Do you like reading Jewish literature? Share your thoughts, opinions, & reviews!
Rashi's "feminist" commentary on Genesis 3
[continuation of previous post]
It is in the third chapter of Genesis, where Eve succumbs to the snake's temptation and eats the forbidden fruit, that Rashi goes against the near universal tradition of blaming Eve. He knows these very well, because in Gen 3:8 he states that he's aware of many midrash about this, including Genesis Rabbah, but he's not concerned with them - only with peshat, the plain meaning of the text. Yet Rashi regularly quotes midrash in his other Torah commentaries, so why does he need to exclude it here?
It seems to me that Rashi is deliberately ignoring the section in Genesis Rabbah that asks, "Why do women die in childbirth?" and then answers, "Because they neglect niddah, challah, kindling the (Sabbath) light. Because Eve spilled the blood of Adam, the first of men, women were given the obligation of niddah. Because she spoiled Adam, the first pure dough of the world, women were given the obligation of challah [when making bread, removing some dough for the priests]. And because she extinguished the light of Adam's soul, women were given the obligation of kindling [Shabbat] lights."
Indeed, as those who have read BOOK I - JOHEVED may recall, Rashi rejects this misogynist idea by explaining [in his Talmud commentary to Shab 31b] that death in childbirth is NOT a punishment for women who neglect certain mitzvot. Rather, childbirth is so dangerous that a woman may need divine intervention. At that time the Heavenly Court searches her deeds, naturally focusing on those mitzvot for which she is responsible, to decide if she is worthy. A woman who regularly performed these three would have more merit on her behalf than one who neglected them, hopefully enough to shift the scales of judgment in her favor.
As opposed to many Jewish [and all Christian] interpreters, Rashi doesn't blame Eve at all. He blames the snake, who saw Eve naked, desired her, and was attempting to seduce her. He also blames Adam, who told Eve neither to eat from the tree nor to touch it, though God only told Adam not to eat from it. So when the snake pushed Eve against the tree of knowledge and nothing happened, the snake easily convinced Eve that "just as there is no death in touching it, there is no death in eating from it." Then in Gen 3:12, when Adam blames Eve for giving him the fruit, Rashi accuses Adam of ingratitude for the gift of a helpmate that God gave him. Rashi states that Eve gave the fruit to Adam because she didn't want to die while he went on living with a new wife.
Finally we come to Gen 3:16, where Adam and Eve [and the snake] are punished. It seems to me that Rashi must have received input from his daughters when explaining Eve's penalty. He states that "multiplying her toil/sorrow" of childbearing refers to the burdens and worries that a mother, more so than the father, is subject to when raising children; her "pain in pregnancy" means the discomfort that pregnant women often experiences; while "anguish in childbearing" describes the painful birth pangs themselves.
So while it may go too far to describe Rashi's commentaries on Genesis as "feminist," for a man of the 11th Century, he appears to hold a more sympathetic view of women than other medieval theologians. Did his daughters influence him in this? I certainly hope so.
Maggie Anton
www.rashisdaughters.com
It is in the third chapter of Genesis, where Eve succumbs to the snake's temptation and eats the forbidden fruit, that Rashi goes against the near universal tradition of blaming Eve. He knows these very well, because in Gen 3:8 he states that he's aware of many midrash about this, including Genesis Rabbah, but he's not concerned with them - only with peshat, the plain meaning of the text. Yet Rashi regularly quotes midrash in his other Torah commentaries, so why does he need to exclude it here?
It seems to me that Rashi is deliberately ignoring the section in Genesis Rabbah that asks, "Why do women die in childbirth?" and then answers, "Because they neglect niddah, challah, kindling the (Sabbath) light. Because Eve spilled the blood of Adam, the first of men, women were given the obligation of niddah. Because she spoiled Adam, the first pure dough of the world, women were given the obligation of challah [when making bread, removing some dough for the priests]. And because she extinguished the light of Adam's soul, women were given the obligation of kindling [Shabbat] lights."
Indeed, as those who have read BOOK I - JOHEVED may recall, Rashi rejects this misogynist idea by explaining [in his Talmud commentary to Shab 31b] that death in childbirth is NOT a punishment for women who neglect certain mitzvot. Rather, childbirth is so dangerous that a woman may need divine intervention. At that time the Heavenly Court searches her deeds, naturally focusing on those mitzvot for which she is responsible, to decide if she is worthy. A woman who regularly performed these three would have more merit on her behalf than one who neglected them, hopefully enough to shift the scales of judgment in her favor.
As opposed to many Jewish [and all Christian] interpreters, Rashi doesn't blame Eve at all. He blames the snake, who saw Eve naked, desired her, and was attempting to seduce her. He also blames Adam, who told Eve neither to eat from the tree nor to touch it, though God only told Adam not to eat from it. So when the snake pushed Eve against the tree of knowledge and nothing happened, the snake easily convinced Eve that "just as there is no death in touching it, there is no death in eating from it." Then in Gen 3:12, when Adam blames Eve for giving him the fruit, Rashi accuses Adam of ingratitude for the gift of a helpmate that God gave him. Rashi states that Eve gave the fruit to Adam because she didn't want to die while he went on living with a new wife.
Finally we come to Gen 3:16, where Adam and Eve [and the snake] are punished. It seems to me that Rashi must have received input from his daughters when explaining Eve's penalty. He states that "multiplying her toil/sorrow" of childbearing refers to the burdens and worries that a mother, more so than the father, is subject to when raising children; her "pain in pregnancy" means the discomfort that pregnant women often experiences; while "anguish in childbearing" describes the painful birth pangs themselves.
So while it may go too far to describe Rashi's commentaries on Genesis as "feminist," for a man of the 11th Century, he appears to hold a more sympathetic view of women than other medieval theologians. Did his daughters influence him in this? I certainly hope so.
Maggie Anton
www.rashisdaughters.com
Comment
About
© 2009 Created by Naomi on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of JBC Bookspace to add comments!
Join this Ning Network