Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Remember the Coneheads?

They were one of Saturday Night Live’s most beloved characters. For the young folks reading this blog, the Coneheads were television’s very first extraterrestrial family from the planet Remulak, who accidentally got stuck on Earth. Their most distinguished feature is their cone-shaped heads; they speak in a monotone, gorge food, smoke entire packages of cigarettes, and gulp down a six pack of beer in one sitting. Whenever people ask them, “Where are you folks from?” They would answer, “France.”

Unfortunately, Rod Serling died in 1975, two years before the Coneheads made their first appearance. Although they were not from the Twilight Zone, they just as well might have been!

Well, most of you might be surprised to know that the Coneheads are back! But this time, they are no longer living in the United States or France, but actually in Israel. A group of Ultra-Orthodox women dubbed by observers as the “Jewish Taliban Women,” have come up with a new stringency not even Moses and the ancient rabbis could have imagined.

Until now, the “Taliban women” wore a veil covering their entire face except for their eyes. Their long cloaks were meant to hide the contour of their bodies. They looked indistinguishable from the actual Taliban Muslim women. But evidently, these Jewish “Taliban Women” decided that the veil was no longer good enough. Their new head coverings consist of wearing a pipe in the form of a cone, which they wear on their heads under the veil.

The most ultra-Orthodox group—the Eda Haredit (one of my teachers was a part of this court) have surprisingly come out against this group, but to no avail. The rabbis warned these women to stay away from the customs and ways of the “Taliban women”, who “are doomed.” On the other hand, the pious Haredim of Beth Shemesh see nothing wrong with such displays of religious modesty. In fact, they seem to view it as something desirable, judging by the recent television interviews.

Feats of piety, not to mention contests of piety are nothing new in the history of religion. In the days of Late Antiquity, both Judaism and Christianity had sects that engaged in such activities. Rabbinical literature contains valuable records about their antics and desire to live a holy life. Here is one story in particular that really stands out:

• After the Second Temple was destroyed, many people became ascetics and abstained from eating meat or drinking wine. Rabbi Joshua engaged them in discussion. He asked them, “My Children, why do you choose not to eat meat nor drink wine? They replied, “Shall we eat the flesh which used to be brought as a continual offering on the altar, and now it is no more? He said to them, “Then why will you not drink wine?” They replied, “Because wine was poured on the altar as a drink offering, and now it is no more.” He said to them, “Fine and well, let us not drink it. However, by the same token we should not eat bread either, for from it they brought the two loaves of the Showbread! While we are at it, we should probably abstain from drinking water too, for they used to pour a water-offering for the holiday of Succoth. We should neither eat fruit either because there is no longer an offering of the first fruits on the holiday of Aseret.”[1] They became silent. . . [2]

Two thousand years ago, the Jewish community had an entire class of people who delighted in such feats of piety. Among the inhabitants of the Qumran community, they refrained from having sexual relations in the city of Jerusalem, which they regarded as an extension of the Temple vicinity.

The Jerusalem Talmud writes, “Who is a man of piety that is a fool? “He, for example, who, if a woman is drowning, says, ‘It is unseemly for me to look at her, and therefore, I cannot rescue her. . . . Who is the pious fool? He who sees a child struggling in the water, and says, ‘When I have taken off my phylacteries, I will go and save him.’ By the time he arrives to rescue him, the child has already expired. Who is the crafty scoundrel? R. Huna says, ‘He is the man who behaves leniently toward himself, while teaching others only the strictest rules.’”[3]

“Our Rabbis have taught: There are seven types of Pharisees, of which five are criticized: the ostentatious Pharisee[4]the Pharisee who knocks his feet together and walks with exaggerated humility[5], the Pharisee is one who knocks his face against the wall rather than gaze at a woman.[6] The Pharisee who feigns religious piety while constantly exclaiming, ‘What is my duty that I may perform it?’”[7] Only two of these, the “God-fearing” Pharisee, who lives in holy awe and the fear of God, the Pharisee who is one for the love of God, are worthy of praise (JT Berachoth, 9.7).

(A parenthetical note: To the best of my knowledge, I am unaware of any Talmudic text that speaks about spitting at little girls who are “immodestly dressed.” By today’s standards, the Pharisees of today make the seven listed in the Mishnah look pale in comparison.)

The Mishnah in Sotah 20a, mentions that the “female Pharisee,” is “among those who bring destruction to the world.” The “Taliban Women” of Jerusalem could certainly qualify as modern-day examples of the “Pharisee woman,” who in all likelihood became the forerunner of the Christian convent for women that was so popular in the medieval period.

Actually, these rabbinic passages support Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees for their ostentatious show of religious piety (cf. Mat. 6:1-4). Of course, not all the Pharisees behaved in such a weird and strange way, but a number of them did! In every generation there are people who are genuinely pious; and then we have the imitators . . . like we see today.

Historically, the super-pious Pharisees of antiquity also inspired their Christian cousins too. Will Durant explains in his Story of Civilization, in his volume on “The Age of Faith” writes about the ascetics of the 4^th century, who did their best to escape temptation; they used to punish their bodies and live a hermetic life. The extremes to which they went in their attempts to deny gratification of “physical lusts” are by modern standards, quite incredible.

For example, St. Ascepsimas wore so many chains that he had to crawl around on hands and knees. A monk named “Besarion,” would not even give in to his body’s desire for restful sleep—for forty years he would not lie down while sleeping. Macarius the Younger sat naked in a swamp for six months until mosquito bites made him look like a victim of leprosy. St. Marion spent eleven years living in a hollowed-out tree trunk. Others lived in caves, dens of beasts, dry wells—even tombs.

Is cleanliness the closest thing to godliness? Well, this attitude was not always historically the case. Durant points out that the early Christian saints suffered the discomfort of filth, stench, worms, and maggots, which were considered to be spiritually beneficial and a sign of victory over the body . . .

Some of the most celebrated saints of this era were Simeon the Stylite of Syria and Daniel the Stylite of Constantinople. Simeon spent 37 years on different pillars, each one loftier and narrower than the last. The last pillar was 66 feet high. He died in 460, aged 72.[8]

Frankly, I am amazed he managed to live such a long life and did not get struck by lightning. Not to be outdone, Daniel lived 33 years on a pillar, and was not infrequently nearly blown off by the storms from Thrace. He died in 494. I am unsure how long he lived; he might not have been as luck as his colleague, Simeon. Alfred Tennyson wrote a poem on Simeon Stylites, “Simeon of the Pillar” by surname–Stylites among men—”was the watcher of the column till the end.”

Rabbinic wisdom challenged many of these early conceptions of piety that existed in both the Jewish and early Christian communities. Rather than retreating from the pleasures of this world, the rabbis taught that the greater challenge is to spiritualize the mundane activities of our lives. Thus, Samuel (180-257 C.E.) exclaimed, “If this man (i.e., the Nazirite) who denied himself wine only is termed, ‘a sinner,’ how much more is the person who denies himself the enjoyment of ever so many things.”[9] R. Dimi, another 4^th century Babylonian scholar (290 – 350 CE) criticized these groups in unflinching terms, “Are there not enough prohibitions in the Torah? Why would you want to take upon yourself even more prohibitions?[10]

The problem with the “Taliban women” of Jerusalem or Beth Shemesh, Israel is that these groups of women feel that God wants them to live a holy life that demands a withdrawal from the sinfulness and forbidden temptations of the world. In reality, this attitude would not exist were it not for the excessive piety many rabbis in Jerusalem have championed over the years. When women’s faces become perceived as something pornographic, burkas are the next logical step in the Haredi evolution toward the creation of “Taliban Judaism.”

It’s a lot easier to be fussy about the length of a woman’s skirt, or examine how many bugs can be found on a leaf of lettuce than it is to actively fight the problems of corruption, defrauding the government, pedophilia, spousal abuse, intolerance, sexism, bigotry, which seem to emanate continuously from within the rank and file members of the religious community. If we are ever going to become a “light unto the nations” (Isa. 60:3), shouldn’t we try to be a light unto ourselves first?

True piety requires a willingness to live within the confines of the world. Obviously, that requires a lot more inner strength. Holiness comes from being a part of a community of individuals who vary in their spiritual abilities. Some people will be further along the track than others.

One 10^th century work cautions would-be-ascetics, “Someday a person will have to give an accounting for all the pleasures of this world that he abstained from enjoying, for such an ingrate shows no appreciation for King’s bounties and grace.”[11] The Taliban women along with their rabbis would be wise to take these practical words to heart. The real righteous (I prefer “just” over the term “righteous”) person is someone who sincerely lives the honest life, walks his talk, and treats his neighbor with kindness, compassion and integrity—even in the face of dishonesty and social corruption.
========= Continue Reading

We are currently studying the book of Judges at our synagogue center. The story of Deborah is especially fascinating, especially since she became a judge at a time when women were generally barefoot and pregnant. Deborah and Yael stand out as strong women who act with boldness of spirit. Here is the text:

Most blessed of women be Jael,

the wife of Heber the Kenite,

of tent-dwelling women most blessed. ²⁵ He asked water and she gave him milk,

she brought him curds in a lordly bowl. ²⁶ She put her hand to the tent peg

and her right hand to the workmen’s mallet;

she struck Sisera a blow,

she crushed his head,

she shattered and pierced his temple. ²⁷ He sank, he fell,

he lay still at her feet;

at her feet he sank, he fell;

where he sank, there he fell dead.

Judges 5:24-27

Why is Deborah praising a woman for committing first degree murder? By all appearances, Jael violated the traditional custom of receiving guests, which was considered to be one of the most sacred customs of Bedouin societies. The deceit she employs is striking; readers of the biblical text want to know: Why did she do it? Weren’t the Kenites supposed to be allies with the Canaanites ? (See Judges 4:17.)

There is obviously more to this story than what meets the eye. One might argue that the Kenites and the Canaanites were allegedly at “peace with one another.” However, nothing is said about the nature of their “peaceful” relationship. It is quite possible that unlike the Israelites, the Kenites submissively accepted the Canaanite’s decrees and authority. This does not necessarily Sisera and his men did not have their way with the Kenites natives of that region. Could it be that she and other women were molested by Sisera or his men, much like they raped the Israelite women?

The biblical narrator is silent, but this type of deconstructive reading seems possible and this explanation may explain her motivation in killing Sisera in stealth. It is also possible that Yael acted on behalf of her Israelite female friends who were ravaged by Sisera. She may have felt that her loyalty to the Israelites was greater than her husband’s political treaties.

There are lots of sexual innuendos in the story. W.C. Kaiser observes, “Not only may the word ‘feet’ be a euphemism for one’s sexual parts, as it is in other parts of Scripture at times, but especially significant are the verbs “lay” (Hebrew šāḵaḇ), meaning ‘to sleep’ or “to have sexual intercourse” (for example, Gen 19:32; Deut 22:23, 25, 28; 2 Sam 13:14), and ‘to bow’ (Hebrew kāra˓), meaning ‘to bend the knee,’ ‘kneel,’ or in Job 31:10 to ‘crouch’ over a woman. If this understanding of the delicately put poetry is correct, then Jael is more than justified in her actions of self-defense of her person as well. For years Canaanite men had been raping Hebrew women in just this fashion.” [1]

Kaiser’s argument makes a lot of sense. Picture this scenario: Sisera simply walks into a woman’s tent, which certainly went against the ancient norms of modesty—all the while her husband was gone. Jael may have felt fearful for her life. Freud might easily deduce that the “at her feet,” might have a sexual connotation. Picture a married woman who is alone in a tent with a warrior, who is not her husband. Did she fear for her life? Would she have been justified to feel afraid for her life. Given the violent nature of her guest, who could blame her?

Had Jael been tried in a modern court, it seems most probable that she would have been acquitted. It is a familiar story we have seen this problem many times whenever women have found themselves in abusive relationships, where they lash out and kill their assailant.

Notes:

[1] W. C. Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity, 1997, c1996), 189.