Sexual thoughts and mind control: the linguistics of Rambam and George Orwell

The chapters of Judaism Reclaimed which relates to parashat Vayigash explore Rambam’s strong legal and theological statements regarding sexual thoughts.

In both Mishneh Torah and Commentary on the Mishnah, Rambam requires that a man avoid all unnecessary interactions with women to whom he is not related. While these laws governing modesty and interactions between the genders are sometimes regarded as being intended solely to prevent actual immoral acts, Rambam, in both Moreh Nevuchim and Commentary to the Mishnah, emphasizes the importance of avoiding interactions which may arouse sexual thoughts. Moreh Nevuchim quotes in this context the Talmudic teaching that “thoughts of sin are more serious than the sin itself”. Why should this be?

Judaism Reclaimed addresses this question in the context of Rambam’s understanding that humanity’s “ultimate perfection” lies in transcending the subjective outlook dictated by our imagination and personal, selfish desires in order to relate to God and the world on the basis of “Divine truths”. The emphasis of Rambam’s ethical teachings is that by keeping one’s character traits in balance and under control, a person can minimise the distorting effect of any subjective or imaginative input when attempting to reach a rational understanding.

The category of subjective imaginative thoughts most likely to prevent a person from achieving this goal of an intellectual connection to God is that of sexual desire. It is a widely held belief, frequently utilized by marketing strategists, that a man’s imagination is immediately captured by and preoccupied with sexual thoughts. Advertising campaigns often attempt to exploit this neurological process by displaying a sexually suggestive image. The emotional faculties will instantly be activated by such an image, becoming unduly influential at the expense of the conscious rational element of the brain. The person’s mind will thus be subliminally drawn toward the message of the advertisement before the rational decision-making function of the cortex has become fully operative.

The gravity with which Rambam regards immoral thoughts may also hold the key to his much-derided and little-understood position that Hebrew is known as Lashon Hakodesh (the language of holiness) because no specific words describe sexual organs and the activities which they perform. Crucially, Rambam makes his claim regarding the significance of Lashon Hakodesh at the end of a long chapter dealing with the Torah’s attitude toward sexual thoughts and the dangers that they pose to a person trying to become more than “an animal in human form”.

In a theory associated with the linguist and anthropologist Franz Boas, language is understood to reflect the public thought and consciousness of the community in which it developed. Comparing the frequency of certain terms used by the Inuit of northern Canada with their English counterparts, Boas noted that, for example, “water” is expressed in numerous distinct terms in the English language including “water, lake, river, brook, and rain,” but only in variations of a single form by the Inuit. In contrast to this, Inuit languages contain multiple different roots for words describing various forms of the single English term “snow”.

Lashon Hakodesh’s unique status as the language of the Torah means that it reflects less the practical realities and attitudes of the Jewish community, and more the values and guidance of its Lawgiver. This is manifested in the fact that sexual organs and their activities, which weigh so heavily on the common thought-processes of the untrained human mind, do not merit even a single dedicated term in God’s holy language. As Rambam puts it:

Speech is among the properties of mankind granted by God through which he is distinguished from the animal kingdom…our language is termed “Lashon Hakodesh”…since this “Lashon Hakodesh” contains absolutely no term for the sexual organs, neither of males nor females, and not for the actual reproductive act…the intention with this is that these matters are improper to mention…

This connection between the functions of speech and thought permits the suggestion of an even more profound understanding of Rambam’s explanation of Lashon Hakodesh on the basis that language can influence and shape the thought processes of those who speak it. Accordingly, Rambam’s explanation reflects an approach to linguistics and human psychology which recognizes the possibility that a person’s thought patterns and ways of expression may be affected by his vocabulary, and more generally his language.

By limiting references to sexual activity and organs to euphemism, Lashon Hakodesh becomes a powerful weapon in the armoury of the Jew who is attempting to make his mind “holy”, by limiting the sexual thoughts and imagination which inhibit his intellect from perceiving God and His truths. Such an explanation for the significance of the Hebrew language is consistent with Rambam’s general view that the Torah’s greatness and holiness lie in its ability to relate to and elevate flawed human beings, rather than in mystical powers represented by the power or combinations of its letters.

Rambam’s explanation of the interplay between language and thought categories resonates with the later creation of “Newspeak” in George Orwell’s novel 1984. While the basic linguistic hypothesis underpinning Rambam’s understanding of Lashon Hakodesh and George Orwell’s Newspeak is similar, the ultimate aim of these two theories could not represent a greater contrast. In Orwell’s dystopian depiction, language is a tool of a totalitarian regime seeking to entrench its power by imposing a restrictive form of English in order to limit categories and capabilities of independent thought. For Rambam, however, the constraints of Lashon Hakodesh are intended to free the pure, rational intellect from the shackles of its imagination and emotive distortions, thereby enabling it to scale the heights of its true potential and achieve a Divine perspective and connection.

Rambam’s explanation of Lashon Hakodesh is taken to another level in the teachings of R Yosef Faur (Golden Doves With Silver Dots). Based upon these teachings his son, R Avraham Faur, argues that the Hebrew language forms and trains the mind subconsciously to think in divine terms ((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5aG-PhDVEY&ab_channel=ToratAndalus– from 16:25). Golden Doves is a work which emphasises the importance of reading the Torah and Rabbinic texts through a traditional Israelite mindset rather than a Western perspective. It argues that a person’s thought processes and how one therefore will interpret a Scriptural or Rabbinic statement is inescapably tied to one’s language. And that this obstacle must be recognised and surmounted if the Torah’s true wisdom is to be accessed and truly comprehended.

First posted on Facebook 27 December 2020, here.

The Torah's sexual prohibitions: religious decrees or basic common sense?

Much of yesterday’s Torah reading focused on forbidden sexual acts—the majority of them incestuous—which are related in great detail in both Acharei-Mot and Kedoshim. While from a religious perspective the existence of such prohibitions may seem expected and unspectacular, prohibitions against incest in the secular world represent something of an anomaly. An apparently victimless crime when performed by two consenting adults.

The attached news story telling of an attempt by an American parent-and-child couple to file for permission to marry set my mind racing. How exactly does Judaism categorise these prohibitions?

In the sixth chapter of Shemoneh Perakim, Rambam cites a surprising aggadic teaching:

"One should not say that he does not wish for meat with milk, clothes made from sha'atnez or immoral acts; rather he should say “I would like to partake of it but my Father in heaven has forbidden it to me””

This teaching, explains Rambam, refers specifically to chukkim—the sorts of commandments which are unique to the Torah and the reasons for which are not easily understood. These laws are not inherently evil but rather are followed out of obedience to the Divine word. Rambam contrasts chukkim with commandments that he labels “mefursamot” (widespread), rules that are universally recognised and legislated in all decent human societies. Concerning such ‘’mefursamot’’ laws Rambam cites the aggadic teaching “even had they not been commanded we could say they ought to have been commanded”.

The inclusion of immorality among the inexplicable ‘’chukkim’’ comes as something of a surprise for several reasons:

1) The prohibition against incest is historically one of the most widespread laws that societies have legislated. Wikipedia describes incest as “one of the most widespread of all cultural taboos…” which is almost universally forbidden between parents/children and siblings.

2) Incest is included within the Noahide Laws, which are often understood to represent basic moral and natural laws.

3) As, R' Gil Student pointed out in his post yesterday, the Torah considers these prohibitions severe breaches of national holiness, warning that they can cause the nation to be ''vomited out of the land''.

4) Rambam writes strongly against sexual excesses and immorality in pretty much ALL of his major works (see more here). In particular, he explains that the Torah’s powerful prohibitions against incest are necessary to prevent vulnerable female family members from being subject to abuse from male relatives.

So where does this leave us? Are the Torah’s sexual prohibitions such as those against incest to be regarded as inexplicable decrees which we observe out of obedience to God’s word or are they to be reviled alongside universally recognised evils such as murder and theft?

Is it possible that a single commandment concerning incest may in some instances—such as when it involves the potential abuse of a minor—represent an easily-understood mefursam prohibition to prevent a universally recognised evil, while in other instances—like that of the attached news story—represent the inexplicable word of God?

In a lengthy analysis of Rabbinic approaches to various mitzvot, Judaism Reclaimed demonstrates how such categorisation can be crucial because Tannaic and Talmudic sages were relatively more likely to legislate loopholes and exceptions for inexplicable chukkim. Mefursamot, by contrast, attracted Rabbinic legislation to prevent apparent loopholes from being exploited [see further here].

Judaism Reclaimed also notes that incest is not the only sexual prohibition to defy simple categorisation. For many centuries the prohibition associated with homosexuality was widely considered to be mefursam—a fathomable and widely accepted – prohibition in Western countries. Recent years though have seen a shift in public opinion, which has led it to be considered more in the category of chukkim than mefursamot. But can the spirit and categorisation of a commandment be subject to change?

How are we to be guided in such a case? Do we attempt to measure by public opinion at the time of the giving of the Torah? Do we follow the mefursam status for the majority of human history or in order to be categorised as mefursam does a commandment need to have been consistently and universally applied? To what extent (if any) can the Torah’s terminology of ‘’to’eiva’’ (abomination) influence the categorisation of the mitzvah?

One fascinating possibility is advanced by Rabbi Chaim Rapoport in his highly recommended book Homosexuality: An Authentic Orthodox View: that the same prohibited act might be considered mefursam for a heterosexual person but an inexplicable chok for a homosexual.

This post, like the associated chapter of Judaism Reclaimed, leaves its readers with questions to ponder rather than easy answers.

First posted on Facebook 25 April 2021, here.

Tu be'Av: sex and marriage in Jewish thought

According to the Mishna, Tu Be'Av was a joyous holiday in the days of the Mikdash, on which the unmarried girls of Jerusalem dressed in white garments, and went out to dance in the vineyards. The Talmud records that “whoever did not have a wife would go there” to find himself a bride. In modern times the day has evolved into a romantic Jewish holiday that is sometimes compared to Valentine's Day.

This most unusual date in the Jewish calendar brings into focus Judaism’s attitude to marriage and sexual relationships. Judaism Reclaimed draws upon and develops the understanding that the Torah does not typically seek to deny its adherents involvement in the physical world. Rather it attempts to channel such activity so as to elevate people intellectually, morally and spiritually.

A notable example of this is food. The Torah does not seek to outlaw gastronomical pleasures. Rather it operates to curb excesses; prohibiting certain combinations of foods and legislating ritual slaughter and a ban on eating from live animals in order to prevent avoidable suffering. Keeping a kosher kitchen often requires one to master and apply intricate halachic details such as those involving different forms of combinations and nullifications of meat and milk. Avot teaches further regarding mealtimes that “where three people ate together at the same table but no Torah is spoken between them, it is as if they partook of an idolatrous sacrifice”. The process of eating – which seemingly relates to the more animalistic side of human conduct – is thus morally, intellectually and spiritually elevated through halachic guidance.

Similarly, with regard to sexual activity, the Torah does not seek to restrict all involvement in the physical world. Rather, it seeks to channel such activity in a manner that minimises its ability to influence the mind towards viewing sex from a purely self-centred perspective. This is why Jewish law promotes sexual intercourse only within the strict confines of marriage – a meaningful relationship based on mutual love and respect. In the context of a relationship of this nature, which is predicated on giving rather than taking, an activity which could otherwise embody the most extreme form of self-gratification and even exploitation now becomes an opportunity to superimpose a higher set of values upon the person’s inherently selfish focus.

The notion that sexuality can be profoundly transformed and elevated when placed in the context of marriage is developed by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, who writes:

“If you should inquire as to the essence and meaning of the institution of marriage, I would say that through marriage the miraculous transition from the I-it contact to the I-you relationship occurs. Marriage personalizes sexuality as the joint experience of the I and the you.”

This theme is further explored by Rabbi Shagar in his essay “Love, Romance and Covenant”, where he concludes that “The chaos of sexuality, which first appears as the antithesis of marriage, as something to be suppressed by marriage, is ultimately synthesised with it, raising it up so that the relationship becomes an intimate partnership of body and soul”.

The Mishnah in Ta’anit which details the Tu Be’Av customs can be seen to contain strong indications of the role of marriage in transforming and elevating sexuality.

There were no days of joy in Israel greater than the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur. On these days the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in borrowed white garments in order not to shame anyone who had none...The daughters of Jerusalem came out and dance in the vineyards. What would they say? Young man, lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself. Do not set your eyes on beauty but set your eyes on the family. “Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman that fears the Lord, she shall be praised”

Having associated the vineyard dancing of young maidens with the holiness and purity of Yom Kippur, the Mishnah describes how the focus of matchmaking is not the vanity of lustful beauty but rather on fear of Heaven and the sacred task of raising a family based on Jewish values and teachings.

A somewhat different Valentine’s Day.

First posted to Facebook 11 August 2022, here.