GEN452 What God was doing when He asked Abraham to offer up his son was not requesting a child sacrifice but something quite different. He wanted Abraham to renounce ownership of his son. He wanted to establish as a non-negotiable principle of Jewish law that children are not the property of their parents. That is why three of the four matriarchs found themselves unable to conceive other than by a miracle. The Torah wants us to know that the children they bore were the children of God rather than the natural outcome of a biological process. Eventually, the entire nation of Israel would be called the children of God. A related idea is conveyed by the fact that God chose as His spokesperson Moses, who was “not a man of words” Exodus 4:10. He was a stammerer. Moses became God’s spokesman because people knew that the words he spoke were not his own but those placed in his mouth by God. The clearest evidence for this interpretation is given at the birth of the very first human child. When she first gives birth, Eve says: “With the help of the Lord I have acquired [kaniti] a man” [this verse]. That child, whose name comes from the verb “to acquire,” was Cain, who became the first murderer. If you seek to own your children, your children may rebel into violence. If the analysis of Fustel de Colanges The Ancient City: A Study on the Religion, Laws and Institutions of Greece and Rome (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1956) and Larry Siedentop Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism (London: Penguin, 2014) is correct, it follows that something fundamental was at stake. As long as parents believed they owned their children, the concept of the individual could not yet be born. The fundamental unit was the family. The Torah represents the birth of individual as the central figure in the moral life. Because children—all children—belong to God, parenthood is not ownership but guardianship. As soon as they reach the age of maturity (traditionally, 12 for girls, 13 for boys) children become independent with their own dignity and freedom. Sigmund Freud famously had something to say about this too. He held that a fundamental driver of human identity is the Oedipus complex, the conflict between fathers and sons as exemplified in Aeschylus’ tragedy. By creating moral space between fathers and sons, Judaism offers a non-tragic resolution to this tension. If Freud had taken his psychology from the Torah rather than from Greek myths, he might have arrived at a more hopeful view of the human condition. Why then did God say to Abraham about Isaac: “Offer him up as a burnt offering”? [Genesis 22:2 - AJL] So as to make clear to all future generations that the reason Jews condemn child sacrifice is not because they lack the courage to perform it. Abraham is the proof that they do not lack the courage. The reason they do not do so is because God is the God of life, not death. In Judaism, as the laws of purity and the rite of the Red Heifer show, death is not sacred. Death defiles. The Torah is revolutionary not only in relation to society but also in relation to family. To be sure, the Torah’s revolution was not fully completed in the course of the biblical age. Slavery had not yet been abolished. The rights of women had not yet been fully actualized. But the birth of the individual—the integrity of each of us as a moral agent in our own right—was one of the great moral revolutions in history.  SACKS 25-26

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN456 Why does the Torah use this specific verb, that is, knowledge, for the sexual act?  This teaches us that in Judaism, proper sex between partners must be more than a mere physical act.  It is very special, as it must also involve the brain.  The sexual union, therefore, is much more than any physical act of man.  It is one that entails a relationship, a partnership through the thought process.  … It is the thoughts and feelings beyond the physical that will ultimately determine if the physical union will be satisfying or not.  AMEMEI 261

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN453 In the work that I do, I am often dismayed by the fact that many young people do not believe the religion has important things to say about sexuality.  Frequently, they identify religious doctrine as “sex-negative” – as teaching only that sex is essentially bad unless it occurs, or is redeemed, under very specific circumstances.  Interesting, I find it is often students from a fundamentalist or evangelical tradition who speak most favorably, and certainly most clearly and authoritatively, about the religious guidance they have received about sex.  My Jewish students typically know that sex is considered a mitzvah, but often cannot quite put that together with all of the various sexual prohibitions they know exist in Torah (that is, unless sexuality has been addressed very specifically in their religious education).  Even in secular settings, I like to share my understanding of Jewish teaching about sexuality.  I start with the biblical verb for sex—“to know”—as a means to introduce the idea of sex as a form of human intimacy and to make the point that just as emotional intimacy involves deep knowledge of another person, so does sexual intimacy.  I often simply ask my students what they think the verb “to know” might mean in relation to sex, and it is amazing how quickly they can begin to think about sex in a deeper, more philosophical context.  Indeed, my older students can easily grasp a profound understanding of sex, and other forms of human intimacy, as a means of diminishing the existential aloneness that we all experience as part of human life.  I also like to share how intriguing I find the Creation myth in in the Book of Genesis.  Once Adam and Eve disobey God and eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, an immediate consequence is the sudden realization of their own nakedness.  I think of their covering up as an acknowledgment of the boundaries that exist between us and other people in an imperfect world.  In such a world, it becomes safe, as well as a safe haven, to share all of ourselves only within the confines of an intimate, trusting relationship.  DORSEX 56

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN454 Know that the sexual intercourse of man with his wife is holy and pure when done properly, in the proper time and with the proper intention.  No one should think that sexual intercourse is ugly and loathsome, God forbid! Proper sexual intercourse is called “knowing” [this verse] for good reason.  As it is said, “And Elkanah knew his wife Hannah” Samuel 1 1:19. The secret reason for this is that when the drop of semen is drawn in holiness and purity, it comes from the source of wisdom and understanding, which is the brain.  Understand, therefore, that unless it involved matters of great holiness, sexual union would not be called “knowing.” HTBAJ 158

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN455 Sexuality represents a stance of pro-creation and of re-creation that aligns the individual with the rest of humanity as well as with the divine image implanted within each human person.  Already in Scripture, sexual experience is described as “knowing.” Sexual experience, coupled with love, desire, and will, can penetrate not only the mystery of sexuality, but the mysteries of knowledge of the world, of the divine, and of the self.  Sexual experience can be a vehicle to self-knowledge, to self-transformation, and to the creation of life as a work of art.  In the act of love, a new union is created.  The two individuals who forge this union can each become irrevocably transformed thereby. Each may be re-created through the procreative act.  Through sexual and erotic union, one may become God’s partner in the work of creation.  HTBAJ 154

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN457 First use of the verb in the Torah as associated with the sexual act.  AMJV 140

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN458 See [[GEN493]] Genesis 4:8 killed SACKS 159-60

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN459 We must embellish our performance of mitzvoth.  The Sages of blessed memory have cautioned us regarding the honor and esteem that must be accorded to a mitzvah, and they have said Shabbat 133b: “This is my God and I will adorn Him.”  Exodus 15:2 – adorn yourself before Him with mitzvoth: with beautiful tzitzis, beautiful tefillin, a beautiful Torah scroll, a beautiful lulav…”  Similarly, they said Baba Kama 9b “ [One should expend] up to one third [extra] for the embellishment of a mitzvah.  Up to this amount comes from his account [“He will receive his reward in the world-to-come” -- Rashi].  More than this is from the Eternal’s account [“He will be repaid in this world” –Rashi].” The wisdom derived from the lips of our Sages of blessed memory clearly informs us that merely performing a mitzvah [in a routine way] is unsatisfactory.  Rather, it must be honored and embellished.  Abel brought an offering from the firstborn of his sheep and from the fattest ones, while Cain’s [offering] was from the chaff of the produce of the ground, as expounded upon by our Sages of blessed memory Genesis Rabbah 22:5.  [The verse does not say that Cain’s offering was from the first ripened fruit, which were esteemed a special delicacy; Isaiah 28:4, Jeremiah 24:2]. And what was the outcome? “And the Eternal showed regard to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering, He showed no regard.”  PATH 123-4

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN460 Even though the Bible suggests that God’s ideal diet for humans beings is vegetarian (See Genesis 1:29), God does accept with favor the sacrificial gift offering of an animal by Abel.  TELVOL 2:331

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN461 Abarbanel describes the entire episode of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel (which led to Cain slaying Abel) as a competition between the two for the affection and approval of God.  Genesis Rabbah 22:7 also depicts the relationship of Cain and Abel as competitive, but gives three different underlying reasons for this rivalry.  The first explanation is that they were arguing over possessions: Cain claimed all the land in the world for himself and Abel claimed all the objects in the world as his own.  But then Cain told Abel to get off of “his” land, and Abel told Cain to give him back “his” clothing that Cain was wearing.  They argued and Cain killed Abel.  Rabbi Joshua disagrees.  He says that they spit the land and possessions amicably, but they were actually competing and arguing about whose property would contain the Holy Temple.  Each claimed the Temple site for himself, they argued and Cain killed Abel.  Yehuda bar Ami says they were arguing about and competing with each other over Eve or the twin sister of Cain and Abel who was also born to Eve, as both Cain and Abel wanted to take her as their wives, until Cain killed Abel.  A modern commentary has explained this Midrash to exemplify all competitions in human history, the prototype of what leaders and nations have always fought over and competed for: land/possession, religions, and sex.  AMJV 73

SHOW FULL EXCERPT