Lech Lecha - Circumcision According to the Rationalists

This is the second post in my new RMH Parsha Series, which has so far been very well received.  The topic I chose to discuss this week is circumcision. At the end this week's Torah portion, we read as follows: 

God further said to Abraham, “As for you, you and your offspring to come throughout the ages shall keep My covenant. Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. And throughout the generations, every male among you shall be circumcised at the age of eight days. As for the homeborn slave and the one bought from an outsider who is not of your offspring, they must be circumcised, homeborn, and purchased alike. Thus shall My covenant be marked in your flesh as an everlasting pact. And if any male who is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his kin; he has broken My covenant.”(Genesis 17:9-14)

The Torah makes it clear that the circumcision is to be a sign of the covenant between God and His people.  The question still lingers, why is this the sign of the covenant? Why not choose some other sign? Why in this particular part of our body? and many more questions ... As the readers of this blog know quite well, the rationalist and the mystical streams of Judaism have different philosophies regarding the reasons why we do the mitzvot. This blog is about "Rationalist" Medical Halacha.  So, this week we will explore the Rationalist approach to circumcision.

The Torah - Circumcision as a Sign of the Covenant Between God and His People

Our discussion must always begin with the Torah itself, and we just read the words of the Torah itself as God introduced this Mitzvah to our forefather Abraham. We concluded that the "reason" is as a sign of the special covenant between God and His people.  In every single mention in Tanach of Milah, this is clearly understood as the reason for this practice.  Here is a comprehensive list:

1.   Genesis 17 - in the verses quoted above, the very punishment for not being circumcised is being "cut off from his kin". 

2.   Genesis 34:15-16.  Jacob and his sons declare to the people of Shechem, that in order to join with the Israelites and intermarry, they would need to be circumcised.  This clearly demonstrates how circumcision divides between the people that are "in" the covenant, and people that are "out."

3.   Exodus 5:25. Zipporah must circumcise her child (Whom Moses himself had not circumcised) to bring him to join his brethren in Egypt.  This is a cryptic and difficult to understand episode, but most commentaries would agree that this indicated that in order to join the rest of his people as they were to leave Egypt, the boys needed to be circumcised.

4.   Exodus 12:47-48 regarding the Paschal Sacrifice, celebrating the birth of the Jewish nation as an independent people: "The whole community of Israel shall offer it. If a stranger who dwells with you would offer the Passover to the LORD, all his males must be circumcised; then he shall be admitted to offer it; he shall then be as a citizen of the country. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it” It is quite clear, that to be a "member of the tribe" one must be circumcised

5.   Joshua 5:2-8.  As soon as the Jewish people entered the promised land to begin to establish their independence in their new homeland, the first thing Joshua did was to make sure all males were circumcised.  Now they were all full-fledged members of the new nation about to make its mark upon the world stage

It is therefore obvious, that throughout the time of the Tanach, Circumcision was understood as a sign that differentiated between Jews as members of the special covenant with God, and idol-worshippers, who were not part of this covenant. This is why throughout the prophets, the Hebrew term "Arel" meaning "uncircumcised" was synonymous with the term "non-Jew". Examples include Judges 14:3, Samuel 31:4, Isaiah 52:1, and many more.

Jeremiah - Circumcision as a Sign of the Removal of Obstacles Between God and Our Hearts

The problem with a physical sign of a covenant, is that people often make the critical mistake that all God wants is a physical sign, and ...presto! You are now the member of the special God-club!  This misconception was one that the prophets had to deal with from the very beginning.  God wants much more from us than a physical sign, He wants our hearts, and He wants our actions.  He wants us to learn important lessons from this mitzvah, and the prophet Jeremiah was the first to take on this problem.

In the book of Jeremiah, the prophet is consistently frustrated that the people mistakenly assume that God wants rituals, and that doing the ritual acts are enough to gain God's favor. Jeremiah lashes out against those who think that prayer, sacrifices, incense, and Temple rituals will somehow appease God.  He demands, like all the prophets who preceded him, real action.  The prophet repeatedly emphasizes the immorality and corruption of the Jewish people, and the imminent destruction of Jerusalem that God is about to unleash should they not repent their ways. The people refused to listen, they believed that God would never punish His people or destroy them.  After all, they are his favored people! Doesn't their circumcision demonstrate their special relationship to God/ How could God punish them like Jeremiah was predicting?  So, the prophet had to teach them, no physical sign on your body will save you if you do not open your hearts and improve yourselves morally and ethically:

Lo, days are coming—declares the LORD—when I will take note of everyone circumcised in the foreskin: of Egypt, Judah, Edom, the Ammonites, Moab, and all the desert dwellers who have the hair of their temples clipped. For all these nations are uncircumcised, but all the House of Israel are uncircumcised of heart (Jeremiah 9:24-25

The circumcision will not save you even though it may differentiate you from your neighbors.  If you act like your neighbors, and you do not humble yourselves, then your "uncircumcised heart" will be your downfall.  Circumcise your heart, not just your penis.  

So, the second explanation of the commandment is taking shape in the words of Jeremiah.  The foreskin represents the obstacles that interfere between our true inner selves and God.  Those obstacles are our lies, our greed, and our corruption.

Philo versus the Hellenistic Greek Culture

During the second temple period, the decree by Antiochus Epiphanes against Jewish circumcision was intended to force the Jewish population to assimilate into general Greek culture. The Jewish resistance to the decree was motivated by the intense Jewish attachment to their faith and traditions. As we know from the story of Chanukah, the Jews rebelled and prevailed.  However, the Hellenistic culture remained the primary cultural influence outside of Judaism and eventually it evolved into Roman culture.  Both Roman and Greek culture admired and, in some cases, worshipped the human form.  Both found circumcision to be reprehensible. Both did not like the Jewish practice of circumcision and wanted the Jews to stop the practice and assimilate into the rest of the empire. 

Force did not work to make the Jews change their practice, so the Greeks and then the Romans resorted to argumentation as well.  They accused the Jews of being barbaric, unnecessarily causing pain, and mutilating their bodies.  The Jewish people were now forced to explain to both themselves and to others why they were still practicing this ancient rite.  It was easy enough for a Jew to open the Torah and the book of Jeremiah and learn why circumcision was important, but how do we counter the relentless attacks against the practice from the gentiles among whom they lived?

The first Jewish philosopher to take up this challenge was Philo Judeaus of Alexandria (circa 20 BCE - 50 CE). Philo was an important Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria during the times of the second temple, when Egypt was part of the Ptolemaic kingdom.  Philo's writings are often directed at defending the meaning and purpose of Jewish religion and practice from the incessant attacks of the surrounding Hellenistic culture. Although his works have not generally been accepted into the rabbinic canon, one can still learn a lot from his philosophical explanations of the laws of the Torah.  He is considered to have been heavily influenced by the thought of Plato, and very well versed in the philosophy and science of his time.  Here is a quote from his "Treatise on Circumcision" (If you want to do the express version, feel free to skip to my summary at the end):

The genera and heads of all special laws, which are called "the ten commandments," have been discussed with accuracy in the former treatise. We must now proceed to consider the particular commands as we read them in the subsequent passages of the holy scriptures and we will begin with that which is turned into ridicule by people in general. The ordinance of circumcision of the parts of generation is ridiculed, though it is an act which is practiced to no slight degree among other nations also, and most especially by the Egyptians, who appear to me to be the most populous of all nations, and the most abounding in all kinds of wisdom. In consequence of which it would be most fitting for men to discard childish ridicule, and to investigate the real causes of the ordinance with more prudence and dignity, considering the reasons why the custom has prevailed, and not being precipitate, so as without examination to condemn the folly of mighty nations, recollecting that it is not probable that so many myriads should be circumcised in every generation, mutilating the bodies of themselves and of their nearest relations, in a manner which is accompanied with severe pain, without adequate cause; but that there are many reasons which might encourage men to persevere and continue a custom which has been introduced by previous generations, and that these are from reasons of the greatest weight and importance. 

First of all, that it is a preventive of a painful disease, and of an affliction difficult to be cured, which they call a carbuncle; because, I imagine, when it becomes inflamed it burns; from which fact it has derived that appellation. And this disease is very apt to be engendered among those who have not undergone the rite of circumcision. Secondly, it secures the cleanliness of the whole body in a way that is suited to the people consecrated to God; with which object the Egyptian priests, being extravagant in their case, shave the whole of their bodies; for some of these evils which ought to be got rid of are collected in and lodge under the hair and the prepuce. 

Thirdly, there is the resemblance of the part that is circumcised to the heart; for both parts are prepared for the sake of generation; for the breath contained within the heart is generative of thoughts, and the generative organ itself is productive of living beings.
Therefore, the men of old thought it right to make the evident and visible organ, by which the objects of the outward senses are generated, resemble that invisible and superior part, by means of which ideas are formed. The fourth, and most important, is that which relates to the provision thus made for prolificness; for it is said that the seminal fluid proceeds in its path easily, neither being at all scattered, nor flowing on its passage into what may be called the bags of the prepuce. On which account those nations which practice circumcision are the most prolific and the most populous.

These considerations have come to our ears, having been discussed of old among men of divine spirit and wisdom, who have interpreted the writings of Moses in no superficial or careless manner. But, besides what has been already said, I also look upon circumcision to be a symbol of two things of the most indispensable importance.

First of all, it is a symbol of the excision of the pleasures which delude the mind; for since, of all the delights which pleasure can afford, the association of man with woman is the most exquisite, it seemed good to the lawgivers to mutilate the organ which ministers to such connections; by which rite they signified figuratively the excision of all superfluous and excessive pleasure, not, indeed, of one only, but of all others whatever, through that one which is the most imperious of all.

The second thing is, that it is a symbol of a man's knowing himself, and discarding that terrible disease, the vain opinion of the soul; for some men, like good statuaries, have boasted that they can make that most beautiful animal, man; and, being puffed up with arrogance, have deified themselves, hiding from sight the true cause of the creation of all things namely, God, although they might have corrected that error from a consideration of other persons among whom they live; for there are among them many men who have no children, and many barren women whose connections lead to nothing, so that they grow old in childlessness.

We must therefore eradicate evil opinions from the mind, and all other ideas which are not devoted to God.

To summarize the ideas express by Philo, there are five main ideas:  

1. It prevents disease, such as some sort of "carbuncle" which can grow on the foreskin

2. It is clean, and prevents diseases which reside underneath the foreskin and cause some sort of infection

3. It represents the removal of the "foreskin of the heart" and brings about humility. It teaches us that even our own bodies are not perfect, and that we must humble ourselves before our true creator, God 

4.  It increases fertility by allowing more semen to be ejaculated

5.   It reduces sexual pleasure, which he viewed as a positive result in that it helps people focus more on God 

We have now added several more explanations of the circumcision commandment that we have not yet been exposed to.  Some of Philo's explanations were eventually adopted by later rabbinic scholars, and some were dropped and eventually ignored, as we shall see, Interestingly, the reason explicitly stated in the Torah, that of a sign of the special covenant between God and His people, was not mentioned by Philo.  Perhaps this was because many Egyptians themselves practiced circumcision, and Philo was trying to highlight similarities to gain acceptance by the society within which he lived.  He was not trying to highlight what made the Jews different.  

Rabbi Akiva - Man Perfects God's Creation

 A distinction is often made by Jewish writers between two types of commandments.  There are "Chukim" and there are "Mishpatim".   In general, a mishpat refers to a commandment in the Torah that is logical and something we probably would have come up with on our own, even without the Torah.  Examples would include most interpersonal mitzvot, such as honesty, charity etc.  A "chok" on the other hand refers to a mitzvah that does not make logical sense, and we would not have deduced it on our own. Examples would include restrictions against mixing meat and dairy etc...  These are extremely broad concepts of course.   

In general, rationalist thinkers tend to minimize the "chok" aspect of the Torah, and attempt to explain every mitzvah with a logical and sometimes scientific explanation.  When this is difficult, rather than say that there is no logical reason, such philosophers tend to say that we may not know the reason, but if we research hard enough, we will find the reason.  The most important such philosopher of course is Maimonides, who devotes an entire section in his Guide to explaining the reasons for mitzvot, even the ones that others dismiss as "chukim” ...

Philosophers that tend toward mystical thinking tend to emphasize the spiritual benefits of doing mitzvot because God commanded them.  There does not have to be a philosophical or scientific or social explanation. They tend to emphasize doing God's commandments because they are God's commandments. Period.  Even mitzvot that do make obvious logical sense should be performed out of allegiance to god, not because of mundane reasons.  The most extreme of such philosophers are those influenced by Kabbalah, but certainly there were many among the Talmudic Rabbis as well that emphasized this approach as well.

During the time of the Mishna and Talmud, there is of course a tremendous amount of discussion regarding the special mitzvah of circumcision.  However, almost all the discussion is about the laws of the mitzvah, the significance of the covenant between God and His people, and the holiness and importance of the rite of circumcision.  It is clear from the Talmud and Mishna that the reason for the mitzvah was, as stated in the Torah, a symbol of the covenant between God and the Jewish people. 

The first glimmer in the rabbinic literature that described another philosophical justification for the mitzvah of Milah is a discussion recorded in the Midrash Tanchuma. The Midrash tanchuma is one of the latest of all the Midrashim, and it appeared in its current form somewhere around the 8th or 9th century, but it is a compilation of rabbinic teachings that have been traced to much earlier times. Some have traced at least parts of the collection as far back as the second or third century (My translation from the Buber edition of Medrash Tanchuma Tazria:5).

How do we know that (circumcision) is considered a chok (something with no understandable reason)? As it says in Psalms 105:10 "And God established this for Jacob as a chok, for all of Israel a covenant forever" ..... There was a story that occurred when the evil Turnus Rufus (The Aramaic name of the  Roman governor, whose Roman name was Quintus Tineius Rufus, ruled in the time of Rabbi Akiva circa 90-130 CE, his tyrannical rule over the former Judea was so iron fisted and abusive that he is largely credited for spawning the Bar Kokhba rebellion against Rome.  His initial attempts at putting down the rebellion failed, and he was eventually disgraced due to his failure to control the Jewish rebellion) asked Rabbi Akiva, "Whose actions are more beautiful, God's or human beings?" Rabbi Akiva answered, "those of human beings!" Turnus Rufus responded, "Behold the heavens and the Earth, can a human being create anything like that?" Rabbi Akiva answered, "Don't ask me questions about things that human beings are not capable of, (as clearly that is a silly question and the two cannot be compared) If you are going to ask me questions of comparison, ask about things that human beings are capable of!" He then asked Rabbi Akiva, "Why are you (Jews) circumcised?" "I knew that's what you really wanted to ask!" Rabbi Akiva answered, "and that's why I said that the actions of human beings are more beautiful." Rabbi Akiva then brought in front of Turnus Rufus some stalks of grain and some cookies. He then said to Turnus rufus, "These (the stalks of grain) are the work of God's hands, and these (the cookies) are the work of man, aren't these cookies nicer than the stalks of grain?" Turnus Rufus then responded, "If God wanted you to be circumcised, why didn't He have babies be born circumcised already?" To which Rabbi Akiva responded, "When a baby comes out, isn’t the placenta that comes out with him attached by an umbilical cord that his mother must cut? As to your question regarding why God didn’t create the baby already circumcised, because God gave us commandments in order that we should purify and improve ourselves! This is why King David said, "The words of God purify! (Psalms 18:31)" 

This Medrash is extremely important for several reasons.  First of all, it defines circumcision clearly as a chok, a mitzvah which we would not have logically derived on our own.  But then Rabbi Akiva is forced to defend the practice in front of a Roman Governor, like the types of people Philo wrote his defense of circumcision in response to. However, Rabbi Akiva gave a quite different answer than Philo, and with his answer Rabbi Akiva spoke to the essence of what Judaism is really about.  A Roman cannot imagine a God that does not create something perfect, that is what makes Him a God!  However, a Jew believes that God created a world and gave us human beings a mission to sanctify this world, to bring holiness and spread the message of God.  God deliberately created an "imperfect" world and gave us a job to do.  The world God created was designed so that we must perfect it.  In this sense God also created a baby boy and asked us to complete the creation.  This lesson should be imprinted on us from our very childhood.  If the world is not right, it is our job to fix it.  It is not right to stand by and let evil pass simply by saying that "This must be what God wants".

Rabbi Saadiah Gaon - A Covenant is a Two-way Street

Rabbi Saadiah Gaon (882-942) was one of the most important rationalist Jewish philosophers, and one of the first to write a detailed book on Jewish philosophy.  In the context of a discussion of philosophical questions that a Rationalist might ask that would challenge his belief in the truth of the Torah, Rabbi Saadia Gaon writes as follows (my own translation, Ha'Emunot Ve'ha'deyot 3:10):

The seventh question that one might be bothered by is when he is thinking about some of the commandments. How could it be that when a man is healthy and complete as he was created, that it is not perfect (as intended by God)? Then suddenly when he removes a certain body part (from a perfectly healthy child) now the child is complete? Obviously, I am referring to (the mitzvah of) circumcision! I will therefore explain to you, that perfection is when something both has nothing missing, but also has nothing extra, and God, when he created man placed this extra body part on man, in order that human beings when they will remove it, will create perfection.

Rabbi Saadiah is responding to skeptics who are asking the same question that Turnus Rufus asked Rabbi Akiva.  Isn't God's creation perfect?  To which Rabbi Saadiah gave the same answer as Rabbi Akiva, with a little different emphasis.  NO, God deliberately created a world that is not perfect, and it is our job as human beings to make it perfect.  Sometimes that requires building things, and sometimes removing things.  This then is the lesson we are supposed to learn from the sign of the covenant.  A true covenant must be a two-way street.  We must bring the world closer to God by repairing it, as he brings us closer to him by His teachings.  

Maimonides - Controlling Sexual Urges

Maimonides is the most famous of the Rationalist Jewish thinkers, and he devoted an entire section of his philosophic magnum opus, The Guide to the Perplexed, to the mission of explaining the reasons for the mitzvot.  Here is how Maimonides explains the mitzvah of circumcision:

As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate. Some people believe that circumcision is to remove a defect in man’s formation; but every one can easily reply: How can products of nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially as the use of the fore-skin to that organ is evident. This commandment has not been enjoined as a complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting man’s moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning. Our Sages (Beresh. Rabba, c. 80) say distinctly: It is hard for a woman, with whom an uncircumcised had sexual intercourse, to separate from him. This is, as I believe, the best reason for the commandment concerning circumcision. And who was the first to perform this commandment? Abraham, our father! of whom it is well known how he feared sin; it is described by our Sages in reference to the words, “Behold, now I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon” (Gen. xii. 11).

There is, however, another important object in this commandment. It gives to all members of the same faith, i.e., to all believers in the Unity of God, a common bodily sign, so that it is impossible for any one that is a stranger, to say that he belongs to them. For sometimes people say so for the purpose of obtaining some advantage, or in order to make some attack upon the Jews. No one, however, should circumcise himself or his son for any other reason but pure faith; for circumcision is not like an incision on the leg, or a burning in the arm, but a very difficult operation. It is also a fact that there is much mutual love and assistance among people that are united by the same sign when they consider it as [the symbol of] a covenant. Circumcision is likewise the [symbol of the] covenant which Abraham made in connexion with the belief in God’s Unity. So also every one that is circumcised enters the covenant of Abraham to believe in the unity of God, in accordance with the words of the Law, “To be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Gen. xvii. 7). This purpose of the circumcision is as important as the first, and perhaps more important. (Guide to the Perplexed 3:49, Friedlander translation)

Maimonides is well known for his aversion to sexual behavior in general, following in the footsteps of his mentor Aristotle who believed that sexual desire and activity was the basest of human instincts.  It was therefore quite logical for Maimonides to assume that the reduction of sexual pleasure and behavior was a good and healthy thing from a scientific perspective.  So according to Maimonides, the circumcision reduced both male and female sexual pleasure, which for him was a reasonable scientific explanation. Interestingly though, after his scientific rationale for circumcision, Maimonides emphasizes the spiritual aspect of the sign of the covenant between the Jewish people and God, and the solidarity among the people of the covenant as expressed by this bodily sign.  In this, Maimonides is being completely consistent with his usual approach of using the scriptural basis of the laws together with what he saw as scientific and logical basis as well.

The Sefer HaChinuch (Author uncertain, 13th century Spain) combines both Maimonides' discussion and Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, and describes the reason for the mitzvah of Milah as being both a sign to differentiate between Jews and Gentiles, and as a physical completion that God left to human beings.  He does not describe why a body without a foreskin is more complete though and does not mention Maimonides description of a decrease in sexual desire or the health benefits described by Philo.

Maimonides has now brought into the rabbinic discussion the claims that Philo made a thousand years earlier.  That the lesson of the circumcision was that we must appropriately control our physical urges.  Both Maimonides and Philo understood this physiologically, i.e. that removing the foreskin lessened the sex drive.  However, later thinkers understood this more as a moral lesson.  That by removing the foreskin we remind ourselves that are sexual behavior needs to be properly controlled and appropriately expressed.  We will see this shortly in the words of Rabbi Hirsch.

A Quick Nod to the Mystics

As the mystical approach to Torah became more dominant in Judaism, there were of course many mystical and spiritual explanations of the special mitzvah of circumcision.   Comparisons of the blood of Milah to the blood of sacrifices, comparisons between the blood of the Milah to the binding of Isaac, the idea that the name of God was "written" on the Jewish man's body through circumcision, and many more spiritual explanations.  However, I am writing this blog as a chronicler of the rationalist approach, so I am not going to do an exhaustive review of the mystical significance of this mitzvah. It is important however to remind the readers of the blog that there is an extraordinarily rich history of spiritual explanations and meanings behind this ritual.  I am not belittling them at all, God forbid.  I would just have to start a new blog to discuss "Mystical Medical Halacha" and I am sorry, but I am not planning such a blog.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch Responds to Reform

Both the mystical and rationalistic traditions regarding circumcision continued to flourish for centuries side by side until modern times. For the rationalists, the explanations of Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, Rambam, and the Sefer HaChinuch remained the basis of the circumcision ritual. All was well with circumcision among Jews until the advent of the reform movement.  One of the first religious practices attacked by the Reform movement was the practice of circumcision.  The arguments against it included: that it was "barbaric", that God doesn't create "imperfect" human beings, that it was designed to separate Jews from others, that it violates the free choice of the child, that it violates the Torah's principle of not injuring oneself, and so on.  Most of these arguments we have already seen in our discussions of the attacks of the gentiles against circumcision, but now these attacks were coming from fellow Jews.

The spiritualist and mystically oriented Jews of Eastern Europe did not really have to confront the "rationalist" arguments of the anti-circumcizers.  For them, the spiritual reasons for circumcision were enough.  However, the Rationalist Halacha observant Jews, mostly concentrated in Germany and other Western European countries, desperately needed an educated and informed rationalist response to the anti-circumcision onslaught brought on by the reformers.  The most important and most articulate rationalist defender of Orthodoxy was Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888), and he stepped up to the plate and produced what remains the most beautiful and well-reasoned explanation of the sign of the covenant.

Rabbi Hirsch writes a lengthy treatise on the subject which is detailed and too long to quote here in its entirety.  I am therefore going to summarize his ideas in my own words, and for those who would like to read it in the original, please see his Essay "A Basic Outline of Jewish Symbolism" which is printed in several of the various collections of Rabbi Hirsch's writings.

According to Rabbi Hirsch, the mitzvah of Brit Milah symbolizes the very essence of what differentiates Judaism from many other religions. In other religions, sexual activity, indeed all physical activity is considered mundane and unholy.  They may be necessary for life, but they are still physical and mundane.  However, a Jew worships God and sanctifies life by the very mundane activities that others think are just debased and physical.  A Jew does this by following God's instructions on how to perform these otherwise physical behaviors. Nowhere is this idea more evident than when it comes to human sexuality.  Sexuality is holy and special, and sanctifies the human body, but only when it is done properly in the proper context.  By commanding His people to remove the foreskin of the male sexual organ, God is reminding us in a physical way how holy and special the sexual act is, if we remember His guidance and laws.  The covenant between God and His people is exactly this.  We make the world holy by using the bodies and emotions and drives that He created us with for their proper purpose.

Rabbi Hirsch goes on to describe how the removal of the foreskin symbolizes the removal of that which separates our physicality from our spirituality.   In Judaism, the two are not separate, but they are two parts of one whole.  Judaism does not believe or teach that the physical and spiritual reside on different planes.  They are all one and the same in the service of Godliness.

Ultimately though, Rabbi Hirsch still defines the essence of circumcision as a "chok" - something we do because God commanded us so, and not for health reasons. We do it because God asked us to make a sign on our bodies of the special covenant between us and God.   It is that covenant that gives us the ability to elevate the mundane and sanctify the profane.

For those familiar with the teachings of Rabbi Hirsch, the above summary of his ideas regarding circumcision would sound remarkably familiar.  Rabbi Hirsch often emphasizes the symbolism of the actions that we do for God.  The meaning in our actions lies in understanding the lessons that this action is supposed to teach.  This is rationalistic in the sense that it provides meaning to the action, though it also avoids assigning scientific reasons to the action.  The action itself remains a chok, something we will never fully grasp.  But we can grasp the lessons that we are supposed to learn from this act.

Post Rabbi Hirsch - Nothing New

After Rabbi Hirsch many rabbis have written about this subject, but as far as I could find, no one has come up with anything new that was not already said.  So, I will end my survey of rabbinic literature with Rabbi Hirsch. In general, the "health benefits" arguments of Maimonides and Philo fell by the wayside, and the symbolism of the covenant, and the many lessons to be learned have become the mainstay of the rabbinic rationalist approach towards circumcision.

There is an obvious advantage to dropping the health-related arguments.  Science can, and has, proven these arguments to be wrong in many cases.  So clearly one is taking a dangerous position by attempting to explain the Torah with scientific claims that may one day be disproven.  However, the Rambam in many places understood and stated specifically that his suggestions were just suggestions.  If these assertions are one day proven false, Maimonides would simply have moved on to another possible suggestion.  

Let me summarize the "reasons" that we have discussed regarding the practice of circumcision:

1.  A sign of the special covenant between God and His people (Torah)

2.  A physical sign of our membership in a specific group (Torah and described by Maimonides and sefer HaChinuch)

3.  A symbol to remind us to remove the obstacles of corruption that separate our hearts from God (Jeremiah)

4.  Health reasons (Philo)

5.  reduction of sexual pleasure (Maimonides and Philo)

6.  Increased fertility (Philo)

7.  To teach us that man is meant to work on and perfect God's creation (Rabbi Akiva)

8.  A covenant is a two-way street (Rabbi Sa'adiah Gaon)

9.  To teach us to control our sexual urges (Maimonides)

10. To teach us the concept that we sanctify the mundane by adhering to God's instructions (Rabbi Hirsch)

11. To teach us that are no barriers in Judaism between the physical and spiritual, all is holy (Rabbi Hirsch)

12. a bazillion spiritual, mystical, and kabbalistic explanations

13. it is a chok. God said so. period. 

(Reasons 5 and 6 have been proven to be scientifically incorrect. Reason #4 is scientifically correct but not exactly in the same way that Philo presented it)

 

Before we leave this subject, I believe that it is important to write about the current medical science regarding the health benefits of circumcision.  Not because these are the reasons for the commandment, we just discussed those in detail, but because it is interesting that this practice does have known and scientifically proven health benefits.  Please see this statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics for the full details of the medical benefits of circumcision.  

It is encouraging to know, that this practice that Jews have been doing for thousands of years, has the following medical benefits and more: Circumcision reduces the transmission rates of almost all STDs thus protecting both the circumcised male and his female sexual partner. These STD's include HIV, HPV, syphilis, herpes, Chancroid, and several more.  It was noted to have a protective effect against Bacterial vaginosis in female partners of circumcised men, and on the rates of cervical cancer in female partners and penile cancer in the men themselves.  Circumcision reduces the rates of urinary tract infections in baby boys, and phimosis in adult men.  There is also clear evidence that there is no reduction in sexual functioning, sexual desire, or sexual satisfaction in either circumcised men or their female partners.  There is clear evidence of no difference in fertility.  Please read the link I posted above for more details.

There is obviously much more to be discussed about this subject. But this is a weekly Parsha post, and my goal was to give the rationalist approach to a medical halacha in this week's parsha, and I hope I accomplished this task.  Please let me know what you think!

Noach - Can Suicide be Justified?

This will be my first installment in my new weekly RMH Parsha series!  

I decided to temporarily venture away from the Kosher topic and to try this out.  I hope this new series will be informative and stimulate interesting discussion. I might miss a few weeks, but I will try to pick a "medical-Halachic" topic from the weekly parshah (Torah portion) and write about it.

This week I had a lot to choose from, but I will choose to discuss the topic of suicide in Halacha. In the Torah portion this week we read the story of Noah and the flood.  When Noah left the ark as the flood receded, God instructed him as follows:

But for your own life-blood I will require a reckoning: I will require it of every beast; of man, too, will I require a reckoning for human life, of every man for that of his fellow man! (Genesis 9:5)

The words "for your own lifeblood etc." have been interpreted by the Talmud as the Biblical origin of the prohibition against taking one's own life.

...as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And surely your blood of your souls will I require” (Genesis 9:5), and Rabbi Elazar says: From the hand of your souls, i.e., from yourself, will I require your blood, meaning one is liable even for taking his own life (Tractate Bava Kamma 91b)

This law was codified by Maimonides (Mishna Torah Laws of Murder 2:2) and in all subsequent Halachic codes.  Not much controversy there, and a standard accepted Halacha.  However, it is not so simple.  There have been many high-profile cases of suicides in the turbulent and difficult history of the Jewish people. I will list some of the more prominent instances and describe briefly the controversy surrounding each one.

Avoiding Certain Painful Death 

First, let us look at the suicides recorded in the Tanach.  We will begin with the tragic fate of King Saul, who was the first king of the united Kingdom of Israel, as he was surrounded by the Philistine enemy, and faced certain capture and likely taunting and torture. 

The Philistines attacked Israel, and the men of Israel fled before the Philistines and [many] fell on Mount Gilboa. The Philistines pursued Saul and his sons, and the Philistines struck down Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua, sons of Saul. The battle raged around Saul, and some of the archers hit him, and he was severely wounded by the archers. Saul said to his arms-bearer, “Draw your sword and run me through, so that the uncircumcised may not run me through and make sport of me.” But his arms-bearer, in his great awe, refused; whereupon Saul grasped the sword and fell upon it. When his arms-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. (Samuel I 31:2-5)

The reasoning for the suicide of Saul and his arms-bearer seems obvious.  He faced imminent capture by the Philistines, the enemy with whom he had fought countless wars throughout his reign. Once captured, it is not difficult to imagine what he would have been forced to endure at their hands. In addition, one can imagine the humiliation that this would have caused to the people of Israel when their King was treated this way.  In Jeremiah we find how the Chaldean enemy would desecrate the bones of the buried kings in order to humiliate the people of Judah at the time of the destruction of the first temple:

At that time—declares the LORD—the bones of the kings of Judah, of its officers, of the priests, of the prophets, and of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be taken out of their graves and exposed to the sun, the moon, and all the host of heaven which they loved and served and followed, to which they turned and bowed down. They shall not be gathered for reburial; they shall become dung upon the face of the earth (Jeremiah 8:1-2)

One can only imagine what the Philistines would have done to the King when captured alive.

The Rabbis (Genesis Rabbah 34:13) point out that the language "but...reckoning" (see full quote above Genesis 9:5) " infers that there are exceptions to this rule.  The example the rabbis give is the suicide of Saul (And Hananiah Mishael and Azariah which we will discuss later).  So apparently, in this instance the Rabbis approved of the suicide of Saul. We mentioned two potential rationales for his suicide, to avoid torture and death and to avoid national humiliation.  The Rabbis do not explain why they supported his decision, but it is reasonable to assume that it was because he was avoiding certain death at the hands of the enemy.  This is because Saul explicitly stated this reason.  This is indeed how it was understood by the later Halakhists, as it was codified in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 345.  

This then is the first understandable rationale for suicide, to avoid certain painful death.  Whether or not this can be extended to the avoidance of certain painful death at the hands of a different type of "enemy", such as a terminal illness is a very interesting question. However, it is beyond the scope of this post.

Suicide to Save Others

The next famous suicide recorder in Tanach is that of the mighty Samson:

As their spirits rose, they said, “Call Samson here and let him dance for us.” Samson was fetched from the prison, and he danced for them. Then they put him between the pillars. And Samson said to the boy who was leading him by the hand, “Let go of me and let me feel the pillars that the temple rests upon, that I may lean on them.” Now the temple was full of men and women; all the lords of the Philistines were there, and there were some three thousand men and women on the roof watching Samson dance. Then Samson called to the LORD, “O Lord GOD! Please remember me, and give me strength just this once, O God, to take revenge of the Philistines, if only for one of my two eyes.” He embraced the two middle pillars that the temple rested upon, one with his right arm and one with his left, and leaned against them; Samson cried, “Let me die with the Philistines!” and he pulled with all his might. The temple came crashing down on the lords and on all the people in it. Those who were slain by him as he died outnumbered those who had been slain by him when he lived. (Judges 16:25-30)

Samson's suicide was intentional, but nonetheless it is almost universally considered heroic.  There are multiple reasons why this is likely true. One is because as a high-profile prisoner his own ultimate death at the hands of the Philistines was almost certain, similar to the case of Saul.  However, there is more to it than that.  By killing the Philistines, he was killing an implacable foe of the people of Israel.  They were actively engaged in fighting a war. By his suicide, he was saving the people of Israel. We now have another suicide that was justified on a different basis. A soldier in wartime committing suicide in order to save his people.  

This can have ramifications on the battlefield of course, the story of the hero from the Lebanon war Roi Klein immediately comes to mind.  He jumped upon a live grenade in battle thus saving his fellow soldiers' lives.  Another hero is the soldier Uri Ilan, who committed suicide in 1954 as a captive in a Syrian prison.  He felt that he would succumb to the torture of his captors and give away secrets, so he hung himself, scribbling a note later found in his cell that stated, "I have not given away information, I killed myself".

Here we see a picture of Rabbi Shlomo Goren the military chief Rabbi standing on the left, saluting the grave of Uri Ilan.  Partly in response to this event, Rabbi Goren wrote a responsa permitting suicide for Israeli soldiers in terrible predicaments such as this.  He based his decision on the precedent of Samson.   Many questions can be raised about this idea though.  Does this apply only to soldiers? Is sacrificing yourself for others always considered appropriate?  This is no simple matter of course, and again beyond the scope of this post.

Martyrdom

There are many instances in which people gave their lives in order to sanctify God's name.  There is a difference however, between people who actually ended their own lives, versus allowed themselves to be killed under these tragic circumstances.  My focus in this post is on the permissibility of taking one's own life.  However, I must mention that there is a very fine line between these two types of scenarios.  The most famous perhaps, is the story of Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah, as recorded in the Book of Daniel chapter 3.  They gave themselves up for death in a furnace, rather than commit idolatry.  However, they did not kill themselves.  I will focus now on whether or not one may take their own lives, if the alternative is to be forced into idolatry or other terrible fate.

Suicide To Avoid Torture and Suffering

The Talmud in Gittin 57b relates the following tragic story, which occurred during the aftermath of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem:

There was an incident involving four hundred boys and girls who were taken as captives for the purpose of prostitution. These children sensed on their own what they were expected to do, and they said: If we commit suicide and drown in the sea, will we come to eternal life in the World-to-Come? The oldest child among them expounded the verse: “The Lord said, I will bring back from Bashan, I will bring them back from the depths of the sea” (Psalms 68:23).“I will bring back from Bashan,”I.e...., from between the teeth [bein shen] of the lion, and “I will bring them back from the depths of the sea” is referring to those who drown in the sea for the sake of Heaven. When the girls heard this, they all leapt and fell into the sea. The boys then drew an a fortiori inference with regard to themselves and said: If these girls, for whom sexual intercourse with men is their natural way, act in such a manner, then we, for whom sexual intercourse with men is not our natural way, should all the more so conduct ourselves likewise. They too leapt into the sea. Concerning them and others like them the verse states: “As For Your sake we are killed all the day long; we are reckoned as sheep for the slaughter” (Psalms 44:23).

These children are being praised for their actions, but was it the right thing to do? according to Tosafot, it seems that they were allowed to commit suicide because they were afraid the horrific torture and suffering that would be subjected to as Roman sex slaves. Under such circumstances one may take one's own life.  It is debated though, as some commentaries understand that it was only permissible for these children because they knew that not only would they have to endure sexual enslavement, they would also be forcibly converted to idolatry (see Petach Eynayim for example).  However, there is no mention of this in the Talmud or the Tosafot.  So, the simple understanding of this story is that to avoid torture, one may take their own life.  How and when this idea can or should be applied, is a complicated topic indeed.

Suicide to avoid enslavement or capture

Perhaps the most famous mass suicide in Jewish history was the suicide of the close to one thousand defenders of the last remaining Jewish fortress of Masada during the revolt against the Roman conquerors.  This was recorded by Josephus, and there is some controversy regarding the historical veracity of his account.  Nonetheless, this event has become an important part of the Jewish historical consciousness.   As the Romans were about to breach the walls of the fortress, which would've meant the certain enslavement of the Jewish defenders, their leader Elazar gave the following speech:

"Since we, long ago, my generous friends, resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than to God himself, who alone is the true and just Lord of mankind, the time is now come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice. And let us not at this time bring a reproach upon ourselves for self-contradiction, while we formerly would not undergo slavery, though it were then without danger, but must now, together with slavery, choose such punishments also as are intolerable; I mean this, upon the supposition that the Romans once reduce us under their power while we are alive. We were the very first that revolted from them, and we are the last that fight against them; and I cannot but esteem it as a favor that God hath granted us, that it is still in our power to die bravely, and in a state of freedom, which hath not been the case of others, who were conquered unexpectedly. It is very plain that we shall be taken within a day's time; but it is still an eligible thing to die after a glorious manner .... this was  the effect of God's anger against us for our manifold sins, which we have been guilty of in a most insolent and extravagant manner with regard to our own countrymen; the punishments of which let us not receive from the Romans, but from God himself, as executed by our own hands; for these will be more moderate than the other. Let our wives die before they are abused, and our children before they have tasted of slavery; and after we have slain them, let us bestow that glorious benefit upon one another mutually, and preserve ourselves in freedom, as an excellent funeral monument for us. But first let us destroy our money and the fortress by fire; for I am well assured that this will be a great grief to the Romans, that they shall not be able to seize upon our bodies, and shall fall of our wealth also; and let us spare nothing but our provisions; for they will be a testimonial when we are dead that we were not subdued for want of necessaries, but that, according to our original resolution, we have preferred death before slavery." Josephus Flavius, The Wars of the Jews, VII 8.6

The speech was much longer, but from the excerpts I just quoted it seems evident that the primary motivation of the mass suicide was to avoid slavery and humiliation at the hands of the Romans. However, they were also concerned about rape, torture, and more.  Most of us were raised to think of the people of Masada as heroes, but did they do the right thing?  

In support of the Masada defenders, many would cite the precedents above that support the option of suicide in face of certain death or intolerable suffering (see here for an example of this defense).  Others might claim that the Romans would've forced them to give up their religion, but this argument doesn't show up in Elazar's speech at all, nor does it seem like an accurate fear historically.  

Famously, Rabbi Moshe Zvi Neria presented an impassioned argument against what the Masada defenders did.  He felt that by using the arguments presented in Elazar's speech, every Jew should kill themselves rather that submit to foreign rule.  There would be no Jews alive today if we followed that path.  He argued that they should've fought to the extent that they could, and when defeated, even when forced to be subjugated to the Romans, at least some would've survived.

Suicide to prevent Forced Conversion 

During the middle ages, especially during the persecution of Jews that occurred during the time of the crusades, there were several episodes where Jewish communities chose mass suicide rather than surrender to the Christian mobs that attacked them.  In many of these cases, they could've saved their lives by converting to Christianity. 

In some cases, the choice of suicide was probably more to save themselves from certain torture and death at the hands of the mob.  One of the most famous mass suicides was the one that occurred in that occured in York England in 1190. The entire Jewish community barricaded themselves within the royal castle to protect themselves from an angry Christian mob.  Although they were threatened with forced baptism or death, most historians agree that the "forced baptism" that the Jews would've suffered was actually death by an angry mob.  The Jews chose mass suicide rather than forced baptism. However, the few who chose not to commit suicide were killed anyway when the mob broke through the barricade.  

However, many cases were not so clear, and many times throughout France and Germany (especially in the Rhineland massacres of 1096 - described graphically in the Tisha B’Av Liturgy Kinah 25)  there were cases where suicide was chosen when a forced baptism might have saved their lives. Many Jews did save themselves that way, though most historians agree that of the people who did submit to forced baptism, the majority of them returned to Judaism. On the other hand, many of those who gave themselves up for forced baptism, ended up getting killed anyway. While we clearly must admire and commemorate their dedication and devotion, we are still allowed to question if indeed their choice was correct. There are no easy answers, we cannot be judges of what people do in such terrible times.

Killing Children to Keep Them from being Forcibly Converted

This topic is very difficult and painful to discuss, but we do know that in some cases, when confronted with the choice of having their children torn away from them and raised as Christian, while they themselves were slaughtered, chose to kill their children and themselves rather than submit to such horror.  In a comment on the verse that started our discussion, Genesis 9:5, the Da'at Zekeinim strongly condemned this practice.  He unequivocally believed that the children should be saved no matter what.  In fact, as we know from the much later horrific persecution of the Holocaust, many children were saved specifically by giving them to Christian families or the church itself.  It seems like people understood that the chance of life for these children was paramount.

Suicide as a response to utter despair

Writing these words is awful, but the Rabbis have always understood that when one commits suicide in a situation of utter despair, that we should not judge such a person unfavorably. The examples of concentration camp inmates who fell against the electrified fence immediately comes to mind.  The most famous example in the Talmud (Gittin 57a) is that of the woman whose seven sons were executed in front of her for refusing to submit to forced idol worship.  She went up to the roof and jumped to her death after this unimaginably horrific event.  The Talmud treats her favorably, and even records a comforting heavenly voice that called out to her when she met her death.  While the Talmud is not condoning or advising what to do in such cases, clearly the Rabbis understood the circumstances.

Suicide in Face of Terminal Illness or Assisted Suicide

I am only mentioning this because I don't want to be criticized for neglecting to discuss this important subject.  There is a lot of literature on this subject, and I need to save it for another post, or maybe even another series of posts.  Please forgive me for punting it to a future date. God-willing, I will get there. 

I hope you learned something from this post, and I will do my best to continue this series on each weekly portion.  I am open to suggestions if any of you have topics you would like me to explore, whether in the comments (preferred), or by email.  Shabbat Shalom

Keeping Kosher and COVID19

It would be scandalous to write a blog about medical Halacha during the coronavirus pandemic and not have anything to say about COVID19.  I have been trying to think of something to write that would add  something useful to the conversation, an angle that hasn't already been covered. 

Early on in this pandemic, an interesting discussion came to my attention regarding the origins of the coronavirus. It is assumed that this virus evolved in a species of bat that is indigenous to China. Partly because of the human consumption of bats in China, it was able to make an interspecies jump and infect humans. The "atalef" (Hebrew for "bat") is listed as one of the non kosher birds that is prohibited by the Torah for human consumption. If the kosher laws were kept, would we have had to suffer this terrible deadly pandemic? This discussion in the media (see here for example) renewed my interest in a topic of much deeper importance, which I hope to address in this new series in my blog.

As observant Jews, we must "keep kosher".  The laws of kosher include thousands of laws and customs with many varied origins.  Why do we need to observe these dietary rules? As we have seen in this blog before there are two very different schools of thought in Judaism which can both complement and clash with each other. These are the mystical and the rationalist schools.

The mystical stream tends to explain these religious rules by ascribing spiritual and unseen forces that make one action kosher and the other action not kosher.  This stream of thought is more likely to explain the reasons for the kosher laws by saying that we do it because God said so. The rationalist school is more likely to search for practical and physically meaningful lessons in the rules of kosher.  Surely God told us to keep these laws, but He wanted us to do it for a reason that we can and should understand.

I believe strongly that the recent sea change in Orthodoxy which has deeply emphasized the mystical way of thinking has done terrible damage to the purpose of keeping kosher.  I think we have lost our way because we have forgotten the point of keeping kosher.  While clearly the mystical ideas are important and have their place in our religion, the bottom line has been all but forgotten.

Rather than engage in polemics and arguments, I think we need need to get back to basics. In my usual style, I will begin by discussing the biblical origins of the laws of kosher.  Then we will analyze the Talmudic and rabbinic discussions and how they developed into what we call kosher today.  This will take a long series of posts. Then we can look back and see how different the world would be if only we remembered the rationalistic basis of what God really wants from us.

I was taught by the many great rabbis from whom I have learned over the years, that we never should be content learning a topic the same way we have studied it over the years.  We must always review a verse or a talmudic statement as if we are studying it for the first time. So even if you think you already know everything you need to know about kosher, I hope you can find something useful in going through this process together.  Only this way can we grow and change. I know that I once thought I knew everything too.

Kosher Species

Let's start with Leviticus chapter 11 which discusses the species of animals that are permitted to eat, and those that are prohibited.  For the majority of the discussion, the Torah lays out the rules, split hooves and chewing their cud for animals, fins and scales for fish, forbidden insects, forbidden birds.  Although the Torah repeats several times that these non kosher animals should be considered disgusting to you ("sheketz") the Torah is not clear about the reasoning behind it.  However, in verses 44 and 45, the Torah states emphatically why we should only consume the kosher animals:

(44) For I the LORD am your God: you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not make yourselves unclean through any swarming thing that moves upon the earth.  (45) For I the LORD am He who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God: you shall be holy, for I am holy. 

So the reason why are commanded to eat only kosher species is to "sanctify ourselves and be holy". Although this may sound like it is only referring to insects, the following verses make it clear that this holiness is achieved by avoiding all non kosher categories of animals, as the verses continue:

(46) These are the instructions concerning animals, birds, all living creatures that move in water, and all creatures that swarm on earth, (47) for distinguishing between the unclean and the clean, between the living things that may be eaten and the living things that may not be eaten.  

So God does tell us very clearly the reason why we must keep kosher. We need to be "holy".  In Deuteronomy 14, the Torah again mentions the kosher species, and again it is in the context of "holiness", though this time said a little differently.

"(2) for you are a holy people to the LORD your God: the LORD your God chose you from among all other peoples on earth to be His treasured people. (3) You shall not eat anything abhorrent. (4)These are the animals that you may eat..."

Again, the Torah lists the species of animals that one may or may not eat. Again, the Torah makes it very clear that the reason for the kosher rules is because of "holiness".  So the Torah does clearly tell us the reason for the prohibitions against eating certain species. Holiness.  But we will have to define what this is. I am going to save that for a future post.  

 Proper Slaughter  

The next important kosher rule is related not to the species of animal in question, but to the method of slaughter.  Kosher slaughter is called "shechita" and is a method of slaughter described by the rabbis of the Talmud as a method which was taught by God to Moses and passed down through oral tradition.  The origin of this tradition is recorded in the Torah itself:

"If the place where the LORD has chosen to establish His name is too far from you, you may slaughter any of the cattle or sheep that the LORD gives you, as I have instructed you; and you may eat to your heart’s content in your settlements (Deutoronomy 12:21)"

So God tells us that He has instructed us how to slaughter an animal, and our tradition tells us what God's instructions were. We must use a sharp and smooth knife, and in one quick motion, we must sever the carotid arteries and trachea, quick and straightforward, with minimal pain and suffering.  However here the Torah does not explain the reasoning behind this commandment.  One does get the sense from the verse though, that God does not want us to randomly kill and slaughter animals for our own benefit.  If we need to do it, it is permitted, but it has to be done in a proper way.  As God has taught us.

 Blood

The next important rule of kosher eating is the prohibition against eating blood.  In this case the Torah does clearly explain the reasoning behind the prohibition:

(23) But make sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh. (24) You must not partake of it; you must pour it out on the ground like water: (25) you must not partake of it, in order that it may go well with you and with your descendants to come, for you will be doing what is right in the sight of the LORD.

Once you have chosen the proper kosher species of animal, and it is slaughtered properly, God still has more to ask of you.  You must remove the blood, because the blood is the "life" of the animal.  The Torah again states clearly the reasoning behind the prohibition against consuming blood.  The blood represents that this was once a living being, and by removing it we remember that we are consuming something that was once alive.  The specifics of how the blood is removed we learn from our tradition.

"Torn" Animals (Tereifah)

We are far from finished. We learned that animals must be properly slaughtered, but what about animals that have died through other natural means, not at the hands of human beings? The Torah teaches us about this as well:

"You shall be holy people to Me: you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs.(Exodus 23:30)"

Our tradition teaches us that animals "torn by beasts" includes all sick and injured animals that either have died of their injuries, or will inevitably die of their injuries or illnesses in the near future.  This is the origin of the rule that animals are not kosher to eat unless they are healthy and died only as a result of kosher slaughter.  An animal that died from some other cause, or would soon have died of some other cause is not considered fit for human consumption. This is why animals must be checked for injuries or diseases that could have potentially caused their demise in order for them to be rendered "kosher". Most importantly for our discussion, the Torah was again very clear about the reason for this prohibition. We are a "holy" people, and this practice is consistent with "holiness".

An Animal that Died Naturally (Nevelah)

Since we must properly slaughter an animal in order to eat it, we are prohibited from eating an animal that has died on its own, without proper slaughter.  However, if we own such an animal, the Torah directs us regarding what to do with it:

(21) You shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner for you are a holy people to the LORD your God.

Again, the Torah emphasizes the concept of holiness. This could mean one of two things from the context of the verse.  It could mean that we are prohibited from eating the animal because of holiness, or it could mean that we should give it to our neighbors due to holiness. The concept of holiness with regard to an animal that died without proper slaughter is repeated in the Torah in Exodus 22:30:

You shall be holy people to Me: you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs. 

Here again the concept of holiness is mentioned, and it could again mean two things.  You should be holy by not consuming meat that wasn't properly slaughtered, but you should also be holy by putting the meat to good use by giving it to animals to eat. I believe that the Torah is emphasizing both.  That although we must be holy by properly slaughtering animals that we eat, we should also be holy by making sure to properly use the meat of animals that we cannot consume by giving it to others.  These both constitute "holiness".  Like I said before, we will get back to this concept in detail later in the series.  

Gid HaNasheh (Displaced Nerve)

Even after we make sure that an animal is the right species, and it is healthy, and it is slaughtered in the appropriate way, and the blood is removed, there are still parts of the animal that are prohibited to eat.  These parts must be removed prior to consumption of the animal. Two primary categories of animal parts that may not be consumed are the "Gid Hanasheh" and the "Chelev". The Gid Hanasheh is the "displaced nerve" and its' origins are from this verse in Genesis 32:

(25) Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. (26) When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he wrenched Jacob’s hip at its socket, so that the socket of his hip was strained as he wrestled with him. ... (32) The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping on his hip. (33) That is why the children of Israel to this day do not eat the thigh muscle that is on the socket of the hip, since Jacob’s hip socket was wrenched at the thigh muscle.

Here the Torah is very explicit about the reason for this prohibition.  Out of respect for our patriarch, we have a custom to avoid this part of the animal.  This event with Jacob was the event that led to our people receiving our name Israel.  This name signified that our mission in this world is above that of the mission of the angels.  As its stated:

(23) Said he, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with beings divine and human, and have prevailed.”

It is important that we are reminded of this concept as we eat an animal that was once a living creature.  Even Jacob, whose mission is higher than that of the angels, is susceptible to becoming haughty. By being afflicted with a very human ailment, Jacob was reminded that although his mission was above that of the angels, he must always remain humble.  By reminding ourselves when we are eating an animal that we are also physical beings, susceptible to pain and injury, we keep ourselves humble as well, as we learned from our forefather Jacob.

Chelev (fats)

The second forbidden part of the animal is Chelev - the forbidden fats, the Torah is much less explicit regarding the reasoning behind this prohibition (Leviticus 7):

(23) Speak to the Israelite people thus: You shall eat no fat of ox or sheep or goat. (24) Fat from animals that died or were torn by beasts may be put to any use, but you must not eat it. (25) If anyone eats the fat of animals from which offerings by fire may be made to the LORD, the person who eats it shall be cut off from his kin.

Rabbinic tradition teaches us exactly which "fats" are considered prohibited to consume. However, here the Torah does not seem to mention the reasoning at all.  However, the Torah did leave some important hints in the context of these words.  These verses are juxtaposed in the middle of a discussion of the portions of sacrificial animals that are given to the priests or burnt upon the altar etc... This hints to us that the removal of certain portions of the animal may be to teach us that we should take part of the animal and give it away to others.  This is why the Torah tells us specifically that we can (and should) give these parts away for another constructive purpose, such as to feed our carniverous animals (cats or dogs for example) but not eat it ourselves.

Ever min Hachai (Flesh from a live animal)

Another prohibition is to remove a piece of a live animal to consume, known as "Ever Min Hachai".  In Genesis 9, God tells Noah:

(3) Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the green grasses, I give you all these. (4) You must not, however, eat flesh with its life-blood in it.

Once again,  the context gives us some important clues.  These verses are juxtaposed between the declaration that gives man responsibility for the well being of the creatures of the earth, as the entire world will be under the rule of human beings.  This verse is stated in such a way as to hint that although human beings have the power to kill and consume animals, there are limits to what they should do.  Respect for life in general is thus implied as the reasoning for this prohibition. We can kill for our needs, but we must also respect.  The following verse then continues to discuss respect for human life, continuing on the same theme. 

Basar B'Chalav (meat and milk)

Last but not least, there is the prohibition of eating milk and meat together.  This is definitely the most unusual in terms of how it is presented in the Torah.  In three seperate locations, Exodus 23:19, 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21, the Torah curiously states, seemingly out of context, the phrase:

You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

Tradition teaches us that this is referring to all milk and all meat, not just a kid in its' mother's milk.  The Torah does not state a reason here.  However, it is certainly quite clear from he way it is presented that the Torah was concerned about a demonstration of particular cruelty.  To cook a kid in its mother's milk would demonstrate a significant and horrifying lack of compassion. One gets the feeling that the Torah is trying to remind us that the relationship between an animal mother an its' offspring is something we should admire and respect.  Their love is real and meaningful, and although we may be permitted to eat these animals, we need to respect their lives and emotions as well.  

I have just presented the prohibitions and restrictions that pertain to the consumption of animals.  As I always do in this blog, I begin with a discussion of the Biblical origins, and discuss what we can learn from the verses of the Torah directly.  I will then begin to analyze the Talmudic understandings of the Torah, as these laws began to become codified and eventually develop into what we now know as the laws of kashrut.

What have we learned from the Torah so far? That there are many purposes to the laws of Kashrut, among them are:

1. To help us live as a holy people, Kashrut brings us to "holiness" (we will define this in future posts) (Kosher species)
2. You can't just slaughter an animal in any way you want, it needs to be done in the way God instructed (shechita)
3. Even when you eat meat, you have to recognize that there was once life here, which is why we cannot eat blood, which represents the "life" of the animal (Blood)
4. We must not eat animals that were unhealthy and were destined to die ("torn" animals)
5. When we do eat animals, we need to take some of the portions of the animal and give it away for some other use, in this way others benefit, not just our selfish selves (chelev)
6. When we eat animals, we also respect and remind ourselves of our own fragility and humility (Gid Haanasheh)
7. We must always give away a portion of what we eat to benefit others (Chelev)
8. We should not waste the animals that are not fit for Kosher consumption but we should give them to our gentile neighbors or to our animals for food (Nevelah)
9. We must respect the lives of the animals over which we have so much power and responsibility (Ever min Hachai)
10. We must respect the relationships and bonds between animals and their young and respect their emotions (Basar BeChalav)

What we have written so far was directly derived from the verses of the Torah, without too much interpretation on my part.  The Torah itself was quite clear.  We have a long way to go with this topic, but I think you can already get a sense of how important the laws of Kosher are, and how meaningful they can be when one pays attention to their purpose.  In the next post, I plan on discussing the kosher laws that pertain to fruits and vegetables.  We will then continue our analysis by discussing  the Talmud and beyond.

Influence of Christianity and the General Culture on Jewish Views of Masturbation

I have referenced a few times the idea that at least some of the negative Halachic attitude towards masturbation was a result of Christian and general cultural influence. I argued in the last post in favor of taking the OMP approach toward masturbation instead of the SAP approach. It would be somewhat satisfying to blame all of this on "the other guys" and say that it wasn't the Jews' fault, but it was their fault i.e. the Christians.  As my grandfather of blessed memory used to say, tongue in cheek, "it doesn't matter what goes wrong, as long as you can blame it on somebody else."

I am sorry to say that in this case, we cannot blame it on the Christians.  At least not the development of the SAP which I described in detail before.  The SAP was heavily influenced by the Zohar.  The Zohar stands out as the most vehemently harsh condemnation of the practice of masturbation in all of human religious history.  It was the most comprehensive, zealous, and forceful religious work to take up the subject, and the earliest religious text to discuss it in such intense detail.

While there are references and condemnations of masturbation scattered here and there throughout the Christian writings starting from the second century on, it doesn't seem to have been a particularly big deal to Christians until the mid-18th century.  Some exceptions exist, such as Pope Leo II (b.1002- d.1054) who wrote harshly about it, but it never quite became a big deal for a long time. One of the most famous books to deal with this subject is Thomas W Laqueur (2003) Solitary Sex:A Cultural History of Masturbation. According to Laqeuer, "the ancient world cared little about the subject; it was a backwater of Jewish and Christian teaching about sexuality."  He claims that the big obsession with the topic really began with the publication of an anonymous tract called "Onania" in England somewhere around 1722.

There is a phenomenon that I seem to find often when reading secular scholars discuss "Jewish teachings".  It seems that they frequently assume that the Jews were more or less saying the same things that the Christian scholars were over the centuries. In modern parlance, this often presents itself as the "Judeo-Christian" tradition.  Unfortunately, all too often, these scholars are much more familiar with the Christian teachings than they are with Jewish teachings and traditions. They are frequently  unqualified to say what the "Judeo" part of Judeo-Christian" actually teaches.   I am not particularly proud of the Jewish contribution to this subject, but Laqueur, when he stated that masturbation was "in the backwater of Jewish teaching" had no idea or clue just how robust and influential the anti-masturbation teachings of the Zohar was about 600 years before 1722. He should've stuck to Christianity.

I am not the only one to point this out, as Shilo Pachter, in his doctoral dissertation that I have quoted many times, makes the same point regarding Laqeuer's assertion. The Jewish opposition to masturbation came out of the "backwater" as soon as the Zohar came to light. Long before 1722.

However, there is a period of time in which I do believe the influence of the Christian world and the academic world did have a strong influence on the Jewish world, and that, I believe, did start with the book that Laqueur just mentioned.

It seems to me that the widespread acceptance of the SAP and the stringent opinions regarding masturbation were helped along by the strong anti-masturbation rhetoric that took over the Christian, philosophical and scientific world starting in the early 1700s.  Starting in this time period, in both the protestant and the catholic world, Onanism became synonymous with masturbation and it became accepted as a terrible sin.  In the philosophical world, no less a personality than Immanuel Kant condemned the practice strongly. In the scientific world, it became accepted that masturbation was both a sign of a mental disorder and the cause of all sorts of physical maladies.  It wasn't until the mid-20th century that these ideas started to change, and masturbation began to be understood as a normal part of sexual development.

The strongest Halachic influence on contemporary post WW2 Orthodox Judaism, comes from the Hassidic traditions of eastern Europe and the non-Hassidic yeshiva world of Lithuania.  Both of these traditions began and were nurtured within a surrounding culture that thought that masturbation was a sign of mental illness, that is was medically unhealthy, and that it was an abomination and a perversion for which God gave the death penalty.  It is not surprising that the Halakhists and moral teachers of the era didn't pay much heed to the opinions of the Ri Hazaken and others and accepted the paradigm of the SA.

An indicator that this is the case, is that the opinions expressed by the proponents of the OMP did not disappear immediately when the Shulchan Aruch suppressed them. It took a while for the SAP to take hold. As we shall see, immediately after the publication of the SA many rabbinic authorities objected to the negation of the opinions of the Ri HaZaken, Tosafot Rid, and Rambam.

It makes sense that it wasn't easy for the SA to suppress the opposition by omitting the Ri HaZaken.  This opinion wasn't just a random outlier.  Many halachic authorities among the Rishonim (Halachic authorities from circa 1100 - 1550) and early Acharonim (halachic authorities from circa 1550 - 1800s) supported the opinion of the Ri HaZaken. Here are just a few: Rabbi Mordechai ben Hillel HaKohen (Germany, 1250-1298, known as "the Mordechai") in Massechet Niddah Hagahot Mordechai 247:744;  R Bezallel ben Avraham Ashkenazi (Israel, 1520-1592) in Shita Mekubeztet Nedarim 20b; R Asher ben Yechiel ("The Rosh" Germany then Spain, 1250-1327) Tosafot HaRosh Yevamot 34b; R Meir HaKohen of Rothenburg (Germany, late 13th century) in Hagahot Maimuniot Hilchot Isurei Biyah 21:9; R Isaiah DiTrani "the younger" (Italy late 13th - early 14th century) in Piskei Riaz Ketubot 5; R Solomon Luria (Poland 1510-1573 "The Maharshal") in Yam Shel Shlomo Yevamot 34b; R' Avraham Chaim Shur (Belz, Poland late 16th, early 17th century) in Torat Chaim Sanhedrin 54a.   All of the above and many more at least supported the opinion of the Ri Hazaken as a viable alternative to the stringent prohibition against "spilling seed".  

It is for this reason that the important commentary on the SA, the Beit Shmuel (late 17th century) immediately qualifies the statement of the SA that the sin is "the most severe in the Torah" by saying that the SA really didn't mean it.  (IMHO. the SA clearly did mean it, as he had learned from the Zohar how severe it is). 

Despite this solid and robust opposition to the SAP, in the centuries following the publication of the Shulchan Aruch, the SAP eventually did become the predominant paradigm. The OMP receded into the past almost as if it had never existed. As (at least Eastern European) European Jewry eventually developed into the Hassidic and "Lithuanian" branches preceding WW2, the SAP became firmly ensconced. I believe this was largely because the same thing was going on in the world "outside.  Why else would the Jewish world almost completely ignore one major tradition and exchange it for another? Clearly, the Christian, philosophical, and medical thinking of the time regarding the "horrors" of masturbation dominated Jewry in the same way that it dominated western thought in general.

So, in conclusion, I don't believe that we can blame "the others" for foisting this stringency upon Judaism.  We were there first :(    However, the fact that it became the predominant Halachic paradigm was almost certainly heavily influenced by outside factors.

The only silver lining I can think of, is that maybe the reverse can be true.  If the general society's dislike for masturbation helped push us toward a stringent Halachic attitude, maybe modern science's recognition that occasional masturbation is normal can push us back to the original Halachic paradigm which accepted indeed that this is true as well. Perhaps. Maybe. With God's help and with common sense and the strength of the Torah sources I have quoted in this series, maybe it can work.  Thanks for reading through my posts on this subject, I think I can move on now to other important subjects. Please let me know in the comments if you think I left something out.

Changing the Halachic Masturbation Paradigm

It should be obvious that the Shulchan Aruch is by far not the last word in the Halacha, and that things have continued to develop over the next 500 years.  On the other hand, this is a blog, and my purpose is to develop ideas, specifically ideas that relate to Jewish law as it intersects with topics of medical interest, and to attempt to develop these ideas in a rationalistic manner.  I think that what I have developed so far in all of the preceding posts, are two very different concepts regarding male masturbation and how this activity should be treated by a Jew who wishes to observe the Halacha. Our Halachic analysis so far is enough to make the basic point I have been trying to get to in this blog.

I have recently been introduced to the work of an amazing woman, Talli Rosenbaum, and her writings on this subject. The reason why her writings are so important is because she explores the negative potential effects that the misconception of the "sin" of "spilling seed" can have on sexual development and marital relationships.  Please check her website here for more resources, and I particularly recommend this podcast. 

The two different Halachic approaches that we have developed would have a significantly different impact on the sexual and psychological health of Orthodox Jewish society.  I will admit upfront that I am not a social scientist, nor am I a sex therapist.  I also don't have lots of data and studies to back up the assertions I am about to make.  I am a physician, and I do have Rabbinic ordination, and I do have significant familiarity with Orthodox sexual dysfunction from a clinical perspective and from my knowledge of the community. Those are both my credentials and my limitations.

The prevailing Halachic paradigm that dominates the general understanding of most Halacha observant Jewry is the one established by the Shulchan Aruch. We just finished describing how this developed in the preceding series of posts.  Allow me to summarize the basic tenets of this paradigm, which I will call the SAP (Shulchan Aruch Paradigm).

The SAP posits that any ejaculation outside of vaginal intercourse in the context of marriage is a sin.  The SAP holds that this was indeed the sin of Er and Onan which resulted in their deaths.  The SAP holds that this was the sin of the flood which resulted in the destruction of almost all life on the planet. The SAP holds that extra-vaginal ejaculation produces demons that taunt the individual into the next world. The SAP teaches that extra-vaginal ejaculation is akin to murder, and included in the Ten Commandments. The SAP does not permit any other form of sexual activity between husband and wife other than vaginal intercourse.

It would be impossible to overestimate the negative effects of these ideas on the sexual and psychological health of the Halacha-observant public. First let us focus on the single young man and what this can do to his psychological health. Imagine the guilt of a young man who masturbates occasionally.  If he is able to open a Shulchan Aruch and read, if he is yeshiva educated, the overwhelming guilt can be awful.  The normal experiences and desires of an adolescent male (or even mature adult male) have suddenly become the source of the "worst sin in the Torah".

Then try to imagine how many destructive paths this can take. The guilt can in some cases lead to a feeling of despair. "If I can't fight these urges, I am a failure at being an observant Jew, and why even bother?"  Such a person could be led into a very depressed rebellion against his heritage, a failure of a Jew. Alternatively, it could lead to open rebellion.  "The Torah must be nonsense if it prohibits normal and harmless natural behavior." "If I can violate the worst sin in the Torah and nothing happens, I an violate any Torah prohibition!"  "If the Torah prohibits this, than all of the Torah's laws could be nonsense too."  Among those young men who don't want to leave the Torah lifestyle, imagine the cognitive dissonance such a problem can cause? The shame, depression, confusion and despair can be overwhelming. I would like to suggest the following link for more detailed discussion of these issues. 

Now let's follow this young man forward in his life.  He is taught that he needs a spouse in order to prevent sin.  So that his natural urge to have sex and experience ejaculation can have a "permissible outlet".  Is he seeking marriage in order to have a fulfilling relationship with another human being? Regarding the important sexual aspect of this relationship, is there an understanding that her purpose is not just to help himself? Does he realize that she is an individual of equal importance who deserves to have a satisfying sexual relationship just as much as he does?  does he recognize that the Torah requires him to make her happy sexually, and that she is much much much more than just a "receptacle" so that his ejaculation is now deemed "kosher"?

What about the young woman?  Is she taught that she must be available for him just to save him from sin?  What does that mean for her own enjoyment? what if she is taught that she must even endure pain and discomfort in order to save him? Is she ever allowed to say , "no" or "not now"? Does she ever learn what a sexual relationship is supposed to be?  There is so much to write, so much to think about.  I refer you to Talli Rosenbaum's site for more discussion. In particular, please check this link. I can't do it justice, but I can highlight some of this in order to get you thinking. 

Now let us rewind a bit in Halachic time.  Let us go back to the days before the Zohar came onto the Halachic scene, to the days of what I am going to call the OMP (the Original Maimonidean Paradigm).

The OMP posits that one should not deliberately stoke his sexual desires because that can lead to immorality.  The OMP teaches that the sin of Er and Onan was that they deliberately engaged in a sexual relationship with the express purpose of avoiding procreation, Tamar was a sexual plaything to them, for enjoyment only.  This is why they were put to death by God.  The OMP teaches that as long as one is engaged in sexual activity in an appropriate relationship, there is no sin of "spilling seed", and any type of sexual activity is acceptable. The OMP also recommends early marriage, but not to prevent masturbation, rather it is to prevent the risk of promiscuity and other sexual sins.  The OMP explicitly uses the concurrent medical understanding to recommend only infrequent ejaculations.  The OMP explicitly also draws upon the contemporaneous medical ideas to recommend regular, just not excessive ejaculations to avoid what was believed to be the buildup of negative factors when one does not ejaculate often enough.  According to the OMP, there is no sin of masturbation for a single man, the only concern is the deliberate stoking of sexual desire for the reason stated above.

Just as it was impossible to overestimate the negative effects of the general acceptance of the SAP, it is equally impossible to overestimate the positive effects of adopting the OMP.

Here goes.  Our hypothetical young man understands that this is a natural process, and that occasional ejaculation is completely normal, even healthy.  He now understands that the problem is to engage in practices that lead to sexually unhealthy activities, not the "spilling of seed".  Such things would include turning to the all-too-available pornography, which can lead to unhealthy and dangerous ideas about sex. This would certainly be something to avoid. On the other hand, normal exposure to members of the female gender, that may occasionally lead to sexual thoughts, is completely normal as long as such social encounters will lead one day to a healthy, safe appropriate relationship.

When it comes to marriage, he may learn that any sexual practice is completely normal, and that he should do whatever he and his wife find to be satisfying and enjoyable.  He will also learn that a woman is to be respected as a partner, not a purely sexual being as Er and Onan treated Tamar. She is there for much more than just his sexual pleasure, she is there to build a life and family together with.  This includes the Mitzvah to procreate.

The young woman will not be there to "save him from sin".  If he needs "saving" and she is not in the mood, for whatever reason, he can either take a chill pill and be respectful or maybe engage with her in other activities that don't include unwanted penetration of her body, even if it means he will ejaculate extra-vaginally.

Furthermore, now that we know that there is nothing unhealthy about occasional masturbation, the Rambam's health related objections would no longer exist.  The Rambam himself, it is well known, omitted from his Halachic code the "prohibition" of eating fish and meat together.  This was because he understood that it was a health recommendation of the rabbis of the Talmud.  Since the Rambam no longer felt it was a heath problem, it is no longer the Halacha.  The Rambam, I  would argue, would likely be consistent and have a completely different approach, as the health understanding of masturbation has dramatically changed.

The suggestion that there are torturing demon tormentors created every time someone masturbates would've sounded both foolish, and worse, even blasphemous to the Rambam.  

Poof. We just solved a major dilemma.  Go back to the basics. Allow me to adjust a common Halachic phrase to our situation:

כדאי הם התלמוד בּבלי והרמבּ״ם והר״י הזקן והתוספות רי״ד לסמוך עליהם בּשעת הדחק  

The Babylonian Talmud, and Maimonides, and Rabbi Isaac the Elder, and Rabbi Isaiah Di Trani are adequate authorities for us to rely upon them in a time of need 

I think anyone who reads Talli Rosenbaum's material would agree that this is a "time of need".  If you disagree, fine, that is your right.  But for those who agree with me that this is a time of need, Let's build on the OMP, the Original Maimonidean Paradigm.  We can use the OMP as a basis to build a healthy sexuality among our youth, and our families and couples.  People should be taught to avoid sexual immorality, sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, and unhealthy sexual stress that builds up in dysfunctional families.  Instead we should teach what healthy sexuality looks like, and how to make that happen.

I would like to inject some Kabbalistic ideas into the OMP though.  However, it will have the opposite effect that the injection of the Zohar had on the development of the Shulchan Aruch Paradigm.  Maimonides had a philosophical aversion to sex in general.  He considered it a base activity, pretty much the lowest form of human behavior.  In this he followed the philosophy of his mentor Aristotle.  If you recall, we mentioned the Igerret HaKodesh in our past discussion of the Spanish kabbalists.  The IH responded to the Rambam that the sexual act is not base at all.  Rather it is a holy and beautiful act between two human beings, as long as there are proper intentions.  If we inject this idea into the development of the OMP, we will find that any act between two loving human beings, in the context of a committed and loving relationship founded upon proper ideas and principles, is a beautiful and holy thing. It is to be celebrated and encouraged, regardless of where the semen happens to spill.

I do want to write a little more in the next post or two about some of the reasons why the SAP became dominant.  I think we need to discuss the foreign influences, the influences of contemporaneous science etc before we leave this subject and move on.

I would also like to encourage people to comment and generate discussion.  Whether you love what I have written, hate it, or anywhere in between, I want to hear from you.  Generating discussion about these topics is one of my primary goals on this blog.  Also, please feel free to suggest new topics. I am always open to ideas. 

Rav Yosef Karo Uses the Zohar to Eliminate the Opposition

In this post we will finally tie our two separate threads together, the mystical Kabbalistic thread and the Halachic thread.  Rabbi Yosef Karo (RYK), the most influential Halachic authority since the days of Maimonides, was the author of two major halachic works.  The Beit Yosef is written as a commentary on the Arba'ah Turim which we discussed in the previous post, and it is an encyclopedic review of all of the halachic opinions on the topics covered by the Tur. Based on his Beit Yosef, RYK then wrote the Shulchan Arukh (SA), where he summarizes his conclusions of law.  This has become one of the most important works in the history of the Halacha.

The Beit Yosef provides us the insight we need into how RYK came to the conclusions that he records in the SA.  I promised you in a previous post that I would show you how RYK brought the Zohar and Lurianic kabbalah into the Halachic world regarding the topic of masturbation.  So now is the time to fulfill my promise. 

In the Beit Yosef, on his commentary to the Tur Even Ha'ezer 23:4 the Beit Yosef adds to the Tur:

It is written in the Zohar that the severity of the prohibition against ejaculation for naught is more than all the other sins in the Torah, therefore one must be extremely careful regarding (the avoidance of) this (sin).

If you recall our previous post, the Tur cites the lenient opinion of the Ri HaZaken as a dissenting opinion, as he permits spilling seed in the context of an appropriate relationship.  RYK's comments on this are fascinating and revolutionary.  in the Beit Yosef (siman 25) he says:

It is very difficult to allow someone to spill his seed even if it is only occasional, and one who is careful regarding (matters of) his soul will stay far away from this and from similar acts... 

Then in his later work, Bedek HaBayit (ch. 25), RYK cracks down even harder and states regarding the Ri HaZaken:

had the Ri HaZaken seen what is written in the Zohar regarding the punishment for someone who needlessly spills seed, that it is more severe than any other sin in the Torah, he never would have written what he wrote...

Essentially, RYK is saying that the Tosafists and Halachic authorities who were not exposed to the Zohar, as they lived prior to the revelation or publication of the Zohar. The ramifications of this statement are astonishing.  RYK is suggesting that a Halachist would make a different Halachic decision because of the Zohar.  Somehow it even suggests that the pre-Zohar Halachists weren't quite as informed on these topics as the "post-Zohar" Halachists and thus their opinions are less legitimate.

RYK then codifies this in the SA, and completely omits the opinion of the Ri Hazaken and any of the other lenient opinions that we have cited in our blog up to this point.  It is worth reviewing the SA in Even Ha'Ezer chapter 23 in its entirety.  I will leave it to the reader to read it, as quoting the entire chapter would be lengthy, but I do want to point out a few very important details.

1. We mentioned in the last post that the Tur changed the Rambam's word "however" (Aval) to "and" and how this suggested that the Tur understood the Rambam's prohibition against "Ni'uf BeYad U'beregel" to be a prohibition against masturbation.  This was in contradiction to the Rambam's own explanation of the term in Pirush HaMishnayot.  This also indicated that the Tur understood the Rambam's objection against using withdrawal as being a sin of "spilling seed', which was not how the Rambam was understood prior to the Tur.  RYK takes this a step further and completely removes the word "and" as well.  What this does in effect is completely change our understanding of the Rambam.  Now it reads as follows:
   
   "[One may not do withdrawal, one may not marry a woman incapable of conceiving] those who engage in such practices and spill seed in vain (elu Shmena'afim beyad etc....) not only are they committing a terrible sin...
   
   What the SA is doing is presenting the Rambam as if the reason for the prohibition against marrying someone incapable of conceiving and for withdrawing and ejaculating extravaginally is due to the prohibition of spilling seed.  This is totally the opposite of the way the Rambam was previously understood. The "and" of the tur made it into a list of three things, while dropping the "and" turns it into an explanation of why the acts are prohibited.
   
   
2. The SA injects into his quote from the Rambam the term he used in the Beit Yosef, which comes directly from the Zohar, that "This sin is more severe than any other sin in the Torah".
   
   
3. The SA, unlike the Tur, completely omits the opinion of the Ri HaZaken.  He doesn't even bring it as a "Yesh Omrim" (There are some who say)
   
   
4.  The SA, unlike the Tur, omits the Rambam's explicit quotation from the Gemara that permits a husband and wife to engage in whatever sexual activity they so desire, including anal intercourse (Biah Shelo Kedarkah)

There are more things to point out, but the items I just mentioned are enough to establish how RYK has now taken the Zohar and placed it directly into the realm of Halacha, and he has explicitly prohibited things that were permitted by the Talmud itself and the Rambam (and others as we have written about extensively in previous posts).

Lest you think that the SA only wrote these Halachot to sound scary, but he didn't really prohibit actions explicitly permitted in the Talmud and the Rambam, here is a story from the Sefer Chareidim (Rabbi Eliezer ben Moshe Azikri 1533-1600) that recounts an actual case brought before the Beit din (rabbinical court) of RYK:

There was a case in Safed, in the year 5308 (1547), that in the presence of the great rabbis Our teacher and Rabbi Rav Yosef Karo, and our teacher our rabbi R' Isaac Massoud, and our teacher our Rabbi Avraham Shalom and my teacher the Rabbi, the pious R' Yosef Shaggis, and several other rabbis, that a woman came and stated that her husband had intercourse with her "shelo kedarka" (anal intercourse) and they excommunicated him, and criticized him and said that he was (worthy of) being burned, and in the end (his verdict was that) they banished him from the land of Israel...(End of chapter on Hotz'at Zerah in Sefer Chareidim)

This is remarkable, and it demonstrates just how far RYK took the Zohar into the realm of practical  Halacha.  An act explicitly permitted by the Talmud and the Rambam, was prohibited to the extent that RYK banished this man from Israel.

There is so much more to write. We can discuss the Lurianic kabbalah and how it expanded further on the ideas of the Zohar.  We can discuss the Hassidic movement, and how it expanded on the ideas of the Lurianic Kabbalists.  We can discuss the Halachic literature and how it accepted the established Halacha as codified by the SA.  We can discuss the Mussar literature, and how it was affected by the Kabbalah.  However, I am going to skip all of that. The reason is because I have sufficiently demonstrated how this all came to be.  How the "sin" of spilling seed became established as a Halacha, despite not being mentioned in the Torah or even the Talmud.

Instead, I will in my next post discuss a little bit about the influences of the Christian world and the scientific world on the Jewish attitudes towards masturbation.  Then I will talk about some of the many "side effects" of this Halachic reconceptualization of the SA such as its influence on modern laws of birth control, fertility treatments etc...  Then I hope to discuss what the world of sexuality according to the Torah would look like if we had taken a different path and accepted the Talmud, Maimonides, the Ri Hazaken, and the Tosafot Rid etc... as the law of the land instead of the path taken by the Zohar and the SA.  I think some of my conclusions will be surprising, and certainly something to think about.