He then notes that additionally, sex makes one quite literally a partner with G-d in creation. To this end, men are circumcised on their organ of procreation; the mark of the Jew is on the organ by which he makes more Jews. In fact, the circumcision was regarded as physically completing the male (Rabbi Akiva compares circumcision to making bread out of wheat). But what of the woman? We quote Rabbi Rackman:
****Explicit material; please scroll at your own risk.****
****Explicit material; please scroll at your own risk.****
****Explicit material; please scroll at your own risk.****
****Explicit material; please scroll at your own risk.****
"For females too there was a final act of creation, according to Judaism. The piercing of the hymen was for a woman what circumcision was for a man - only in the former case it was the husband, not the father, who was God's partner in creation."Rabbi Rackman refers to Sanhedrin 22b:
אמר רב שמואל בר רב איניא משמיה דרב: אשה גולם [רש"י: כלי שלא נגמר] היא [רש"י: קודם שנבעלה] ואינה כוררתת ברית אלא למי שעשאה כלי, שנאמר: כי בעליך עשיך ה' צבאות שמוMaharshah there comments that the significance of this for her is that it enables her to procreate. So both men and women are marked with a brit on their organ of procreation, sanctifying and consecrating that faculty to G-d and to the Jewish people, fulfilling both the mitzvah to fill the earth with humanity, and the mitzvah to propagate Judaism.
Rav Shmuel bar Unyah said in the name of Rav: A woman is a golem [Rashi: an unfinished vessel, before she has sexual relations] and does not have a covenant (brit) cut with her except with the one who makes her a vessel, as it says [in Isaiah]: For your husband is your maker, and Hashem Tzeva'kot is His name.
Incidentally, my mother loves to remark that Judaism encompasses all of life, for even the usage of the restroom has an attendant berachah! But I do believe we have upped the ante here. What a religion! And as Rabbi Rackman notes a few pages earlier, the Talmud exploits the vanity of men and their desire for male heirs, by promising them such male offspring if and only if their wives climax first. What a religion!
Posts
13 comments:
I'm not sure what to make of this. I think it can be quite degrading to ascribe too much importance to a woman's virginity, much less to put her husband in charge of entering her into the covenant. I know you probably meant only to bring up something that seems to parallel brit milah for men, but I can't help be reminded of the days when marriage was seen as a transaction in which the woman (and her sexuality) were handed over from the custody of the father to the hands of the husband. I can't fully explain it on here, but I'm personally quite disturbed.
Yes, and how dare you degrade baby boys by putting their fathers in charge entering them into the covenant with a brit? Are you saying baby children aren't capable of giving themselves a brit? Is their sexuality not their own personal possession?
Well I never!
Lindsey,
I can see why this passage could be read as you do, but I think I tried to read it as discussing not the husband's privilege as being the deflower the innocent virgin, but rather as discussing the wife's own personal privilege in bearing children. If the husband plays an indispensable role, however, in her bearing children, I don't think we should be too surprised.
Similarly, let us take the commonly offered explanation that women are exempt from the mitzvot because they have household duties they must be free to attend to. Does this mean to indicate that men have readily available maidservants at their disposals, or does it try to rather indicate that women have some sort of special task, peculiarly theirs, which they ought to be proud of?
Now, I'm not a woman - I'll readily grant this! - and I'm not even married, so I'm sure there's far more work to be put into these understandings. But my point is that in almost anything we say, we can somehow interpret it to be to man's glory, or we can interpret it for woman's benefit. The latter female-centric explanation may be apologetic and demand some sort of alteration nowadays, but the former male-centric explanation is usually chauvinistic if not misogynistic, and I think it is clear that the former explanations are to be eschewed if we have any confidence in Hazal. The latter explanations may be saccharine, but at least they offer us somewhere reasonable to begin.
Your objection is duly noted; thank you.
But seriously Lindsey, thank you. Part of my learning is my speaking my mind and seeing which things get me pummeled by an angry mob. Live and learn.
I highly recommend Shaye J.D. Cohen's book on this topic, "Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism"
I've heard of it, but I don't know anything about it. What's his basis thesis? I'm sure the book answers more than just "Why aren't Jewish women circumcised?"
I am reminded of an advice column - not Jewish - that I read once about teaching teens how not to make unplanned babies (besides the obvious). One writer said that a ploy sometimes used by boys on girls they wanted to sleep with was to tell them that they wouldn't conceive if they didn't climax. I remember being disgusted that any boy could be so selfish. If he's going to wheedle and cajole a girl into doing something that she feels she shouldn't be doing, the least he should do is to make sure she enjoys it! (No, I am not advocating sex between unmarried teens.)
No, that's exactly what it answers but it tackles the question of why that wasn't a question for most of Jewish history, how it became a question as a result of Christian anti-Jewish polemic, and the responses of different schools with Judaism to it (rationalism, kabbalistic, etc). It was only the kabbalists who really felt there was any fundamental "spiritual-covenantal" value to bris above and beyond its status as just one among many mitzvot.
"If the husband plays an indispensable role, however, in her bearing children, I don't think we should be too surprised."
Not only should we "not be too surprised" (we should not be surprised at all), we should expect this to be the case. And that is always what human beings inherently knew and expected because that is the natural order with which G-d created the world.
The man and woman work together to bring a child into the world and raise it and develop it. The man and the woman each have respective roles in the process which complement each other. But they are indeed different roles. And yes, neither can actualize his/her "sexuality" without the other.
Why anyone would get the idea that the roles could be the same or that the woman could handle this burden all by her very empowered self without need of a man (and that the suggestion that a man is needed is an insult and an offense against human dignity) is due to many sociological factors including but not limited to the pervasive new-age feminist propaganda that has penetrated mainstream culture, media, and (especially) educational institutions.
In attacking convention aimed at supposedly embracing nature more fully, they have turned to an attempt to rewrite nature.
Mommy,
Yup, there are scumbags out there.
Skeptic,
That's interesting. The title of that book confused me, because I didn't understand what the big deal was that only men get circumcised and not women. Nu? Should we be troubled by this fact? I didn't understand why it was a question to be asked. Now I understand; if the Kabbalists attributed special value, then it indeed became a searing question why it was exclusive to men.
Anonymous,
Indeed. Nothing against the many women who single-handedly raise their children - whether because they are divorced, widowed, etc. - but indeed, it is rather obvious that a child was meant to have two parents. (Strangely, no one suggests that a man is perfectly capable of raising a child without a wife/mother. But the reason for this disparity cannot be sexism, of course!)
I'm curious to know what the book "Why Aren't Jewish Women Circumcised?" actually says. "Female Circumcision" is practiced in some parts of Africa and the Middle East. It seems the goal is generally to make sex less pleasurable for women and these procedures can often be dangerous. Now, I know those who are against male circumcision are going to say the same thing, but it seems like for thousands of years males have survived the procedure and lived on to enjoy fulfilling sexual experiences. So I think the answer to the question "Why aren't Jewish women circumcised?" is a pretty obvious one.
Naamah,
I agree. In response to the book's title's question, I would have answered, "What would you rather?".
But I can see that if Kabbalah granted metaphysical importance to the circumcision, then the question would gain pressing importance.
Post a Comment