Yefat to'ar and contemporary sexual violence

Yesterday’s Torah reading on the subject of the Yefat To’ar – the beautiful captive – took on an acute relevance this year in light of the recent Eilat rape which has horrified Israel. Statistics released in news reports connected to the rape (as well as those reporting the recent #MeToo revelations) demonstrate that what might have once been regarded as unpleasant isolated incidents are actually symptoms of a widespread societal sickness.

People tend to offer solutions which fit with their existing worldview. Some religious thinkers see the sexual violence as the result of an overly-sexualised society in which teenagers are prone to translate prevalent, often violent, pornography and sexual images into real life. They argue for increased boundaries between the sexes and a reduction in the exposure of teenagers to powerful sexual images.

On the other hand, those coming from a secular standpoint believe that the plague can be resolved, or at least significantly diminished through education. By seeking to change the way in which society in general and men in particular view women, masculinity and rape culture (see more here).

While Judaism Reclaimed only deals with the phenomenon of Yefat To’ar in passing, I was pressed by a (female) reviewer to include a lengthy footnote on the subject (a footnote she edited ). At first viewing, there seems little in the passage of Yefat To’ar that we may be inclined to take instruction from in terms of combating sexual violence in the 21st-century. Taking a broader perspective however, including the teachings of the accompanying Oral Tradition, I believe that we can draw inspiration from the Torah’s overall approach to the phenomenon.

The basic law of Yefat To’ar conveys the Torah’s belief that mere moral teaching alone may often fail to curb the powerful male sexual desire – particularly in scenarios in which he does not feel immediately threatened by the long arm of the law. However, the laws themselves are to read – according to the Midrashic tradition – in context of their placement alongside the Ben Sorer Umoreh (Wayward and Rebellious Son) to impart the Torah’s severe warning of the consequence of such awful conduct. If this is correct, and any lesson from Yefar To’ar is to be transposed to tackling today’s plague of sexual violence, it may be to combine the two approaches cited above: both to reduce the exposure of teenagers to violent sexual images and culture and to accompany this with re-educating today’s youth towards a healthier frame of mind.

THE JUDAISM RECLAIMED FOOTNOTE:

“Yefat to'ar causes understandable consternation among those fortunate to live in peaceful societies, distant from the sobering realities of warfare, particularly those involving close combat. Even recent warfare, however, provides numerous examples of how human behaviour tends to be affected by the atmosphere of impunity and lawlessness which typically prevails in war zones. From 'comfort women' in the Japan-Korean war to ongoing inter-African conflicts, last century’s world wars, and the recent Arab uprisings, rape has often been regarded as a weapon of war and a legitimate incentive to soldiers risking their lives. Recently even non-combatants such as UN aid workers have been implicated for sexual abuse in lawless war zones.

The question that must be posed is that, if all of the armies partaking in the horrific history of human warfare had adopted the laws and teachings of yefat to’ar, would there have been a considerable reduction in the amount of war crimes relating to mass rape and sexual abuse. Note that the Torah does not encourage or condone the yefat to'ar. It is a framework to guide and coax the soldier caught up in the heat of battle, surviving on his primal instincts, away from immorality and abuse by 'putting off' the captive woman until after the battle when, hopefully, his passions will have subsided, and the morality of real life resumed. Midrashim, quoted by Rashi on the passage of yefat to’ar make it clear that, even when the soldier takes a yefat toarin a permitted manner, this is very much frowned upon by the Torah. In fact, these midrashim teach that the laws of yefat to’ar are deliberately placed adjacent to those of the ‘hated wife’ and ‘wayward and rebellious son’ in order to show the likely effect that taking a yefat to’ar will have on the family life of this weak-moralled person.”

First posted to Facebook 30 August 2020, here.

Circumcision: divine duties and human morality

The command of circumcision, which features in this week’s Torah portion, has become an important battleground in recent years for those seeking to challenge religious practices on apparent humanitarian grounds.

This challenge forms part of a bigger question of the interplay between mitzvot and morality in Judaism. In its chapter on Torah and universal morality, Judaism Reclaimed approaches first from the point of view of Rambam, maintaining that the Maimonidean perspective rejects the very notion of God being subject to or working within human conceptions of morality (although there is far more to discuss on this, see my post here).

Others however follow a more Hirschian approach which seeks to explain the Torah’s teachings as representing the pinnacle of morality. Mitzvot which may initially appear to present a moral challenge are accounted for by pointing to our lack of divine knowledge, wisdom and perspective. Circumcision itself is understood by R’ Hirsch to contain a rich array of profound symbolic moral teachings (a sample of which are well presented in this podcast by Simi Rivka Lerner here).

In this post I would like to focus on a fascinating essay on the subject by Rabbi Nathan Cardozo in his recent book on Bereishit (my review of his book is here). Rather than trade in apologetics and attempted moral justifications, Cardozo goes on the attack, arguing that

[T]he whole premise on which these objections are based is the result of a profound misunderstanding of what human beings are all about, what moves them, and what make their lives meaningful. To be truly alive is only possible when one lives for some supreme goal. There are values in life that surpass our concern for the mundane, and many of us are prepared to make highly uncomfortable – even painful – sacrifices in order to live by those values.

Instead of focusing on the right of parents to wound their newborn son, Cardozo turns the tables asking

What right do we have to bring children into the world without giving them a higher mission? While Socrates teaches that the unexamined life is not worth living, Judaism teaches us that a life without commitment is a life not lived. To deny our children this is to withhold from them true joy, and the capability to withstand major challenges, as well as the chance to experience the highest, truest value of living in this world.

Cardozo the proceeds to evaluate a more fundamental question of parental rights

But shouldn‎’t we also ask ourselves honestly whether we have the right to bring a child into this world at all? Is that not a much greater injustice than circumcision? After all, even with today’s medical knowledge, many children are tragically born with all sorts of deformities or illnesses, often crippled and handicapped for life. Others may suffer at some later stage in life, contracting diseases, experiencing violence, and even becoming victims of war and other atrocities…Subconsciously, we all know that we have the right to bring a child into the world because there is something about life that overrules all objections against it. If we did not believe this, it would be completely prohibited to risk bringing children into the world, knowing full well how much harm and pain they will probably encounter. Only if we understand that life is of invaluable importance – and not merely a matter of physical survival – can we live a life of grand spiritual import.

The discussion then proceeds to investigate the underlying difference in priority and perspective between Judaism and the contemporary Western society

Western society is rights-orientated, and secular ethics is deeply rooted in this distinction. One of the great contributions that Judaism…has made to this world is the concept of duty. Judaism does not believe that people own their bodies, and are therefore free to do with them whatever they please. Judaism, and most monotheistic religions, believe that the human body is a loan granted by God, Who is the ultimate Owner…

The rite of circumcision is the Jews’ way of passing on life’s meaning to their children, by obligating them to fulfil the Jewish people’s covenant with God, sealed thousands of years ago. It is duty we talk about, and there is no growth except in the fulfilment of one’s duties. For Jews, circumcision – the promise to live life with a great mission as its guide – is God’s seal imprinted on human flesh. And it is only proper that this sign of allegiance be imposed upon the body, for after all, it is not the soul that needs to make the commitment. The soul is already committed to its mission.

Cardozo concludes powerfully that

The claim that it may hurt for a moment, and that it interferes with a child’s self-determination, is totally disproportionate to its infinite spiritual value. The child, from the very beginning of his life, is physically and symbolically reminded that living a life of higher meaning requires sacrifice, but is also the source of both ultimate happiness and the notion of mission.

One final point, many readers may be questioning at this point why the divine seal of meaning appears to be an exclusively male notion: do women not also require or deserve such an imprint of Judaism's divine mission?

Rabbi S. R. Hirsch addresses this question in a passage we expand upon in Judaism Reclaimed's chapter on the Jewish view of gender. R' Hirsch highlights the unexpected placement, in parashat Tazria, of the commandment of circumcision amidst the laws relating to ritual purity of a new mother and Niddah. Among other things, R' Hirsch understands the Torah to be drawing a parallel between the dedication to divine mission that circumcision symbolises for the male and the symbolic moral significance offered for women by the laws governing the Niddah cycle.

First posted on Facebook 29 October 2020, here.