspected adulteress) mentioned above, the Mishnah states that if a husband warns his wife (in front of witnesses) not to meet with another man and she meets with him then the husband can bring her out to the priest for a trial.  During the trial (Mishnah Sotah 1:5, translation from Sefaria):

And a priest grasps her garment--if it tears, it tears; if it unravels, it unravels--till he has bared her bosom, and he loosens her hair. Rabbi Yehudah says: if her bosom is beautiful, he does not bare it; if her hair is beautiful, he does not loosen it.

In addition to baring her head, they also strip her top off.  But not if she's "beautiful" which you can imagine is even more insulting towards women who are not considered "beautiful."  Nevertheless, even so, the practice was abolished in Mishnaic times as Sotah 9:9 records (translation again from Sefaria)

When adulterers multiplied, the ceremony of the bitter waters ceased and it was Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai who discontinued it.

There are more overt misogynistic statements in the Talmud. Still in Mishnah Sotah we see (3.4, translation from Sefaria)

From here Ben Azai says: A man is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, for if she drinks [the magic Sotah potion], she will know that the merit suspends it for her. Rabbi Eli'ezer says: Whoever teaches his daughter Torah is considered as if he taught her foolishness [lit. lewdness]. 

Of course we know now that one of the surest ways to keep women as a secondary class is to withhold education from them.  We'll see this topic come up a bit later when we get to the Rishonim (Medieval era rabbis)

Overt misogyny is found in other places as well. For example, Pirkei Avot is a section of the Talmud with only Mishnah.  It includes general all purpose advice.  Pirkei Avot 1:5 has some advice which gives one Rabbi's views on dealing with women (my translation)

Yosi ben Yohanan, from Jerusalem said: ... Do not speak with women more than necessary.  They said, he's talking about his wife.  How much moreso the wife of his friend.  From here the "wise men" said, all the time that a person speaks with a woman, he causes evil to himself, and is neglecting learning Torah, and in the end will deserve to be in Hell (lit. Gehinnom, not quite equivalent to Christian Hell).

Talmudic Apologetics

The Talmud also included some apologetics which attempt to keep women satisfied with their second-class citizen role. One of the more troubling prayers for this topic is the morning prayer that thanks God for, "not making me a woman."  The female version, highlights this negative aspect to femininity in that is doesn't thank God for not making one a man, rather it thanks God for "making me according to his will."

This prayer is old.  We don't know how old, but it was already established when the Talmud discusses it.  The Talmud Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud) asks whether there actually is something negative about being a woman in Berachot 63b and comes up with one of the most common apologetic answers that is the go-to answer for religious Jews today who are somewhat bothered by this prayer.  It says (my translation):

Blessed for not making me a woman: Because women are not obligated in commandments.

Of course women are obligated in some commandments, so other sections of the Talmud qualify this as being the specific set of commandments that women are not obligated in.  Of course the reasoning falls flat if only one wonders why the blessing didn't say, "for obligating me in commandments" instead of the roundabout "for not making me a woman."

I will note that in other places the Talmud doesn't use this apologetic answer.  For example, in a brief aside in Megillah 23a the Talmud says (my translation):

The wise men said, "a woman should not read from the Torah because of the "honor of the community."

This idea that a woman reading from the Torah somehow reduces the honor of the community (Hebrew kavod hatzibur) has caused significant problems and has required significant maneuvering by later apologists to explain how it's really a dishonor because women aren't obligated in time bound commandments.

Bruriah

A discussion of the role of women in the Talmud would not be complete without mentioning Bruriah, the wife of Rabbi Meir and someone who was considered on the same intellectual level as the male Rabbis, yet still, she was locked out of making Halachic rulings because of her gender.  I would like to bring up one passage that to me looks like someone mocking the senseless rules regarding treating women as if they were some sort of dangerous substance that you shouldn't talk to too much.  The story goes like this (Eruvin 53b, my translation)

Rabbi Yossi, the Galilee was walking and met Beruriah, he asked her, "On which path would you walk to Lod [using 4 Hebrew words]" She told him, "Stupid Galilean! Didn't the wise men say not to speak with women more than necessary?  You should have just said 'which to Lod?'"

Part of me wonders if the sarcasm flew over the Rabbis heads as they were writing it.

Of course later Rabbis took it upon themselves to discredit Bruriah.  In Avodah Zarah 18b, the Talmud mentions that Rabbi Meir fled to Bavel (Babylon) after Ma'aseh deBruriah or something that happened with Bruriah.  Rashi provides an explanation (my translation).

One day [Rabbi Meir] was taunting here that the "wise men" said women have weak minds. He told her that one day she will admit that they are right.  In order to do this, he commanded one of his students to test her by tempting her to sin [presumably to sleep with him, smart guy this Meir].  Eventually after a lot of trying he succeeded.  When the matter became known, she hung herself, and Rabbi Meir left [to Babylon] because he was embarrassed.   

Anyone can probably figure out where Rashi got this story from.  Some person was probably ashamed that the Talmud had such glowing words to say about a woman, and took it upon himself to reduce her to a "weak minded" individual who couldn't control her sexual desires. We'll get to the Rishonim in a bit, but first we need to look at one more topic.

Rewriting the Biblical Women - "Modesty"

The ideal woman of the Talmud is one who in many ways differs from the women in the biblical stories.  Specifically, the talmudic ideal woman engages in a form of "modesty" (Hebrew Tzniut) that involved essentially removing herself from the public sphere.  As such, the Talmud engages in rewriting some of the biblical women to enforce this trait upon them, often in ridiculous ways.  For example, regarding Sarah, the Talmud says (Bava Metziah 87a, my translation)

They [the angels] asked him, where is Sarah your wife.  He [Abraham] answered them, she's in the tent.  This is to let us know that Sarah is modest (tznuah) 

The humorous part of this exegesis is that the Talmud skips over the parts were Sarah wasn't modest enough to keep herself from enticing two kings who after seeing her wanted to take her for themselves.  Sarah isn't the biggest revision here.  There's two more that are far more silly.  The first is Tamar.  The Biblical story in Genesis 38 goes that Tamar was married to Yehudah's (Judah) son, who was killed by God.  By the law of levirate marriage (yibum) she married Yehudah's second son, but he was also killed by God.  Yehudah didn't want her to kill his third son, so he sent her off.  She got angry at being forgotten and dressed up as a prostitute to seduce Yehudah one day, and then finagled his staff and seal as a manner of collateral payment. When she got pregnant, and Yehudah tried to kill her for prostitution, she outs Yehudah as the father making him look like a hypocrite. The Gemara manages to spin this story so that Tamar is a super modest individual.  Let's see how. Megillah 10b says (my translation)

Rabbi son of Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan, any bride who is modest (tznuah) in the house of her father in law merits to have descendants who are kings and prophets.  From where [do we learn this]?  Because it is written [about Tamar] that [Judah] thought she was a prostitute because she covered her face (Gen 38).  Not because she covered her face [at this point in time] and that's why Judah thought she was a prostitute, but rather, because she covered her face all the time in Judah's house [so presumably he didn't know what she looked like.]

Tamar is actively going out and seducing her father in law and the Talmud manages to rewrite the story so that she is so modest that she never let him see her face. The Talmud's interpretation of the story is ridiculous, but the actual biblical story is that of an active woman who uses sexuality to get what is rightfully hers, and that's anathema to the Talmudic generation.  Women shouldn't do that.  One more revision story ahead, that of Ruth.  The Talmud says in an aside about collecting crops that Boaz was attracted to Ruth because (Shabbat 113b, my translation)

He saw something modest (tzniut) in her.  She would stand to pick the standing crop, and sit to pick the fallen crop [so as not to bend over].

According to the Talmud, Boaz was attracted to Ruth because of excessive modesty in gathering crops. However, Boaz wasn't turned off when Ruth stalked out his sleeping location and came into his bed uninvited one night and lay down with him (Ruth 3:1-9), which is hard to really spin as modest behavior.  About the prophetess Devorah the Talmud is remarkably silent, only mentioning her with regards to prophecy a few times, and never once talking about her role as a public leader and judge.  The Talmud also describes some highly reactionary opinions regarding women's dress and behavior that serve the purpose of removing them from the public.  Berachot 24a says (my translation):

Rabbi Yitzchak says, a handbreadth (tephach) of exposed skin [on a woman] is lewdness [Hebrew ervah, literally means nakedness, but in a sexual context].  How so?  If you are looking at it.   Didn't Rav Sheshet say, why is it written in the Torah about inner garments and outer garments?  To teach you that anyone who looks at the little finger of a woman is as if he looked at her vagina.  No [the talmud actually rejects this reasoning] this is only talking about someone's wife and while he's reciting the Shema.  Rav Hisda says, the thigh of a woman is nakedness, because it says (Is 47.2) "reveal a thigh to cross a river" and then later "reveal your nakedness [ervah] and show your embarrassment."  Shmuel says, the voice of a woman is lewdness because it says (Song of songs 2:14) "your voice is sweet and your appearance is pretty."  Rav Sheshet says, the hair of a woman is lewdness because it says (Song of songs 4:1) your hair is like a flock of goats [sexy, sexy goats].  

Note that a woman's hair is considered lewd, but when it comes to men's hair which was discussed right before this passage, the Talmud says:

Rav Meri said to Rav Papa, A hair that escapes from a man's clothes, can you read [the shema] with it [in sight]?  [Yes of course, because] A hair is just a hair.

Men's hair is ok, but women's hair is lewd.  Covering the hair and the restrictions on hearing women's voices comes up a lot in modern practice as we'll get to a bit later.  The idea that you can't even listen to a woman because somehow her voice is lewd is repeated in one other place in the Talmud, along with other ridiculous sexualization of women Kiddushin 70a-b (my translation):

He (the speakers here are anonymous people I think) said to him, "Let [my daughter] Donag come serve drinks." He replied, "Shmuel said, do not make use of a woman [because she'll be sexual objectified presumably.]  He replied, "but she's a little girl!" He answered, "Shmuel said it doesn't matter if she's little or big." He said, "Can you send a message to [a woman, presumably his wife] in Yalta?  He replied, "Shmuel said, the voice of a woman is lewdness." He replied, "then use a messenger" He answered, "One must not ask about the welfare of a woman."  He said, "what about a husband?" He answered, "It doesn't matter, no one should ever ask about the welfare of a woman."

To conclude in a section of advice by Rabbi Hisda, the Talmud mentions some advice he gave to his daughters. I'll quote from Shabbat 140b (my translation):

Rav Hisda told his daughters.  Be modest (tznuah) before your husbands.  Do not eat bread in front of your husbands [presumably because you might stuff yourself and that's not womanlike], don't eat vegetables at night [you might get bad breath and be unappealing for sex], do not eat dates and drink beer at night [a laxative and a diuretic respectively] do not poop where your husbands poop [regardless of whether he's anywhere nearby], when a person comes to the door say "who is she" instead of "who is he."

This section wasn't going to be so long but it turns out that there were just so many objectionable things in the Talmud on this matter, it was hard to stop.  But I will stop now.  Let's move on.

 Misogyny in the Rishonim

Turning to the Rishonim, I will limit myself to two thoughts.  The first is from Rashi, which I've chosen not because it contains overt misogyny, but rather because it is prototypical for discussing the completely masculine dominated viewpoint of biblical exegesis.  It is in regard to the captive wife in last week's parsha. The section involves a man who goes to war and after dutifully slaying the enemy males, sees a desirable woman, and takes her home as a wife.  The Torah specifies some strange requirements for what the man needs to do to his captive (Deut. 21:12-13)

12 then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave her head, and pare (lit. do) her nails; 13 and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thy house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month; and after that thou mayest go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

Rashi comments on these verses quoting mainly from Sifrei (my translation).

Do her nails: let them grow so she'll be repulsive (and the guy won't want to marry her).  Put the raiment of her captivity from off her: Because it's pretty.  Women would make themselves nice at war to seduce enemy men to have sex with them. and shall remain in thy house: In the house that you use, so that you will stumble on her when you go in and out, and see her crying, and she'll be ugly so you'll begin to despise her.

The thing that I notice immediately in this passage is that not a care is given to the thoughts or desires of the captive woman.  Not only has her family and perhaps previous husband just been killed and she has been carted off to a foreign land, but she's forced to undergo, at least according to Rashi, additional humiliations. And these humiliations are for the sole purpose of inducing a desired behavior in the husband, so that he doesn't marry her.

Turning to the second opinion, we look to the Rambam, and see more overt misogyny. We revisit the commandment on whether or not to teach a woman Torah.  The Rambam says (Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:13, my translation)

Our sages commanded that one should not teach his daughter Torah.  Because most women do not have enough intelligence to learn, and they will make words of Torah into nonsense, because of the poorness of their intelligence.  Our sages taught, whoever teaches the daughter Torah it's as if he taught lewdness.  What are they talking about? Oral Torah.  But with written Torah, ideally you should not teach it to her, but if you do, it's not lewdness.

Here we see the Rambam holding to an unfortunate stereotype that's been with us until today.  The stereotype that women's minds are somehow inferior to male minds.  One can't really blame Rambam for holding a false opinion.  However, one can blame the myriad people since then that have used this passage and its source in the Talmud to withhold knowledge from women. I'm old enough that I can still remember a time when teaching Talmud to women was controversial. It still is forbidden in many Hasidic sects.

Treatment of Women in Judaism Today

Now we'll turn our attention to some glaring issues that appear in religious settings today. These stem directly from the checkered history of Jewish law as it relates to women.  Specifically I'm approaching this from Orthodoxy, and even more specifically Modern Orthodoxy which is what I grew up with.  We'll look at four issues in particular, many of them were discussed earlier with regard to the Talmud.  We will discuss, the asymmetry regarding divorce law, the ramifications of "the voice of a woman is nakedness" leading to the modern practice of kol isha.  We'll talk about the treatment of non-Orthodox women who take it upon themselves to do traditionally male practices like reading from the Torah.  Finally we'll close out with the dire treatment of women in some of the more right wing Hasidic communities.

Each of these topics could have a full post dedicated to it with a large amount of halachic sources throughout the ages.  I do not have the time to engage in this, so instead I will just provide a summary.

Divorce Law

In Jewish law (last week's parsha) we learn about how Jewish divorce proceedings go.  Very briefly, we have (Deut 24:1):

When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house

From here we get the halachic ruling that it is a man that has the sole capability of divorcing his wife. There is no similar option for a woman, she has no right of divorcement.  However, this leads to the situation where a man and a woman separate but the man doesn't initiate divorce proceedings.  What happens then? According to halacha, the man is allowed to marry again (since men can have multiple wives) but the woman is unable to (since women cannot have multiple husbands). This leads to a situation for the woman called agunah which literally means "chained."

The Talmud talks about the agunah in the context of a woman who's husband is lost at sea without witnesses.  Since there's no proof that the husband is dead, she cannot remarry.  She's "chained" to her dead husband.  However the same situation occurs for women in religious communities where the husband withholds the religious divorce papers.  She is forbidden from remarrying.  It is telling that after 2000 years of Jewish halacha this issue has not been resolved. Had women been equal partners in the fashioning of Halacha, the inequitable treatment would not have survived this long.

Kol Isha and Tzniut

Modern communities (at least in Modern Orthodoxy) don't follow the insane Talmudic guidelines of never speaking to a woman at all.  However, they do use the argument that a woman's voice is lewd to prohibit certain behavior among women. Specifically, singing in mixed company is forbidden (some permit it if there are enough male voices around that you can't distinguish the female ones). This includes religious singing, like during prayers. Of course there's no problem with men singing, that's perfectly fine. But women cannot sing, except for audiences consisting solely of other women.

Clothing is also heavily prescribed. Oddly, in this case the Hassidic communities appear to be somewhat more gender egalitarian than the Modern Orthodox in that both genders have very specific clothing that they are required to wear.  In Modern Orthodoxy though, the restrictions for women are considerably more onerous than those on men.  Women are restricted to wearing skirts to at least below the knees, married women must cover all their hair (leading to the purchase of fancy wigs, because fake hair is ok), and shirtsleeves must be of considerable length (usually elbow length).  For men, the restrictions are much less problematic, and Modern Orthodox men are often seen in shorts and t-shirts.

Women and Religious Participation

Stemming from the Talmudic discussion of Kavod HaTzibur, the honor of the community, women were forbidden from reading publicly from the Torah.  This continues in Jewish communities today from the right wing of Conservative Judaism through all branches of Orthodoxy. Women are forbidden from reading from the Torah or from leading services. In the more right wings of Orthodoxy, women are forbidden from public speaking at all, although thankfully this is not followed in Modern Orthodoxy.

The question then arises about what happens when women who are not Orthodox take it upon themselves to participate in religious behavior, such as reading from the Torah. This is actually a flash point in Jewish religion today, as a non-Orthodox religious group, called the "Women of the Wall" has taken it upon themselves to publicly read from the Torah at the western wall once a month. Their brazen disregard of millennia old societal norms has prompted the Hasidic groups to protest them en-masse often leading to disgusting scenes.

Of course there's the additional problem noted above that women have throughout the ages been shut out entirely from Halachic decision making.  It's unsurprising that misogynystic laws abound when women have no say in those laws.  In fact, for most of Jewish history women were forbidden from even gaining that knowledge, since teaching women Halacha was forbidden!

I will note that in some Modern Orthodox communities, there does finally appear to be some progress on these fronts. Some communities have "partnership" services which are women-led (but not mixed-gender). Also, the idea that women should not learn halacha has fallen by the wayside in Modern Orthodoxy. Still women are locked out of the traditional leadership roles (Rabbis) which are exclusively male only.

Misogyny in Hasidic Communities

Finally we turn to Hasidic communities. From this point I'm speaking as an outsider, yet I feel required to point out some of the more disgusting practices. This will essentially be a run-down of misogynistic practices that appear in the most right wing Jewish communities. I will make no effort to identify practices with specific sects, so a given behavior might be specific to only one small community. So keep that in mind as you read.

• In some communities, women are completely erased from public life, to the point that women politicians are edited out of newspapers since it is immodest to show the image of a woman.
• In some communities, the practice of married women covering their hair is not extreme enough and they require women to completely shave their heads upon marriage.  They even have modesty police that come and ensure that your hair is shaved off under your wig.
• Birth control is forbidden in Hasidic communities (and indeed in many non-Hasidic Orthodox communities).  In addition regular sex is required by halacha. The net result is that Hasidic women get pregnant a lot, whether they want to or not.
• Hasidic communities have commandeered bus lines and enforced gender separated seating (women in the back of course).
• Similarly, Hasidic communities have attempted to put up street signs asking non-Hasidic women to only walk on one side of the street so that the men won't have to come near them.

There are probably more instances of this, feel free to point them out in the comments.

Yeridat HaDorot

Yeridat HaDorot, literally the descent of generations, is a topic in Judaism that I have not discussed much. We will look at it a bit next week when we talk more specifically about the role of the Oral Torah. But for now a basic description will suffice. The principle states that each generation is further removed from a divine experience (namely Sinai) so that it has less capability to decide what is religiously appropriate. Therefore, it is impossible to overrule a previous generations' ruling, and furthermore, the earliest generations of Rabbis are idolized as super-intelligent individuals.

This type of principle is very good at keeping a stable and conservative religion, but it makes it impossible to overcome clear problems introduced by previous generations. The agunah problem mentioned earlier is one of these issues that are impossible to resolve Halachically because Orthodox Rabbis today can't abrogate rulings from earlier generations.

Because the Talmudic generations are treated as some sort of quasi-divinely inspired arbitrators, their rulings on women are handled with a lot more weight than they have any right to be. For a modern reader it is jarring to see some of these clearly misogynistic statements held today as representing an enlightened generation. They clearly belong in the first millennium CE where they were formulated.

Misogyny (part 1)

Parshat Ki Teizei

This week's topic is one that I've pushed off a couple times.  It's one of the hardest ones to write for me.  Although, since this issue was one of the major moral areas that I disagreed with the Torah (and Orthodox Judaism as a whole), I would be remiss if I didn't discuss it.

One of the difficulties I have with talking about this topic, is that I often butt up against a standard religious response.  If I'm talking to a guy, he will say, "My wife/sister/daughter doesn't think Judaism is misogynous.  Who are you (a male) to tell her otherwise?"  Of course, a similar response is often offered by women, except they're able to use themselves as the example.

To this I have two responses.  First, misogyny is not the sole domain of men.  Women can be misogynous too!  If I had time I could point our various psychological studies that point this out, but this is not the area I wish to discuss, so you reader, will have to do your own research if you don't believe me.  The second response is specifically for the male religious people.  I would say, perhaps they do think Judaism is misogynous, but they won't tell you because you are dismissive of their issues, as you currently are being dismissive of my issues.  Then, if needed I can mention various female scholars, such as Rachel Adler who left Orthodoxy for the explicit reason of its misogynistic tendencies.  Nevertheless, it is with some trepidation that I write about this topic, but I feel that I must.

While writing this topic it kept growing longer and longer.  As such, I decided to split it into two weeks.  In this week, we will look at the view of women in the Torah, and a little bit in the rest of Tanach. We will see that the Torah reflects a previous era of thinking in which women are automatically a lower class than men, a way of thinking that only has been overcome very recently and never completely. We will see numerous examples of women as lower class citizens.  Next week, we will move into how traditional Judaism treats women.  We will look at some Rabbinic statements on the matter and discuss some of the basic apologetic answers for the poor treatment of women.  Then, we'll look at the treatment of women in various sects of Judaism today.  I will note that while these posts will both be substantial, there is no way I can be exhaustive in any of these areas.  I am guaranteed to miss some statements, even possibly highly relevant ones.  Feel free to point them out in the comments!

Women are Subservient

We begin this topic, well, at the beginning.  In the story of Adam and Chava (Eve) the Torah gives it's first value judgment for women as a whole.  After they get kicked out of Gan Eden (the Garden of Eden) God tells Chava:

Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

Clear and succinct, men shall rule over women.  This type of subjugation is made clear throughout the Torah. For example, we will look at the laws of vows, which make it clear that women are the property of their husbands.  First we look at what happens when a man makes a vow (Num. 30:2-3)

2 And Moses spoke unto the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying: This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded. 3 When a man voweth a vow unto the LORD, or sweareth an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. 

Seems what you might expect.  Surely one might expect the same behavior for a woman.  Let's see what the Torah says on the matter (Num 30:4-7)

4 Also when a woman voweth a vow unto the LORD, and bindeth herself by a bond, being in her father's house, in her youth, 5 and her father heareth her vow, or her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father holdeth his peace at her, then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 6 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth, none of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her, because her father disallowed her. 

Basically a woman's father has the right to overrule any vow a woman makes.  After all, she is his property according to Torah law.  But maybe this is only talking about a young girl who isn't mature enough to know what she's saying.  The next verses shows that the right of revoking a woman's vows transfers from the father to the husband upon marriage (Num 30:7-9)

7 And if she be married to a husband, while her vows are upon her, or the clear utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul; 8 and her husband hear it, whatsoever day it be that he heareth it, and hold his peace at her; then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 9 But if her husband disallow her in the day that he heareth it, then he shall make void her vow which is upon her, and the clear utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul; and the LORD will forgive her.

The husband also has the ability to overrule a woman's vows.  The next couple verses indicate that a widow or divorcee can actually have agency over her own vows, and then it repeats the married woman laws (Num 30:11-14)

11 And if a woman vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath, 12 and her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not, then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 13 But if her husband make them null and void in the day that he heareth them, then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips, whether it were her vows, or the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD will forgive her. 14 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may let it stand, or her husband may make it void.

There is only one reasonable conclusion in these verses.  A woman is not an equal partner in marriage, but a minor one.  Her husband enjoys significant control over her actions.

Another view showing the inequality between men and women in the Torah, comes from this week's parsha.  Specifically with regard to rape, and rape victims.  The following verses are oft quoted in the context of misogyny (Deut 22:28-29):

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

Religious apologists are quick to point out that "forcing" the guy to marry his rape victim is actually a positive situation for the rape victim.  They assume that she has some choice in the matter and can nix the arrangement if it's not to her liking.  This is the standard interpretation in Judaism today, but is not clear from the Torah. However, the biblical context is easily recoverable. In the iron age Israelite society, the rapist is treated as someone who stole something from the woman's father.  And what he stole was his daughter's virginity. According to the Torah, the virginity was worth 50 shekels.  There is no indication that the Torah cares at all what the woman lost with regard to her own well-being; the Torah only cares about the financial implications of a father who can no longer command a large dowry for his daughter!  We'll look a bit more about the worth of virginity in the next section.

Indignities towards women

This week's parsha offers us a view to how the authors of the Torah were often oblivious to the plight or embarrassment of women.  For example, let's look at the story of what happens when a man dislikes his new wife (Deut 22:13-19)

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 and lay wanton charges against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say: 'I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity'; 15 then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders: 'I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 and, lo, he hath laid wanton charges, saying: I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him. 19 And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; 21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. 

The first thing to notice is that the Torah attaches high value to virginity, specifically the physical virginity (which based on an intact hymen).  There is a specific value of a woman that is tied to her status as a virgin or not.  The test requires "tokens of virginity" the Hebrew word used for this is simlah or garment.  They're actually looking for a bloody bedsheet in the literal meaning. The next thing to notice is that there is no indication that the law cares about how the woman feels in the matter. The issue here is a breach of contract between the husband and the father of the bride. If the bride is wronged, it's the father that gets recompense.  However, if the husband is wronged, the daughter is killed. It doesn't take an expert in biology to know that virginal sex will not always result in a bloody sheet. Yet the Torah would kill a woman over the absence of this sign.

I've probably already belabored how disgusting these verses are, but before we move on, we should probably directly compare them to the other story about a "cheating" wife.  This is of course, the story of the sotah.  I won't quote it in full, but it appears in Numbers 5:11-31.  The basic story is that a woman is suspected by her husband of cheating, and she is forced to undergo an embarrassing public "witch-trial" on nothing but the husband's accusation.  No evidence required. The trial results in the woman having to drink a magic potion, with the results that a cheating woman will die from it and a non-cheating woman will get pregnant from it.  Again, the Torah doesn't even care if the woman even wants to be pregnant. Nor does the Torah provide any punishment for the husband who forced his wife to undergo the embarrassing ordeal. Several times it indicates that just jealousy is sufficient cause for this trial. Finally, as just a last jab at the absurdity of this all, if you happen to not believe in magic potions, you realize that only a cheating woman actually gets the "positive" outcome!  The non-cheater will be under suspicion because she didn't get pregnant!

Moving on, it's necessary to discuss some of the laws of menstruation.  It says (Lev 15:19-20)

19 And if a woman have an issue [i.e. menstruation], and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days; and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the evening. 20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her impurity shall be unclean; every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.

This sections goes on for a while, it requires women to separate themselves from society for a week when they are menstruating, and another week afterwards.  It finishes with (Lev 15:31-33)

31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile My tabernacle that is in the midst of them. 32 This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him from whom the flow of seed goeth out, so that he is unclean thereby; 33 and of her that is sick with her impurity, and of them that have an issue, whether it be a man, or a woman; and of him that lieth with her that is unclean. 

The JPS translation is a bit lacking here, but it is possible to see that the Torah authors view menstruation as a negative stigma on a woman.  Perhaps in a time period when women were always pregnant this wasn't such a burden on women, but in later times the idea of a woman having to completely isolate herself during half of her adult life is obviously problematic.  Even today there is a fear among the right wing of coming into contact with a woman who is menstruating, so much so that far right wing individuals insist on separation of genders in all situations. We'll see some examples of this next week.

Finally, we'll look at one more instance of misogyny before moving on.  Later in this week's parsha we learn what happens if a woman grabs another man's testicles during a fight (Deut 25:11-12)

11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets (i.e. testicles); 12 then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity.  

According to the Torah, the sanctity of a man's balls are of such importance that a woman who grabs them in self-defense loses her hand.

The Worth of a Woman

We've already seen that the Torah attaches a specific value to the virginity of women, but what about women in general?  What assets or qualities does an ideal woman have according to the Torah authors?

The short answer is that the Torah authors, unfortunately in line with today, are always eager to attach physical attractiveness to their female heroes.  Nearly every positive woman in the Torah is described as beautiful.  These include Sarah (Gen 12:11), Rivka (Rebekah) (Gen 24:16), Rachel (Gen 29:17), or Esther (Est. 2:7).  It's hard to come up with more examples, because prominent women are so rare in the Tanach. There is one notable exception here but we'll get to her later.

The second characteristic in which a woman's worth is important is in her ability to bear children, specifically male children.  That there is a marked preference for male children is fairly obvious. The story of women struggling with infertility and feeling inadequate because of it is a common biblical theme, it occurs to Sarah, Rachel, Hannah (mother of Shmuel (Samule)). Of course, when a couple fails to conceive the blame is always attached to the woman and never the man. The usual biblical solution to infertility is to provide an additional woman for your husband to sleep with.  This is the solution employed by Sarah and Rachel.

I noted there was an exception, and the exception I was thinking of is Devorah the Shofet (Judge).  She is not described in physical terms, nor does the story really care about her child-bearing capabilities.  Devorah is a leader, and while she only gets a brief time in the spotlight, we should acknowledge that she's there.  In the next week we'll see how the Rabbis of later days ensured that it'd be impossible for another leader like Devorah to appear to the Jewish people.

Finally, there is another "possible" exception, Miryam.  I say she's a possible exception, because in the story we have in the Torah, she doesn't really do anything exciting.  She sings at Yam Suf (Red or Reed Sea) and she gets leprosy for badmouthing Moshe (Moses) but besides that she's not mentioned. However, being that in some Psalms and other places she's equated with Moshe and Aharon (Aaron) some have thought that she once played a more prominent role but was later removed from the story by authors with more misogynistic aims.  Erasure of women's accomplishments in history is something that we see all too often, and while I'm not sure there's sufficient evidence to claim that happened with Miryam, I wouldn't at all be surprised if it happened.

In Perspective

When taken as a product of its times the Torah represents a view of women that is about what you might expect for an iron age middle east society. It was more progressive than some societies, but less progressive than others. We'll see something similar next week with Talmudic statements that fit well as a product of their time.  The problem is when religions today take these proclamation as an ideal of how societies structure themselves, essentially reversing any societal progress we have produced since then. According to fundamentalists of all stripes, we should revert back towards a society we have since evolved from.

Next week we'll look at some views of Judaism from Talmudic times to today.

Eschatology

Parshat Shoftim

The topic this week unfortunately bears little correlation with the parsha.  However, the reason is obvious.  The topic is with regard to Jewish eschatology, that is, what happens at the end of times, both with regard to the individual soul's post-mortem journey, and for humanity as a whole.  The reason why this is unrelated to this week's parsha is because even though these ideas are central to Judaism today, the topic does not appear in the Torah at all.  In fact, it is pretty much absent from the Tanach altogether.

There will be two main topical areas.  The first will examine an assertion I made way back at the beginning of the blog, which stated that the Jewish ideas of life after death and a Messianic "Age" were adapted from Zoroastrianism.  We'll look at that assertion in a bit more detail.  The second will talk about how the idea of Moshiach (Messiah) came about and how it evolved to its present form.

Jewish beliefs derived from Zoroastrianism

Before we begin, I will note that I am far from an expert on Zoroastrianism.  So, to craft this blog post, I took out a few books on the religion from the library and all the information on these posts comes from those books.  You can find similar ideas online if you look, and as far as I know, everything I've written here is not controversial.  However, I am far less learned on this topic than I am on Judaism.  Ok, enough with the caveats.  Let's begin.

There are a lot of similarities between the later theology of Judaism and 6th century Zoroastrianism. These include things like a supreme deity that has subsumed all other deities into it.  To the Zoroastrians the deity was named Ahura Mazda [1].  Zoroastrianism also includes the idea of ministering angels [2], an idea that does appear in biblical texts, but gained a lot more specificity in the apocryphal literature and the Talmudic period.

In a previous post I mentioned that the idea of a personalized reward and punishment after death derived from Zoroastrianism.  Indeed, this kind of post-death judgment of the soul doesn't appear anywhere in Tanach.  However, it is a standard feature of Zoroastrianism.  Dhalla writes:

The doctrine of reward and retribution in the other world forms the chief part of the ethical teachings of Zarathustras Gathas [writings].  All precepts in the sacred stanzas are generally accompanied by a repeated mention of reward or retribution in this or the next world [3].

This divine judgment allowed for rectification of wrongs in this world [4] which was a superior solution to the "why do bad things happen to good people" question than those offered in Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) and Iyov (Job).  It included a judgment of the individual where they were required to cross a bridge, Zaehner writes:

The good man's guide across the bridge is Zoroaster himself.  He leads the souls of his followers across the dreaded Bridge and conducts them into the House of the Good Mind where they will come face to face with their creator [Ahura Mazda] who dwells together with Truth and that same Good Mind.  The wicked meet a different fate: 'their souls and conscience trouble them when they come to the Bridge of the Requiter, guests for all eternity in the House of the Lie' [5]. 

Here we see strong echoes to the Jewish idea of a judgment of the soul where a person is judged based on his good deeds, with the righteous entering Gan Eden (the Garden of Eden).

In addition to these ideas, there are other Zoroastrian ideas that seemed to find more following in Christianity than Judaism.  These included the idea of a "holy spirit" to allow communication between Ahura Mazda and men [6] and a evil counterpart to Ahura Mazda, "angra mainyu" which is similar to Christianity's Satan [7].

However, there is one other major ideological area where Judaism appears to have nicked heavily from Zoroastrianism.  That is with regard to the end of the world.  First we'll look at how Zoroastrianism describes the end of the world, and then we'll look at how Judaism's ideas evolved.

For Zoroastrianism, the end of the world involved a pitched battle between good and evil, with good eventually winning and ushering in a new peaceful era.  In Dhalla's words:

The Gathas speak of a period when the progress of creation will stop, the evolution of the universe will reach its destined goal, as the cycle of the world will then be completed and creation and life will end.  Ahura Mazda will come at this time with his Holy Spirit and with Khushathra and Vohu Manah to accomplish this great work [8].

The later texts give a systematic account of the final struggle between the good and the evil powers, and relate in detail how every one of the heavenly beings will smite his own particular opponent evil spirit...The Gathas speak of the victory of Asha, or Righteousness, and the defeat of Druj, Wickedness [9].

The great world drama will then be over, the final curtain will fall on the tragic element in creation; the ultimate triumph of good over evil will be secured, the divine Kingdom of Righteousness will be established...Man will then enter into the everlasting joy of Ahura Mazda [10].

If this sounds like a "Messianic Era" well, it's not surprising.  Before we go on, I want to quote Zaehner's conclusions on whether Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism and Christianity in these matters:

Zoroaster's doctrine of rewards and punishments, of an eternity of bliss and an eternity of woe allotted to good and evil men in another life beyond the grave is so strikingly similar to Christian teaching that we cannot fail to ask whether here at least there is not a direct influence at work.  The answer is surely 'Yes,' for the similarities are so great and the historical context so neatly apposite that it would be carrying scepticism altogether too far to refuse to draw the obvious conclusion...[T]he theory of a direct Zoroastrian influence on post-exilic Judaism does explain the sudden abandonment on the part of the Jews of the old idea of Sheol, a shadowy and depersonalized existence which is the lot of all men irrespective of what they had done on earth, and the sudden adoption, at precisely the time when the exiled Jews made contact with the Medes and Persians, of the Iranian Prophet's teaching concerning the afterlife...Thus from the moment the Jews first made contact with the Iranians they took over the typical Zoroastrian doctrine of an individual afterlife in which rewards are to be enjoyed and punishments endured [11].

Messiah in Judaism

The idea of a savior deity in Judaism is ingrained in the earliest strata.  However, this kind of deity always saved the Israelites in real tangible ways.  The most obvious mention is with regard to redeeming the Israelites from their period of slavery in Egypt.  Whether the actual exodus from Egypt occurred in some significant way, or even if it was just a myth grafted on to the Israelites gaining independence from Egyptian hegemony after the Bronze Age Collapse is irrelevant for this. Either way, God is credited for delivering the Israelites from larger powers than they.

It is no surprise that the same type of redemption language is found with regard to the second sojourn in a foreign land, the Babylonian exile.  When the Israelites were allowed to return after the Persians conquered Babylon, the Persians were seen as divine instruments of redemption.  It is no surprise that after the second temple period ended with destruction, the same type of redemption language appeared. The idea that God would redeem the Israelites a third time is found all throughout the post-second temple period.

However, the third redemption, as described in the Tanach was fundamentally different than the first two.  It would have a global character to it.  The third redemption would be heralded by a Messiah, who would bring a global kingdom of God.  The same kind of ideas that we saw in Zoroastrianism eschatology are found in Judaism as well.

In reality, these fragments were found in the Exilic and post-Exilic sections of Tanach.  For example, Deutero-Isaiah has a description of the global messianic development (Is. 40:3)

3 Hark! one calleth: 'Clear ye in the wilderness the way of the LORD, make plain in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the rugged shall be made level, and the rough places a plain; 5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Yehezkel also describes a pitched battle.  In reality all of chapter 38 is worth reading, but here's a small excerpt (Ezek. 38:3-4, 16)

3 and say: Thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; 4 and I will turn thee about, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed most gorgeously, a great company with buckler and shield, all of them handling swords: 16 and thou shalt come up against My people Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the end of days, and I will bring thee against My land, that the nations may know Me, when I shall be sanctified through thee, O Gog, before their eyes. 

Other ideas don't really seem to appear until later.  An example of this is the resurrection of the dead. Even though it doesn't appear in Tanach, it becomes an explicit part of Judaism.  A famous Mishnah in Sanhedrin 90a states (my translation)

And these do not have a portion in the world to come, a person who says that the resurrection of the dead is not from the Torah, Torah did not come from God, and an Apikoros (heretic, e.g. me).

In case you're curious where the Talmudic Rabbis derive the resurrection of the dead, the Gemara a bit later on 90b offers two possibilities (my translation)

Where do we see resurrection of the dead in the Torah?  From Num 28:28, and you should give the terumah offering to Aharon, the priest.  But Aaron died before they even entered Israel! We learn from here that Aharon will be resurrected so we can give him the offering. [R. Ishmael disagrees and thinks that Aharon here means someone like him, i.e. a Cohen. This is a more reasonable conclusion in my opinion]...Where do we see resurrection of the dead in the Torah? From Exod. 6:4 where it says, I will also establish my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan.  It says to them and not to you, [So we see that they must be resurrected so that they can be given the land. Clearly this is the only reasonable interpretation.]

If these Talmudic explanations seem like post-hoc justifications, then that's because they clearly are. The truth is that the idea of resurrection of the dead doesn't appear until much later than the Torah, and these verses are trying to find a justification for the practice, something that is the bread and butter of the Talmud.  Furthermore, it's also clear from this Mishnah that there is tension between the Rabbinic supporters and their precursors, the Pharisees, and those who disagreed with them on these doctrines, namely the Karaites and their precursors, the Sadducees.  The Sadducees rejected this resurrection of the dead. They felt it was a clear manifestation of foreign influence [12]. It's obvious that such a schism could not be allowed, so the Rabbis cast the Sadducees out of the divine Messianic age and essentially dared people to side with them at the cost of losing the possibility of everlasting life as well.  Half a millennium or so after the Talmud, the Rambam (Maimonides) would include belief in resurrection as one of the fundamental beliefs of Judaism, where it remains to this day.

The belief in a Messiah that would usher in a divine age has led to many different schisms in the history as many people claimed to be the Messiah, or at least people who had followers who made that claim.  The most famous of these, and the first to really hit it big was Jesus.  Around that time also was Bar Kochba, hailed as the Messiah by the preeminent Rabbinic sage, Rabbi Akiva.  About 1500 years later, another movement gathered around a would be Messiah named Shabtai Tzvi; a movement which fizzled out after he was forced to convert to Islam.  In modern times, a sizable movement claims that the last Lubavitcher Rebbe is the Messiah, and is somehow still alive, even though most Jews are sure he's very much dead.  It's not clear how long this movement will last.

Conclusion

The fact that the ideas behind a divine ressurrection and personal reward and punishment are central to Judaism today indicates the the religion evolved in significant ways from what was practiced by the first temple era Israelites. When Jews today consider themselves practicing a 3500 year old religion, the claim is fairly laughable. While Rabbinic Judaism is old, it is only about 2000 years old. In other words it's only slightly older than Christianity, and far younger than Eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.

Furthermore, the fact that the ideas clearly look like they were adapted from Zoroastrianism indicates that the early Jews were certainly willing to adapt other religious practices into their own. It makes it a bit humorous when right wing Jews rebel against modern culture and values and criticize Christian influence. Of course, they will never admit that ideas regarding eschatology were derived from Zoroastrianism, but that's ok. The evidence is plain for everyone else to see.

---

1. M.N. Dhalla History of Zoroastrianism, Oxford Univ Press, 1938, p. 31, 70.^

2. Ibid p 39.^

3. Ibid p. 101.^

4. Ibid p. 100.^

5. R. C Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism" G.P. Putnam & Sons 1961, p. 56.^

6. Ibid p. 36.^

7. Ibid p. 89.^

8. Dhalla p. 108.^

9. Ibid p. 109.^

10. Ibid p. 112.^

11. Zaehner p. 57-58.^

12. Just because I can, I'm going to use Mark 12:18 as the source here. You can find the same sort of stuff in Josephus though.^

Har Grizim and Har Eval

Parshat Re'eh

After some long posts, this one will be a little shorter.  However, we'll look at one of the possible late emendations in the Torah that was likely made for political reasons.


A Blessing and a Curse

Near the beginning of this week's parsha, Moshe (Moses) gives the instruction to provide a blessing and a curse on two nearby mountains in Canaan (Deut 11:29-30)

29 And it shall come to pass, when the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, that thou shalt set the blessing upon mount Gerizim, and the curse upon mount Ebal. 30 Are they not beyond the Jordan, behind the way of the going down of the sun, in the land of the Canaanites that dwell in the Arabah, over against Gilgal, beside the terebinths of Moreh?

Later in Yehushua, this event is carried out (Josh 8:33-34).

33 And all Israel, and their elders and officers, and their judges, stood on this side the ark and on that side before the priests the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, as well the stranger as the home-born; half of them in front of mount Gerizim and half of them in front of mount Ebal; as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded at the first, that they should bless the people of Israel. 34 And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law.

Both sections are very clear, the blessing is on Har Gerizim and the curse is on Har Eval.

An Altar on Eval

Later in Devarim (Deuteronomy) there is a commandment to build an altar on one of these mountains.  You might suppose that they chose the mountain of blessing, Har Gerizim, but you'd be wrong (Deut 27:4).

And it shall be when ye are passed over the Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaster them with plaster.

Why did they choose the mountain of "cursing" instead of the mountain of "blessing" for the alter?  There are traditional answers to this, but perhaps there is a non-traditional answer as well?

Samaritans

The Samaritan version of the Torah is mostly similar to the Masoretic version used by all denominations of Rabbinic Judaism, however there are a few key differences.  The main content difference is that the Samaritan Torah specifically calls out Har Gerizim as God's chosen place of worship.  It is included in their "10 commandments" and indeed they worship on that mountain still today.  As you might have guessed, the Samaritan version of Deut 27:4 doesn't say to build the altar on Har Eval but rather on Har Gerizim.


It's obvious why the non-Samaritan denominations of Judaism might object to having God commanding the building of an altar on Har Gerizim.  If the Torah said that God did indeed as for an alter on Har Gerizim, then it provides justification for the Samaritans' practices.  On the contrary, changing the commandment from Har Gerizim to Har Eval leaves the Samaritans in the wrong. There's no commandment to worship on that mountain anymore.

To the Dead Sea Scrolls

These kinds of arguments are the biblical equivalent to "he said - she said."  There's no way to tell which is the original, unless, perhaps, you can find an early version of the text that has the mountain in Deut. 27:4 as Har Gerizim.  It turns out that we have found such a version.

You can see the fragment from one of the Dead Sea Scrolls here, (note 2018/12/25: this link has since been removed, I'm not sure if I can find another one in public domain) where we are lucky to have enough legible text to clearly identify that this scroll had Har Gerizim in Deut. 27:4.  Could it have been that the Samaritan version is the "original" one here and the Masoretic one is the one that changed the text.

These kinds of political changes make a lot of sense in the second temple period.  The Torah was becoming the key document to describe the Jewish outlook at this time, and there were several rival factions that were trying to claim the supremacy of their specifically cultic outlook.  The disagreements between the Samaritans and the other factions are well known here.  It seems obvious that the Jewish sects that centralized worship at the temple of Jerusalem would object strongly to those who centralized worship on Har Gerizim, and thus would do everything they could to eliminate any divine command to build a place of worship there.

Genocide

Parshat Eikev

This week we'll look at one of the moral issues that was one of the most troublesome when I was religious.  It was an issue I never was able to square with my own sense of morality.  To this day I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of why such commandments were ever in the Torah.  Let's jump right in.

Commandments in the Torah

In this week's parsha we read about one of the commandments of genocide.  We read (Deut 12:16)

And thou shalt consume all the peoples that the LORD thy God shall deliver unto thee; thine eye shall not pity them; neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

The word "consume" is literally eat.  It's an odd word for the context.  Later verses explain a bit clearer what exactly you should do to these nations.  For example (Deut 12:23-25)

23 But the LORD thy God shall deliver them up before thee, and shall discomfit them with a great discomfiture, until they be destroyed. 24 And He shall deliver their kings into thy hand, and thou shalt make their name to perish from under heaven; there shall no man be able to stand against thee, until thou have destroyed them. 25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire; thou shalt not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein; for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God. 

In last week's parsha we read (Deut 12: 1-2.5)

1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 and when the LORD thy God shall deliver them up before thee, and thou shalt smite them; then thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them... 5 But thus shall ye deal with them: ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.

Later we'll read about the laws of conquering a city outside of Canaan.  We see (Deut 20:10-14):

10 When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and shall serve thee. 12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. 13 And when the LORD thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword; 14 but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

We see that if you want to conquer another nation just go to war with it.  If it capitulates, fantastic, you now have enslaved the entire populace.  If it doesn't, you kill every male, and keep the women as property.  We'll get to slavery and misogyny later, but we're on genocide this week.  The thing is, if you thought this was cruel, you need to read further (Deut 20:15-18).

15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. 16 Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, 17 but thou shalt utterly destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; 18 that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods, and so ye sin against the LORD your God. 

The Torah commands nothing less than complete annihilation of the entire populace of the Canaanite nations.  In fact, according to the author in Kings, it was specifically because they failed in this matter that they were ensnared by idolatry and God eventually caused the destruction of their lands.  Of course, this is revisionist history, as we've seen (and will discuss a bit in the rest of the post).  The point for this week is that God is commanding the Israelites to commit genocide.

Carrying out the Divine Will

The destruction of the Canaanite nations is described in the book of Yehoshua (Joshua)  For example (Josh 11:10-12)

10 And Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms. 11 And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them; there was none left that breathed; and he burnt Hazor with fire. 12 And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and he smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed them; as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded. 

Note that Yehoshua only destroyed those nations because God told him to.  Later with regard to Ai (Josh 8:26-28):

26 For Joshua drew not back his hand, wherewith he stretched out the javelin, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. 27 Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took for a prey unto themselves, according unto the word of the LORD which He commanded Joshua. 28 So Joshua burnt Ai, and made it a heap for ever, even a desolation, unto this day.

Later we what happens when you transgress the commandments and have pity on a nation you are supposed to annihilate.  Let's look at why Shaul (Saul) was stripped of his kingship.  First Shmuel (Samuel) commands Shaul to kill the Amalekites. (1 Sam 15:2-3)

2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.' 

Shaul dutifully carries out the commandment of killing the people, but doesn't quite kill everything (1 Sam. 15:7-9)

7 And Saul smote the Amalekites, from Havilah as thou goest to Shur, that is in front of Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, even the young of the second birth, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; but every thing that was of no account and feeble, that they destroyed utterly. 

Shmuel questions Shaul why he didn't kill everything.  Shaul answers (1 Sam. 15:15)

And Saul said: 'They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.' 

Shmuel is pissed (1 Sam. 15:18-19,23)

18 and the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said: Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed. 19 Wherefore then didst thou not hearken to the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst that which was evil in the sight of the LORD?' 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, He hath also rejected thee from being king.'

And he personally disembowels Agag. (1 Sam 15:33)

33 And Samuel said: As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

When God says kill everything, you damn better well kill everything.  And for the modern commentaries who like to reinterpet the commandment to kill Amalek as some sort of allegorical commandment to destroy whatever philosophy Amalek is supposed to stand for, be aware that there is no such allegorical explanation available in this story.

Moral Relativism

A common thing you'll hear as one attempt to defend the indefensible is these kind of genocidal situations were standard for the time.  In this, I completely agree.  The Torah's commandments to commit genocide are exactly what you might expect to see in any of the cultures of the time period.  In fact, the very first extra-biblical appearance of Israel, on the Merneptah Stele, describes the Egyptians committing genocide on the Israelites

Israel is laid waste and his seed is not;

It's not clear what "his seed is not" is supposed to mean, but we could probably assume it means that the Egyptians thought the Israelites were utterly destroyed.

However, this kind of moral relativism should provide no solace to those who would uphold the Torah as a divinely gifted document.  If it is no different than all the documents of the surrounding nations on key issues, then what extra appeal does it possess?  Keep this in mind as we look at some of the moral issues of future weeks.

Also of little solace is the fact that these conquests didn't actually happen.  Although, I should point out that Hazor, mentioned above, is one of the cities that do actually show a destruction layer during this time period.  The Tanach itself admits that the genocide failed (Judges 3:1,5-6)

1 Now these are the nations which the LORD left, to prove Israel by them, even as many as had not known all the wars of Canaan;  5 And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites; 6 and they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods. 

However, in this the Torah is describing the ideal, not what happened.  In the Torah's ideal world, the Israelites would succeed in not only committing mass genocide on the inhabitants of Canaan, but completely cleansing the land of their culture.

My Own Difficulties

Learning about Jewish history is learning about nation after nation that wanted to kill us or get rid of us somehow.  We were cultural and genetic pollutants.  Evil at its essence.  The language used by each generation of Anti-Semites to describe how bad the Jews mimics all-too-closely the language that the Torah uses to describe the Canaanite nations.  The desired result is similar.

So, how am I to feel, as a Ba'al Korei reading these commandments to genocide?  I distinctly remember one year, feeling no different from any demagogue riling up a population to commit atrocities on its neighbors.  So, like any good religious Jew, I searched for ways that scholars and exegetes before me rationalized the moral problem here.  I had little success.

Sometimes, people said that the nations were free to convert to Judaism.  This is despite the Torah giving no such indication that it was an option.  Yet, how is this any better than something like the Spanish Inquisition, a dark period in Jewish history?  Some commentators said that the nations could flee the land, but how is this any different from the myriad Jewish expulsions such as from Britain and Spain, or more recently from various Arab countries.  How is this option any better?  Is it truly possible that we, a people often on the short end of the stick when it comes to ethnic atrocities can't recognize when we ourselves are the perpetrators of those same atrocities?  We should be disowning these verses; scrubbing these commandments from our books.  We should recognize that these commandments are the result of heinous propaganda, and no divine being would ever encourage such actions.

Shouldn't God have Foreseen?

Again, Judaism supposes an omniscient God, one who sees the future.  Couldn't that God have foreseen how throughout history nations would commit vile deeds against others?  Even if the nations of Canaan were somehow superbly evil and the world would be far worse if they were allowed to worship their asherot, wouldn't God know that other nations would use the divine sanction of genocide to justify carrying it out against peoples that were not superbly evil, you know, like the Jews?  Apparently not.

The end result is that the biblical morality is far different from my own.  In the biblical world, genocide is ok.  In my world it is not.  For this reason, and a few others we will see in later weeks, I have rejected the Torah as a good source for morality.