The Golden Mean
I just finished reading Rivkah Slonim's Total Immersion: A Mikvah Anthology, and I have mixed feelings about it. That's only to be expected, I suppose; each essay offers a slightly different perspective, even if they do all ultimately advocate observance of T"H.
What bothered me most was the continual rehashing of the idea that Judaism is a "golden mean" between hedonistic paganism and ascetic Christianity (or, alternatively, between ascetic Chritstianity and contemporary secular culture). As one friend put it, "pagans have sex all the time, and Christians never have sex, so since we have sex almost exactly half the time, that means it must be a happy medium." Mathematically speaking, she pointed out, "it could just as easily be an unhappy medium. . . either of the extremes could be the right approach, and we're just hedging our bets."
There are a number of other problems with this notion (which, incidentally, is pervasive in contemporary Jewish apologia.) First, "paganism" is far too general a term to accurately associate with any particular attitude toward sexuality. Greek pagans described Canaanite pagans as hedonists, and Christians described Babylonian pagans as hedonists, but neither account can be reasonably considered unbiased. True, pagan mythology typically depicted the gods in highly sexualized terms, but that hardly means that humans were expected to behave in like manner. Certain Greek cults were, in fact, serviced by celibate priestesses.
Second, it is not entirely fair to contrast early Christianity with contemporary Orthodox Judaism. Christianity is a product of the first century, a time when ascetism was all the rage among pagans and Jews alike. Christianity is thus "rooted" in asceticism in a way that Judaism is not, but we Jews have had our fair share of ascetics as well. Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE-40 CE), for example, stated that Jews have sex only for the purpose of procreation; in other words, he considered sex a "necessary evil." As recently as the 1950s, a T"H book was published that stated that a man's life force is in his semen and that the purpose of T"H is to minimize the number of times that a couple has sex so that the husband will live longer. These writings certainly aren't representative of Jewish tradition, but they do illustrate that the Jewish attitude toward sex has not, historically, been entirely monolithic.
Further, if we are to bring contemporary secular culture into the picture, it is only fair to consider contemporary Christianity. Today, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not have celibate clergy. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which arguably places the highest premium on sexual abstinance, describes sex between husband and wife as a sacred act in some of its apolgetic literature. The bottom line: Christianity isn't monolithic, either.
In truth, the factual weakness of this line of argument isn't the aspect that I find most troubling. What really bothers me is the idea that we have to denigrate others to illustrate the beauty of our own tradition. The truth is, we don't. The parts of Total Immersion that most affected me were the personal accounts by women. These women, who had come to T"H by many different paths, all found it to be a worthwhile, meaningful observance, in spite of the difficulties and challenges that it posed. That, in my opinion, is a persuasive argument for mikveh use.
TrackBacks
Comments
I think I generally agree with you. Chasidut in particular has popularized the idea of elevating the physical as opposed to trying to live an "otherworldly" life, and I happen to like that concept. I also agree that Catholic doctrine is generally consistent in its denigration of the physical. I was just trying to demonstrate that the distinctions are not necessarily as clear-cut as some would like to believe.
Finding the proper balance between self-indulgence and self-denial is also far from straightforward. I doubt that any two people would independently decide to draw the line in the same place. That's why there's mesorah (tradition), of course. If only I had total faith in the rightness of that mesorah, I might not feel so conflicted about my own practice.
I was just trying to demonstrate that the distinctions are not necessarily as clear-cut as some would like to believe.
You certainly sold me on that!
Finding the proper balance between self-indulgence and self-denial is also far from straightforward.
This is an important point too, and I was thinking about it when I wrote that Judaism tends to try to balance competing ideals, rather than siding absolutely with one or the other. Because the way Judaism does that, in my opinion, is often somewhat arbitrary. It is one way of finding a middle ground, but certainly not the only way.
So why do I go with it, when there are other justifiable solutions? Partly because I believe Gd has the right to decide the rules. But also because often, the issues at hand are so overwhelming, I'm just as happy to let Gd decide. To me the important thing is the effort to compromise, not so much which particular one we go with.
I definitely think that's helped me make my peace with some of the harchakot.
I haven't read Total Immersion yet, though I've been meaning to. It's interesting that this theme turns up more than once; although I come across this kind of other-religion-bashing in many areas, I haven't heard it so much regarding T"H.
I certainly agree with what you're saying as a historical, sociological argument. But doesn't it still have validity as a conceptual one? The Jewish approach to sex which is most prevalent today does seem to me like a compromise between the theoretical positions of asceticism & hedonism. We don't have to avoid earthly pleasure, we're just expected to sanctify it. We restrain ourselves sometimes, indulge ourselves other times, and know that overall, the whole endeavor has Gd's blessing. No?
At the same time my impression is that the comparison between Judaism & other religions does have some validity for the Catholic Church. I'm sure that even Catholicism has not been historically monolithic, but in a given era it is probably more so than most religions, because of the primacy of the Pope. And official Catholic doctrine today on most matters related to sex - not just the act itself, but also birth control, abortion, and even assisted reproductive technology - seems to me, at least as an outsider, very black & white. I think it's a fair generalization to say that Judaism tends to see competing values in most of these cases, and tries to balance them.
I certainly don't denigrate anyone who believes in Catholic doctrine. They are bound by their beliefs just as I am, and they deserve respect for managing to adhere to them. But having the particular life issues I've had, I'm endlessly grateful I was born a religious Jew, not a religious Catholic.