Carnal Isræl: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (184 page)

Read Carnal Isræl: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture Online

Authors: Daniel Boyarin

Tags: #Religion, #Judaism, #General

(footnote continued on the next page)
 
< previous page
page_90
next page >
< previous page
page_91
next page >
Page 91
regard to menstrual separation, the separation of the dough-offering, and the light of the [Sabbath] candle" (Shabbat 2:6). These are precisely the commandments to which Rabbi Yehoshua refers, suggesting a genetic tie between the two utterances, one that makes these three "female" commandments a sort of punishment rather than privilege. In the Palestinian Talmud's interpretation of this Mishna, this assertion of the Mishna is associated with a midrash similar to Rabbi Yehoshua's, "The First Adam was the blood of the world . . . and Eve caused him death; therefore the commandment of menstrual separation was given to the woman. Adam was the first pure dough-offering of the world. . . . and Eve caused his death; therefore she was given the commandment of the dough-offering. Adam was the candle of the world, for it says 'the soul of Adam is the candle of God,' and Eve caused him death; therefore the commandment of lighting the candle was given to the woman'' (Palestinian Talmud Shabbat 2:6 8b).
24
However, even though this tradition blames the entire sin and its consequential death on Eve, it does not project that sin as owing to her sexuality. Eve's act was indeed a sin, and it created the need for her "daughters'' to have a means of atoning it, but there is no hint, whatsoever, that the sin is repeated or continued in the sexual life. Moreover, the fact that the three commandments are linked together in this way shows something else of importance. The menstrual separation is not given special emphasis here nor treated differently in any way from the two commandments of the dough-sacrifice and the lighting of Sabbath candles. If there were an a priori opportunity to identify women's sexuality with death, danger, or demonic powers, it would have been here, and even in the misogynistic text we are reading here, that option is refused.
The Babylonian Talmud goes much further by completely undermining the gender-asymmetric force of the Mishna and by rejecting Rabbi Yehoshua's misogynistic midrash. The Talmud begins by raising the possibility of a sexual interpretation of the Mishnathe very interpretation that seems, at first glance, to be so obvious:
For [not being careful] about menstrual separation, what is the reason? Rabbi Yitzhaq said, "She spoiled things with her sexuality [lit., her inner parts]; therefore she will be smitten by her inner parts."
(footnote continued from the previous page)
classical rabbinic literature. See also below for a catalogue of other misogynistic expressions in the texts. I hope that I have not missed anything significant.
24. This text may even be simply a citation of Rabbi Yehoshua's midrash.
 
< previous page
page_91
next page >
< previous page
page_92
next page >
Page 92
This view would of course canonize Rabbi Yehoshua's misogynistic reading. The Talmud, however, immediately rejects such an interpretationbecause it does not square with the other commandments mentioned, namely the dough-offering and the lighting of Sabbath candlesand offers another reading. Indeed, this hegemonic commentary deflects the issue from one of gender entirely:
As a certain Galilean interpreted: I have put into you a portion of blood; therefore I have given you a commandment having to do with blood. I called you the "firstling"; therefore I have given you a commandment having to do with the first [dough]. The soul which I have given you is called a candle; therefore I have given you a commandment having to do with candles. If you keep them well and good, but if not I will take away your soul.
(Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 31b32a)
These commandments, according to the Babylonian Talmud, like any others belong in principle to the whole people, male and female alike. But these are particularly given to women because they belong particularly to women's sphere as understood by the rabbinic culture, to her body, cooking, and the comfort of the house, just as other commandments, which belong to the "male" spheres of public life and worship, are restricted to men.
25
The Talmud then asks, "Why then at the time of giving birth?" to which the answer is that the time of danger is when a person is tested for righteousness. The text next asks when men are tested, and the answer is given that they are tested when passing over bridges and in similar moments of danger.
26
For the next two pages, the Talmud
25. Compare the reading of this text in Wegner (1988, 15556). I can see no reason whatsoever for her determination that "the three cultic duties listed here, like other biblical precepts, are primarily incumbent on
men
" (155). These are precisely examples of cultic duties that in mishnaic law are incumbent on women just as on men. So violation of the laws of menstrual sexual separation is just as much a violation for the female as for the male partner, as is the eating of untithed food or a possible violation of the Sabbath. These are not, even technically, in the category of timecontingent positive precepts incumbent only on men.
26. Wegner's statement, then, that "women's performance is encouraged by threatening them with death in childbirth for failure to carry out the rites in question" (155), while accurate for the Mishna, certainly is not an appropriate description of the rabbinic practice in general. It is the case that women have a "double dose" of testing, since they presumably cross bridges equally as frequently as men, but this does not materially affect the argument that the danger is de-essentialized from something particularly female here.
 
< previous page
page_92
next page >

Other books

Art of a Jewish Woman by Henry Massie
All I Have in This World by Michael Parker
Morgue Drawer Four by Jutta Profijt
Bill, héroe galáctico by Harry Harrison
Valley of the Shadow by Peter Tremayne