My previous post elicited interesting responses. There were colleagues who rejected my premise that sages might have gone to prostitutes – saying for example - “To suggest, without a supporting frame of reference, that in these cases they were involved in an antithetical activity is the same thing as suggesting that they rode into town on pink elephants.”. Or, another asked me why am I ‘obsessed’ with sex outside of the marriage, neglecting the fact that I have many blog posts that deal with many other real life issues.
I do not mean to conclude whether sages of the Talmud did or did not go to prostitutes. But there are some relevant issues that I like to consider - (a) prostitution existed during all ages since antiquity and indeed, there are many anecdotes about prostitutes in the Talmud, (b) Talmud deals extensively with male sexual inclinations and how to possibly take actions to control these urges, and (c) there is not a clear halakhic prohibition or punishment for a male Jew to have sexual relations with a prostitute in the Talmud.
I do not think that our society today is different.
By association, the latest news about allowing female students to don tefillin during the Morning Prayer services at school stimulated me to present another Talmudic treasure. My post is not going to deal with this controversy, but rather it will deal with the symbol of Tzitzit in the men’s world at the time of Talmud.
In Menachot 44a, we find the story of an unnamed young student who went to a prostitute but was distracted from sinning with her. His Tzitzit protected him and he was rewarded by marrying this prostitute after she decided to convert to Judaism.
It was taught: R. Nathan said: There is not a single commandment written in the Torah, even the lightest, whose reward is not enjoyed in this world; and as to its reward in the world to come I do not know how great it is. Go and learn this from the commandment of Tzitzit (fringes).
Once there was a man, who was very careful about the commandment of Tzitzit. He heard about a certain harlot in one of the towns by the sea who charged a fee of four hundred gold coins for her hire. He sent her four hundred gold coins [in advance] and scheduled a time [to meet her]. When his time arrived he came and sat at her door step. The harlot’s maid told her: “The man who sent you four hundred gold coins is here and is waiting at the door”; to which the harlot replied “Let him come in”. He came in.This student must have prepared for his visit to a prostitute for a long time. He saved a VERY big sum of money, which equals to more than 5 times the sum he would have had to pay for his wife at the wedding ceremony (200 zuz for the Jewish marriage contract-Ketubah). He also chose a prostitute that is of a high rank in her profession, and obviously, he had to take time off from studying Torah and travel great distances to reach her. I wonder why he could not contain his desire. After all, Torah study was supposed to be a way to help channel libido.
The harlot prepared for him seven beds, six of silver and one of gold; and between one bed and the other there were steps of silver, but the last were of gold. She then went up to the top bed and sat upon it naked. He too went up and sat naked next to her, when [all of a sudden] the four fringes (Tzitzit) of his garment struck him across the face; he slipped off the bed and fell upon the ground. She also [let herself fall] and sat upon the ground.So far, the prostitute is getting the spotlight. She owns gold and silver and is not easily accessible. The student had to clime 7 beds in order to be able to get closer to her. And here comes the accident -- all of the sudden he was slapped by the fringes. It is not clear what exactly happened but a supernatural force entered the picture. More amazing is the combination of the role of the Tzitzit juxtaposition prostitution. And if it is not ironic that the student was saved from sinning by his fringes, the same ones that any Jewish woman cannot wear. If they are his identity, what was her sign of identity?
She said to him; “By the Roman Capitol (A form of oath. According to Rashi: By the head of Rome, referring to the Emperor), I will not leave until you tell me what blemish you saw in me.” He replied: “By the Temple (the service of the Temple), never have I seen a woman as beautiful as you are; but there is one commandment which God has commanded us, that is called Tzitzit, and with regard to it the expression “I am the Lord your God” is written twice, signifying, I am He who will exact punishment in the future and I am He who will give reward in the future. The Tzitzit appeared to me as four witnesses”.
She said; I will not let you go until you tell me your name, the name of your town, the name of your teacher, and the name of your school in which you study the Torah.” He wrote all this down and handed it to her. Thereupon she arose and divided her estate into three parts; one third for the kingdom, one third to be distributed among the poor, and one third she took with her in her hand; the bed linen she kept.Interesting conversation. It is amazing how this prostitute treats a young Jewish man with such compassion and respect. She sits on the floor with him naked and wants to get to know him. Both are almost equal. She is a real person with feeling.
She [then] came to the house of study of Rabbi Chiyya, and said to him, ‘Master, give instructions that they may make me a convert’. ‘My daughter’, he replied; ‘perhaps you have set your eyes on one of my students?’ She thereupon took out the paper and handed it to him. ‘Go’, said he ‘and enjoy your acquisition’…
Those very bed-linen which she had spread for the student for an illicit purpose she now spread out for him lawfully.
This was his reward in this world. And as far as the reward in the world to come, I do not know."R. Natan tells us that this prostitute apparently was so impressed with this man’s faith that she gave up her career and powerful social status, converted to Judaism and later married this man. In addition, note how Rabbi Hiyya was not even shocked; on the contrary, he was prepared to accept the prostitute as a convert and to reward his student by sanctifying their marriage.
If this story is supposed to be about self-control it tells us that in order to control our temptations we need more than just will power. We need external articles that can serve us as reminders. In many ways, I feel a bit liberated to think that I can be controlled by an “alarm clock” that is meaningful to me at times when my will power fails. But, is it really the message of this story? If the point of this story of R. Natan is that Tzitzit are a protection against sin and immoral temptations, how come this student could not avoid going there to begin with? And lastly, why did the rabbis feel that they had to redeem this woman?
©Rabbi Ziona Zelazo
Ziona, whether or not this story literally happened-- I tend to believe that it is an Aggadah (homiletical legend), it reminds me of the last act of "Guys & Dolls," where Sky Masterson stops being a gambler and joins the Salvation Army. Clearly, the simple display of tzitzit was sufficient to induce the Sage not to sin, and to make the harlot convert. There is a story with which I am familiar, from Yaffa Eliach's "Hasidic Tales of the Holocaust": a young former Yeshiva bochur (student) who survived the death camps lost his faith-- a not uncommon occurrence among survivors. He and his friends ate meat from a dead horse, because they were hungry. He thereafter considered himself a sinner, beyond any saving. One day, one Shabbat afternoon, he was walking by a makeshift shul, when one of the congregants asked him in to make a minyan. They gave him an aliyah. As he stood before the Torah, this young man, who had suffered so much, and lost so many relatives in the Shoah, looked into the Torah and felt as if the letters were literally pulling him back to Judaism. I told this story to my Shabbat Discussion Group, which includes a number of survivors. Afterwards, one of them, a man I love and honor very much, a pillar of the shul, approached me quietly and said, "Rabbi, I was that boy-- I felt that same way, after I was liberated, and the words of Torah pulled me back." God grants us many miracles, in our lives and in our work as rabbis. Thank you and yasher koach for sharing!
ReplyDeleteReb David: It is clear we deal with Aggadah. The question is what do we learn from this and why does the Gemarah tell this to us. Your examples are profound and right on. On a more general perspective, i think there is a message about our humanity as a universal and not so much as a particular Jewish message.
ReplyDeleteThe rabbis "redeemed" the woman? She redeemed herself!
ReplyDeleteReb Yosef: Is this comment an angry remark or a mean to ask me to clarify what I wrote? It is my understanding, and you are welcome to correct me, that when sages told an an Aggadah in the Gemarah they had an objective to "fix" what does not seem right and instill moral values. The woman here did redeem herself, but only because the rabbis have chosen to end the story like this. They were the ones to give her a voice by telling us that she redeemed herself.
ReplyDeleteThe rabbis are the narrators and their story telling is an amazing tool to give voice to characters in a particular story.
Not angry. Chas v'Shalom. Request for clarification. The way you phrase it sounds like a complaint that it is the rabbis who are somehow asserting jurisdiction over her redemption. Huh?
ReplyDeleteReb Yosef:
ReplyDeleteI am not complaining, but rather trying to raise questions that puzzle me -- what is the moral of the story when the rabbis davka talk about a prostitute that gets to be so enchanted with Judaism. Furthermore, what is so important in her being converted. The story could have simply ended with the student NOT committing a sin because of the tzitzut and tu lo... !
The rabbis do have jurisdiction authority over matters, no?
1. Why do you not entertain the possibility that the story is true ומעשה שהיה כך היה?
ReplyDelete2. Even were we to grant the story as allegory, you really cannot see a moral in the ending?
Yosef:
ReplyDeleteWhile some Aggadot might be historical and true, I find it hard to believe that our story is. It's not presented as a "true" or factual record. Why would anyone think that it is?
Using your previous methodology, I would say that if somebody really believes that the Tzitzit actually slapped the student in the face by some kind of magical power, then it is like saying that the American government has been in communication with aliens, and he himself was just released last week…
Of course I get the message of this Aggada, but my question was proposed as a way to pull responses from my readers… So even if it is an allegory, the moral of the story could be understood in different ways. I wonder what is your answer to my questions of why teach it with a prostitute? Why flying Tzitiz and why such happy ending?
Why do you say it is not related as factual? It is brought as evidence that even a "light" mitzvah has great impact; it is related as a "ma'aseh" - a factual occurence - and the prostitute is said to have come to a real place and interacted with a real person - Rabbi Chiyya (see Tosafos).
ReplyDeleteI fail to understand your analogy. First, it does not say that the tzitzis slapped him in the face magically. Perhaps the wind lifted the fringes up? Second, the Talmud is replete with supernatural occurrences. Why would you assume they did not take place?
Reb Yosef:
ReplyDeleteWe are having a wonderful platform for discussion. Whether the story here (or any other Aggadah in the Gemarah) is historical, factual, or not, we are dealing with the element of emunah. I think you will agree that there are many points of views about it. See "Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture" by Jeffrey Rubenstein, for example. Or, the skepticism by the Ramban and Maimonides, in his Introduction to Perek Helek. Or take Rabbi Neil Gilman’s take that there are many kinds of truths, and True does not mean factual.
I totally respect your discomfort with my ashkafah, but I also would like to assure you that even with my questions I do respect the Gemarah, its teaching and its being the Torah Sh’beal pe that has a kedusha to it.
As far as the way the Tzitzit moved, I read in Hebrew:
באו ד׳ ציציותיו וטפחו לו על פניו -- the word טפח according to Jastrow means: Struck him in the face, to strike, to slap. Even in modern Hebrew it means that. This is why I did not understand it as a gentle brush on his face...
This is an interesting conversation and I see you brought my very close relative, Jeffery Rubenstein.
DeleteOrthodox Jews, such as myself, find it very difficult to take stories, even Aggadatas in the Gemarah, allegorically unless it is obviously so. The fact that Rebbe Nosson says 'maaseh b'adam echad', 'there was a story with a certain man' clearly shows the story is true. Secondly, it clearly says she went to rebbe chiya (although it isn't clear who she really went to) , mentioning a specific rabbi and quoting their dialect is evidence for the factuality of the story. Lastly it is clear that the Tzitzis weren't hitting him too hard on the face otherwise it would've been obvious why he sat on the ground. טפח merely means hit, it doesn't davka mean it in a very physical way. Was it supernatural at all, or does it just mean the tzitzis brushed him, causing him to notice them and catch himself? I don't know and to be honest it doesn't matter.
One this is clear toe though; there is no reason to take this story allegorically.
Dear Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI thank you for your comments. I do own "Talmudic Stories" book by Jeffrey Rubenstein, but I do not think I used his resources for this blog.
I respect your analysis of this Aggadah because I understand that interpretations of these kinds of Talmudic stories could vary. Each one of us is raised differently and each one of us lives their life the way they feel authentic. You are right! In the end of the day it does not matter whether this is a true or not true indecent. What matters is what you, the reader, learned from it and how you can apply the teaching to your life. This is Torah too.
I am not a scholar.
ReplyDeleteBut first, even accepting this is perfectly factual, it remains a valid question: they could have tailored _how_ to share the truth a great many ways. Hope that does not seem an insult to Chazal. Just that people with the best intentions still have biases and agendas, even as they try to yoke the yeitzer hara in a direction which sanctifies The Name. Even divine intervention might not yield a straightforward way to relate the truth (remember the way the news of Sarah's conception is revealed!)
So why does the truth include the harlot's "redemption" ?
Consider the way the Rabbi does not ask her to learn anything about the Jews. He simply pronounces her fit to marry the student. If we are not presuming bribery (though his response hints, perhaps, he is tired of being offered bribes to pressure him to accelerate conversion)...this is amazing.
More amazing: it does not mention her going to mikveh, the culmination of conversion, the act of spiritual alchemy which returns the "lost" soul of the convert to the Covenant. Given mikveh immersion has overtones of atonement, and her (presumably former) profession,them skipping this implies the author thought she had no need to atone(!!)
Now, this could be intended as a subtle reminder the Noahide and Jewish Covenants are different,and that she had done nothing wrong. (Which given how Jews of that period tended to see women as innate and vexing problems is quite exceptional, if so. Esp. when the prospect of aveirah related sex came up.)
But maybe it is more likely that it is a meditation on excellence and the gap it creates. The Rabbi says the woman has _acquired_ his student. Now, unless this is a sort of "he's less a man than he should be for being in this situation, you're in the masculine role"....is this not the same idea how Y*VH came to relate to the Jews? That they and all their descendants have been "acquired" (and are segulot even!) and stamped with the divine Name as a mark of this status.
In fact, how can this woman have acquired a man already acquired by Y*VH?
Perhaps the unspoken subtext,meant to protect the dignity of the student, is that this incident was only the tip of the iceberg. That like the Jews just before Moshe,he had opened all but one of the gates of corruption.
But with her, she was a person of such integrity, such eagerness to see something better and higher in the world than material mastery and success (which she had the maximum amount a Roman woman might have, arguably)...that merely seeing a person act in a way that denied material factors were all that mattered utterly galvanized her.
That she was on an exalted spiritual level, to help invert the final gate of corruption (and a gate involving the corruption prone domain of sexual intercourse!) into a gate of redemption.
I can see such an awe inspiring event being something even culturally gynophobic and sexist scholars being unable to ignore or hide from the profound holiness in.
(or in whatever event they had to transform into this story, that spark that sex even in a dangerous context can sometimes be a powerful path to Y*VH.)
She is so close to being an angel,they have to make clear after doing such deep,intense work for Y*VH, she ended up in the best pattern Chazal could conceive for a woman: the supportive, "woman of valor" wife of a Torah scholar.
Not because she was bad if she's remained an anonymous facilitator,but because _her_ reward for jumping to obey the First Commandment is also partially in the here and now. And this is the only reward that fits the distinction that her obedience has brought to her.
Also, probably "something someting kabbalah something something song of songs something something lost lore" (I mean that respectfully. I know just the barest glimmer of such things to feel if that were the case, it would also explain the inclusion. probably something to do in particular with how both of them interacted with the sefira of teferet?)
Dear TAHKHLEET - Thanks for your very thoughtful comments for this post. You may not see yourself as a scholar, but you sure know lots. You have raised many good questions. There is always room to argue about halachah or Jewish Law. For ex. when you ask "How can a man been acquired by this woman while he is already acquired by Y*VH"? So what about the acquisition of a woman by the man during their wedding? Is she not already acquired by Y*VH? What I am curious about is how did this story affect you on a personal level?
ReplyDelete