The Invisible Partner: Jewish Sex Manuals and Jacob Emden's Mitat Kesef

Master’s Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies ChaeRan Freeze, Advisor

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies

by Ariel Pardo

May 2017

Copyright by

Ariel Pardo

© 2017

Acknowledgments

כִּ י ה' יִתֵּ ן חָכְמָ ה מִפִּ יו דַּﬠַת וּתְ בוּנָה: (משלי ב:ו) Because God gives wisdom, from His mouth [come] knowledge and discernment. (Proverbs 2:6)

This thesis is the culmination of many hours in the library, early mornings, and late nights. And while I have worked harder on this academic project than any other, I would be remiss if I did not thank everyone else who took time from their busy schedules to help and advise me on this endeavor. First and foremost, I would like to thank God for giving me the strength to complete my master’s while being a mother, wife, and working full-time. God has allowed me to succeed despite the lack of sleep that accompanies motherhood, missed classes for unforeseeable family- related issues, and job duties. Second, I would like to thank my professors and staff who inspired me and encouraged me to do my very best. I would like to thank Jean Mannion and Joanne Arnish of the NEJS office who put up with my hectic schedule and life. I would like to thank Professor Sylvia Barack Fishman and Professor Jon Levisohn whose classes made me think about the world of Judaism in different and enlightening ways. I would like to thank Professor Reuven Kimelman for helping with my thesis and whose classes were always enjoyable and illuminating. I would like to thank Professor Brooten for being the second reader of my thesis and whose invaluable critique and comments have further piqued my interest in the topic. And finally, I would especially like to thank Professor ChaeRan Freeze whose Early Modern Jewish History class made me passionate about the subject of women in Judaism; who spent many hours advising me and taking personal interest in my passions and goals; and who is one of the people I admire most. Third, I would like to thank my parents for their unending support and guidance. They helped shape the person I am today and are always available to help guide me. There are really no words of gratitude that properly express how much I owe them. Finally, I would like to thank my family-- my three daughters, Haviva, Tiferet, and Ora whose sweetness and cuteness could get me through anything. Haviva and Tiferet, I will never forget you wishing me good luck on every one of my exams by telling me to “win the test.” And Ora, your adorable smile and cuddliness is the reason I love being a mother. And my husband, David. Thank you for having fun with the girls on Sundays when I had to go to the library; thank you for putting up with my late nights and early mornings; and thank you for all the wonderful adventures we have together.

iii

ABSTRACT

Jewish Sex Manuals: Jacob Emden's Mitat Kesef and His Approach Toward Women

A thesis presented to the Near Eastern and JewishJudaic Studies Department

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Waltham, Massachusetts

By Ariel Pardo

In the mid-eighteenth century, Jacob Emden wrote the i eit aa a prayer book which not only contained prayers, but legal material pertaining to prayer, Jewish holidays, and the Sabbath. At the end of the Sabbath prayers, he inserted a treatise regarding proper sexual behavior between husband and wife. He called this treatise “Mitat

Kesef This thesis explores the treatise at length by examining earlier Jewish sexual ideals by looking at Biblical, Talmudic and Kabbalistic sources, many of which are quoted in Mitat

Kesef. It also deals with the text through a Foucaultian lens, dealing with issues such as male power and female subservience. Finally, this paper attempts to understand Mitat

Kesef by looking at the sociohistorical conditions of Altona in the eighteenth century.

This thesis addresses questions such as what prompted Emden to write this in a

i Why does Emden quote certain texts and not others? What sociohistorical conditions led to his desire to author such a work? How are women viewed in the document? Does Emden add any innovation to mainstream Jewish sexual discourse of the time? How does Jewish sexual discourse shape Judaism’s view of sex within marriage?

iv

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………...... 1 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………5 The Authors of the Sex Manuals: Rabbi Abraham Ben David of Posquières and Jacob Emden..……… ……………………………………….………………………………...... 5 Sex, Power, and the Body: A Foucaultian Analysis…………………………………...... 7

CHAPTER ONE: Predecessors to Mitat Kesef……………………………………………………..….10 Biblical and Talmudic Treatments of Sex……………………………………………….11 Kabbalah and the Baalei HaNefesh…………………………………………………………….16 The Iggeret HaKodesh……………………………………………………………………………19 The Evolution of the Yetzer in Rabbinic Thought ………………………………………26

CHAPTER TWO: Mitat Kesef and its Treatment of Women……………………………………31 How the Text is Divided…………………………………………………………………31 Jacob Emden and Sexuality……………………………………………………………...32 The Yetzer in Mitat Kesef …………………………………………………………………38 Applying Foucault to Mitat Kesef………………………………………………………………43

CHAPTER THREE: Socio-Historical Factors in the Production of Mitat Kesef………………..48 Intended Audience……………………………………………………………………….51

CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………………………...53

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………..56

v

INTRODUCTION

Up to the end of the eighteenth century, three major explicit codes -- apart from the customary regularities and constraints of opinion -- governed sexual practices: canonical law, the Christian pastoral, and civil law. They determined each in its own way, the division between licit and illicit. They were all centered on matrimonial relations: the marital obligation, the ability to fulfill it, the manner in which one complied with it, the requirements and violences that accompanied it, the useless or unwarranted caresses for which it was a pretext . . . it was this domain that was especially saturated with prescriptions. The sex of husband and wife was beset by rules and recommendations. The marriage relation was the most intense focus of constraints; it was spoken of more than anything else; more than any other relation, it was required to give a detailed accounting of itself. It was under constant surveillance: if it was found to be lacking, it had to come forward and plead its case before a witness.1

There is a common misconception that once sex enters the confines of marriage it is unregulated and unmediated, subject only to the negotiation between man and wife. Yet within

Kabbala-centered Judaism, there is a metaphysical component, as well - God becomes part and parcel of marital sex by way of restrictions and regulations. Kabbalah espouses the belief that rules serve to shape human behaviors which, in turn, influence the metaphysical world, ultimately rectifying earthly catastrophe. Thus, sex becomes not an endeavor to physically unite two people, but an act on which the welfare of the world depends.

I begin my explication of Jewish sex manuals with the above quote, the purpose being twofold: to immediately call to attention the historical scrutiny of sexual relations between a husband and wife and to present an initial glimpse of the Foucaultian outlook through which I will examine these sex manuals. My goal is not to deride the texts, per se, but to acknowledge a

1 Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage Books, 1990. Print, 37. 1 historical reality in which women became passive participants in their own sexual experiences. I will begin with a brief literature review in order to summarize traditional scholarly approaches and perspectives on the rabbinic view of sexuality. This will be followed by an explanation of my methodology and an overview of how I conducted my research. Finally, I will present some necessary biographical, historical and cultural information about the authors and the time periods during which they lived.

Many scholars have argued that a general shift from a less restrictive matrimonial sexual ethic to a more restrictive one evolved in more recent history. This shift was preceded by the opposite-- an initial shift from more restriction toward more sexual freedom within marriage; both Daniel Boyarin2 and David Biale,3 for example, contend that the Palestinian Talmud (c.

350-400 CE) upholds ascetic values where the Babylonian Talmud (c. 500 CE) does not. But this shift reversed itself as the centuries passed and as a more rigid approach to sex between husband and wife dominated Jewish literature. With the rise of Kabbalah, the early rabbinic innovation which equated the significance of the body with that of the soul4 was replaced with the notion that the soul was superior. Scholars such as Judith R. Baskin, Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert,

Karen Guberman, Dalia Hoshen, and Judith Wegner, among many others, address the intense ambivalence Kabbalists exhibited toward women in their roles of sexual partners with their husbands.5 Thus, as Judith R. Baskin writes, “women, even the most pious, simply by virtue of

2 Boyarin, Daniel. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: U of California, 1993. Print. 3 Biale, David. Eros and the Jews: From Biblical Israel to Contemporary America. New York, NY: Basic, 1992. Print. 4 For more on this, see Kimelman, Reuven. “The Rabbinic Theology of the Physical: Blessings, Body and Soul, Resurrection, Covenant and Election.” The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, ed. Steven Katz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 946-976. 5 For more on this, see the following articles: Baskin, Judith R. “Women and Sexual Ambivalence in Sefer Hasidim,” The Jewish Quarterly Review. 96:1 (2006), 1-8; Fonrobert, Charlotte Elisheva. Regulating the Human Body : Rabbinic Legal Discourse and the Making of Jewish Gender; Guberman, Karen. ""To Walk in All His 2

their sex, have the potential, however unwittingly, to tempt a man to sin or sinful thoughts … Yet

maintaining too great a distance from one’s wife may also lead to sin. For the pietist, happy

marital relations in themselves become an essential fence against the possibility of sexual

temptation elsewhere.”6

The more restrictive view of marital sex also erased the physiological reality of sexual desire emanating from both husband and wife. Biale writes in Eros and the Jews, “Even permitted sexual acts must be divorced from desire; or, to put it differently, the fantasies and emotions connected with sexual arousal must be transformed into a spiritual love of God.”7 Dalia

Hoshen, in her article Sexual Relations Between Husband and Wife, compares Maimonides’ and

Rabbi Abraham ben David of Posquières’ (or the RaABaD-- a kabbalist and a seminal figure in

the production of Jacob Emden’s own sex manual) views regarding sexual desire in marriage.

She writes that both the RaABaD and Maimonides deal similarly with a talmudic story in which

Rabbi Eliezer hastily has sex with his wife; the haste is deemed pious as a form of sexual

abstention while marital sex is a way of “immersing oneself in passion.”8 Lawrence Fine and

Steven D. Fraade illuminated a renewed focus on abstention and asceticism in kabbalistic circles

in order to connect with God; physical bodies were of a lesser status than spiritual souls.9 This

perspective regarding the body and soul necessarily called for the demotion of sex and sexuality

Ways": Towards a Kabbalistic Sexual Ethic." The Journal of Religious Ethics 14.1 (1986): 61-80; Hoshen, Dalia. "Sexual Relations between Husband and Wife." S'vara 3.1 (1993): 39-45; and Wegner, Judith R. “The Image and Status of Women in Classical Rabbinic Judaism.” Jewish Women in Historical Perspective, ed. Judith Baskin. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1991, 68-93. 6 Baskin, The Problem of Women in Sefer Hasidim, 3. 7 Biale, Eros and the Jews, 133. 8 Hoshen, Dalia. "Sexual Relations between Husband and Wife." S'vara 3.1 (1993), 44. 9 Fine, Lawrence. “Purifying the Body in the Name of the Soul: The Problem of the Body in Sixteenth-Century Kabbalah.” People of the Body: Jews and Judaism from an Embodied Perspective, ed. H. Eilberg-Schwartz. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992, 117-142; and Fraade, Steven D. “Ascetical Aspects of Ancient Judaism.” Jewish Spirituality from the Bible Through the Middle Ages, ed. Arthur Green. New York: Crossroad, 1986-1987, 253-288. 3 as a means to commune with God.

Some scholars including Judith R. Baskin, David Biale, and Charles Mopsik contend that

Kabbalistic notions regarding sexual activity between husband and wife went further -- the wife was displaced by God himself, thus uniting not man and wife, but man and God. Baskin, for example, writes, “A man’s affection for his wife had always to be secondary to his mystical yearning for the divine. Since abstention from sexual activity was not permissible for a Jewish male, the pietists attempted to spiritualize even marital desire by channeling it to a divine purpose. As vessels of sexuality, therefore, women had to be objectified, made strangers even when they were at home ...the pietists attempted to spiritualize even marital desire by channeling it to a divine purpose… the pleasures of human sexuality through his devotion to God, is built, in part, upon the displacement and objectification of women.”10 Similarly, Biale writes, “When a man understands the mystical meaning of intercourse, he transcends the act into communion with the divine…”11 And finally, Mopsik notes, “The unity of the flesh in a marital relationship is the living symbol of the unity created by the union of man and God. Mystical union, in its most extreme form, is viewed as a physical union with God.”12 In other words, the goal of sexual intercourse for the kabbalists was not the uniting of husbands and wives, but the uniting of the husband with God.

This thesis will explore the historical shift from a less restrictive view of marital sex to a more restrictive view, the influence of kabbalah on Jewish sex manuals, and the discouragement of sexual desire within the marital framework by focusing on three works: the RaABaD’s Shaar

HaKedusha in his Baalei HaNefesh (Masters of the Soul, 1180), the Iggeret HaKodesh (The Holy

10 Baskin, Women and Sexual Ambivalence,6-7. 11 Biale, Eros and the Jews, 105. 12 Mopsik, Sex of the Soul, 127. 4

Epistle, early 13th century), and Jacob Emden’s Mitat Kesef (The Silver Bed, 1745-1748).

Additionally, it will take into account the historical time periods during which each manual was produced. By doing so, a more accurate understanding of the texts can emerge. This study diverges from previous studies in that it looks at a rather unexplored document (Mitat Kesef) in light of medieval documents. Furthermore, unlike David Biale’s assertion regarding Jacob

Emden’s overall positivity toward sex13, I argue that Emden’s socio-historical setting influenced his more restrictive attitude toward sex.

Methodology

I conducted my research through an in-depth textual analysis of the primary documents themselves, comparing and contrasting textual and thematic aspects of the texts. I supplemented the aforementioned primary documents with other biblical and tannaitic texts that were referred to or helped flesh out what the authors were trying to say. I then read relevant secondary sources regarding the historical, social, and religious themes in the texts. Finally, I applied a Foucaultian approach to the text. It should be noted that while applying Foucault and other more modern historical paradigms to the texts can be helpful, it can also be problematic. For example, modern notions about sexuality certainly were non-existent in the middle ages and early modern eras.

Despite the potential problems, though, I believe that conceptualizing Jewish sex manuals in an ex post facto way can be useful in shaping our own sexual relationships and our own comprehension of historically significant perceptions of sex.

The Authors of the Sex Manuals: Rabbi Abraham Ben David of Posquières and Jacob Emden

The three most prominent primary sources analyzed in this study are the Baalei

HaNefesh, the Iggeret HaKodesh, and Mitat Kesef. A brief biography of the respective authors is

13 See Chapter Three in Biale, Eros and the Jews. 5

a useful addition to this study. However, being that the Iggeret HaKodesh was written

anonymously (although it was attributed to Nachmanides), the biographical information will be

limited to the RaABaD (Rabbi Abraham ben David of Posquières) and Jacob Emden.

Rabbi Abraham ben David of Posquières was born in Provence, France, circa 1125, and

died in Posquières in 1198. He is regarded as one of the earliest kabbalists, profoundly affecting

its development and dissemination. Geographically, he lived in multiple places including Lunel,

Montpellier, and Nimes. In Nimes, he was known for his wealth and charitable behavior toward

poor students. The RaABaD was a prolific writer, authoring many works on halakha, a

commentary on the entire Talmud, and, most pertinent to this study, his work regarding women,

the Baalei HaNefesh. His nickname, “Baal HaSagot,” or “The Critic” aptly described him as an

astute critic of other Jewish texts. In fact, he harshly criticized Maimonides for his dogmatic way

of thinking; for the RaABaD, Judaism was about deed, not dogma. Furthermore, he was an

opponent to the codification of halakha, especially without citing sources as Maimonides was

prone to do.14 This opposition to Maimonides is interesting in light of their views regarding sex

and sexuality. As Dalia Hoshen argues, there are similarities in their understandings of sexuality;

both, for example, disregard the notion that sex between husband and wife can be valid for its

own sake.15 However, whereas Maimonides deems sex as “base, as serving only to satisfy sexual needs,”16 the RaABaD struggles to find a balance between sex as base and sex as

meaningful in and of itself. In other words, the RaABaD approves of sex between husband and

wife only if it obeys certain proscriptions which will be explored later in this study.

14 The biographical information here was obtained from Singer, Isidore, and Adler, Cyrus. The Jewish Encyclopedia; a Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest times to the Present Day. New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901. 15 Hoshen, Sexual Relations in Marriage, 42-43. 16 Ibid., 41. 6

Jacob Emden was born in Altona in 1697 and died there in 1776. Like the RaABaD, he was a prolific writer, authoring commentaries on the Bible, the Mishnah, the Talmud, the

Shulchan Aruch, and hundreds of responsa. Also like the RaABaD, he regarded himself as an ascetic, even reporting in his autobiography that he failed to hold an erection on his wedding night, a confession that conveyed that his “intense involvement in intellectual and spiritual pursuits had estranged him from the more worldly concerns of ordinary people, pure thoughts elevating even his body to a level of holiness.”17His father was the Hacham Tzvi, a famous rabbi in his own right, and, like his father, he was a resolute opponent of the Sabbatean movement.

Emden is most famous for his unrelenting anti-Sabbatean charges against Jonathan Eybeschutz, the chief rabbi of Altona.18 In his autobiography, he writes of his hatred toward Sabbateans, noting that their promiscuous behavior, behavior which was deemed worthy of fixing the upper spiritual realms in their own eyes, was anything but virtuous.19

Emden’s attitude regarding sexuality is, I believe, profoundly affected by his surroundings. As we will discover, promiscuity, single motherhood and other sexually illicit activities were widespread. I would argue that based on the writings of his predecessors and as a backlash against these socio-historical conditions, Emden’s Mitat Kesef presents a rigid and restricted view of matrimonial sex.

Sex, Power, and the Body: A Foucaultian Analysis

Michel Foucault’s groundbreaking research on sexuality and the body can be a useful framework through which to analyze Mitat Kesef. There are multiple points of resonance with

17 Baader, Benjamin Maria., Gillerman, Sharon, and Lerner, Paul Frederick. Jewish Masculinities : German Jews, Gender, and History. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2012. Print, 36. 18 Isadore and Adler, The Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume 5, 140. 19 For more on this, see Emden’s autobiography Megilat Sefer and Rapoport-Albert, Ada. Women and the Messianic Heresy of Sabbatai Zevi, 1666-1816, London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. 2011. 7

Foucault’s philosophy regarding sex, power, and the body which will illuminate multiple points

with regard to our text. To begin, a cogent explanation of what Foucault calls “The Repressive

Hypothesis” is necessary. The Repressive Hypothesis claims that “repression operated as a

sentence to disappear, but also as an injunction to silence, an affirmation of nonexistence, and,

by implication, an admission that there was nothing to say about such things, nothing to see, and

nothing to know.”20 However, Foucault argues that instead of a silencing of discourse around sex, “one sees a veritable discursive explosion.”21 In fact, there was an “incitement to discourse”

in which the discourses were in the realm of those in power, “an institutional incitement to speak

about it, and to do so more and more; a determination on the part of the agencies of power to

hear it spoken about, and to cause it to speak through explicit articulation and endlessly

accumulated detail.”22 This new sexual discourse, that is, the discourse that was shaped by those

in power, created an evolution whereby there was a shift from the “act itself” being deemed the

“most important moment of transgression,” to the “stirrings of desire” being “an evil that

afflicted the whole man.”23 And while Foucault’s analysis contends that this shift, this

preoccupation with sex by those in institutional power in the secular world, occurred in the

eighteenth century, I would argue that in the religious world, there was already a discursive

explosion regarding sex and sexuality.24

Crucial to Foucault’s analysis of discourse is, of course, who controls said discourse.

20 Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage Books, 1990. 4. 21 Ibid., 17. 22 Ibid., 18 23 Ibid., 19-20. 24 For just a few examples of religious sex manuals, see the Arabic sixteenth century work Al-rawḍ al-ʿāṭir fī nuzhaẗ al-ḫāṭir, or The Perfumed Garden of Sensual Delight. The well-known Kama Sutra believed to have been written sometime between the first to sixth centuries in India. The Greek works of Elephantis (c. 100 BCE), none of which have survived, are quoted in ancient texts. And, of course, Jewish texts such as the Baalei HaNefesh, the Iggeret HaKodesh, and Mitat Kesef. 8

According to Foucault, “Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society.”25 In other words, power is made up of an amalgamation of factors that have a specific agenda. Furthermore, in Discipline and Punish, Foucault argues that “power produces knowledge. . . that power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations.”26 Power and knowledge are intimately connected; those who have knowledge have power and vice versa.

Foucault argues that “discipline” is power which is exercised over the human body in order to train it and make it obedient. The resultant body is “docile;” it “may be subjected, used, transformed and improved.”27 And Foucault associates the disciplined man with the believing man:

In any case, ‘detail’ had long been a category of theology and asceticism: every detail is important since, in the sight of God, no immensity is greater than a detail, nor is anything so small that it was not willed by one of his individual wishes. . .For the disciplined man, as for the true believer, no detail is unimportant, but not so much for the meaning that it conceals within it as for the hold it provides for the power that wishes to seize it. 28

Put differently, similar to the disciplined man, a religious man holds detail in high regard in order to impress and comply with the powers that be. Rabbis, then, like other religious men who discipline their bodies and hold the discursive power, build the invisible architecture by which others are contained. And whether meaning or unmeaning, they perpetuate the discipline to which they attribute their spiritual success.

25 Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality.Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage Books, 1990. 93. 26 Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish : The Birth of the Prison. 2nd Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage, 1995. 27. 27 Ibid., 136. 28 Ibid., 140. 9

CHAPTER ONE: Predecessors to Mitat Kesef

“Everyone knows that a woman is similar to a pitcher full of filth and her mouth full of blood, yet all run after her,”29 wrote Jacob Emden (1697-1776) quoting a familiar Talmudic passage in his Mitat Kesef, a treatise on proper sexual behavior. This treatise is included in his

Siddur Beit Yaakov (1745-1748), one of his most influential and original works that not only sought to address the liturgy itself,30 but to include accompanying halakhot related to the weekly cycle. In fact, beginning with the section on the Sabbath, the siddur is concerned far more with halakhic details than liturgical ones.31 Mitat Kesef deals exclusively with law and ritual regarding Friday night sexual relations between husband and wife.

Emden was influenced by earlier Jewish texts which dealt with marital sex, such as the

Iggeret HaKodesh (The Holy Epistle, early 13th century), the RaABAD’s Baalei HaNefesh

(Masters of the Soul, 1180), the Zohar (end of the 13th century) and Sefer HaGilgulim (late 16th century). Since the Iggeret HaKodesh, a kabbalistic treatise regarding proper sexual behavior, is by far the most prominent work cited in Mitat Kesef, the latter’s analysis must necessarily entail a close examination of the former. Despite being written centuries apart, under different historical contexts, both texts are indifferent, even callous toward the treatment of women

29 Babylonian Talmud [BT], Shabbat, 152b. 30 According to J.J. Schacter, Emden began writing his siddur in order to correct the liturgical text that had become corrupted throughout the years, correct improper vocalizations of words, write an effective commentary, and provide “normative guidance regarding the many minutae of Jewish law relevant to ritual prayer.” Schacter, J.J. Rabbi Jacob Emden : Life and Major Works. 1991, 260-261. 31 Interestingly, this preoccupation with halakha continues into the siddur’s second volume, discussing ritual laws associated with the entire year. Schachter., 288. 10 during the sexual act, in contrast to the more solicitous attitude of the Talmud. This shift might be explained by the kabbalistic emphasis on the union of man and God through the sexual act in contrast to the Talmud’s focus on the unity between men and women. In the former, instead of the wife as the beneficiary of sex, the object of desire and satisfaction is God: in the kabbalistic turn, the wife is displaced by the Godhead. As a result, the centrality of the wife’s desire and the husband’s obligation to please her are downgraded from a primary objective of sex to a minor one.

Biblical and Talmudic Treatment of Sex

Ancient Judaism struggled with conflicting attitudes toward human sexuality, as Howard

Eilberg Schwartz writes,

On the one hand, human embodiment and sexuality are considered good; but they are good because God said so and because they are products of God’s creative activity. Yet at the same time they are the very symbols of human difference from God . . . For this reason, there is a tension between obeying God and being like God.32

The Biblical mandate to procreate seems to be further contraindicated by the fact that the fluids involved in procreation render both individuals impure.33 David Biale acknowledges the nebulous status of sex in the Bible, as well, noting that the presence of texts such as Shir

HaShirim, the provocative story of two lovers, and sexual subversion stories, such as Judah and

Tamar, attest that “sexuality within its proper boundaries was not a problem.”34 In fact, according to Biale, “It is this dialectic between the pure and the impure, the sacred and the

32 Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. “The Problem of the Body for the People of the Book.”People of the Body: Jews and Judaism from an Embodied Perspective, ed. Howard Eilberg-Schwartz. Albany, NY: State U of New York, 1992. Print, 15. 33 Leviticus 15:16-33 34 Biale, David. Eros and the Jews: From Biblical Israel to Contemporary America. New York, NY: Basic, 1992. Print, 32. 11

secular, norms and subversions that lies at the heart of the Biblical construction of sexuality.”35

This tension is seemingly solved in rabbinic texts, such as the Babylonian Talmud, which

present a more positive approach to sex. While there are still opposing viewpoints regarding the

nature of sex, many scholars have argued that the rabbis viewed sex as a generally positive act,

albeit with certain restrictions.36 The limitations of sex within the confines of marriage (or at

least a committed, monogamous,37 heterosexual relationship) and purity laws around menstrual blood still apply, but a completely celibate lifestyle is explicitly discouraged.38 According to

Genesis, God clearly assigns humanity the duty to procreate, which involves the physical act of

35 Ibid., 31. 36For more on the positive rabbinic view of sex, see Biale, David. Eros and the Jews: From Biblical Israel to Contemporary America. New York, NY: Basic, 1992. Print.; and Boyarin, Daniel. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: U of California, 1993. Print.; and Satlow, Michael L. Tasting the Dish : Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars, 1995. Print. Brown Judaic Studies ; No. 303. 37 See Witte Jr., John. The Western Case for Monogamy Over Polygamy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Print, 51-52. He mentions different Rabbinic sources that are clearly against polygamy. He cites Genesis Rabbah 23:2, in which Lemech is criticized for having two wives. The first wife, whose purpose is solely for procreation, is regarded as “a widow” while his second wife, who serves to pleasure Lemech sexually, is “a harlot.” Furthermore, Witte, Jr. quotes Ze’ev Falk’s Jewish Matrimonial Law, page 6, which notes that “among the numerous rabbis whose biographies are recounted in the Talmudic sources not one was a bigamist.” 38 Even priests and nazarites, who led somewhat restricted lifestyles, are included in the command to procreate.The Talmud explicitly criticizes the sage Ben Azzai for being celibate:

It was taught: R. Eliezer stated, He who does not engage in propagation of the race is as though he sheds blood; for it is said, Who so sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed, and this is immediately followed by the text, And you, be ye fruitful and multiply. R. Jacob said: As though he has diminished the Divine Image; since it is said, For in the image of God made he man, and this is immediately followed by, And you, be ye fruitful etc. Ben 'Azzai said: As though he sheds blood and diminishes the Divine Image; since it is said, And you, be ye fruitful and multiply.

They said to Ben 'Azzai: Some preach well and act well, others act well but do not preach well; you. however, preach well but do not act well! Ben 'Azzai replied: But what shall I do, seeing that my soul is in love with the Torah; the world can be carried on by others.

Similarly, the Midrash criticizes celibacy. In Numbers, Aaron and Miriam reprimand Moses for an unspecified reason. The Midrash’s reading of the text resolves the ambiguity; Miriam and Aaron approach Moses regarding his celibate lifestyle with his wife Tzipporah. The conclusion is this: despite Moses’ celibacy being a necessary component of direct communication with God, it is regarded as both an exception to the rule and antithetical to the normative Jewish philosophy of sex. 12

sexual intercourse.39The fact that sexual intercourse was and is considered a necessary component of being an observant Jew called for the Rabbis to create an ideology about the body

that could accommodate both the commandment to procreate and the injunction to do so while

abiding by the ritual laws of purity and impurity.40

The Babylonian Rabbis similarly rejected the notion of Graeco-Roman gnosticism which

disdained the physical and venerated the spiritual.41 While gnosticism does reappear in later

Kabbalistic thought, which will be addressed later, Rabbinic Judaism perceived the body and

soul as tightly linked.42 43It follows that if the body and soul are intimately connected and

believed to be good, sexual intercourse between a husband and wife involves neither the shame

of the cohabitants themselves nor disdain from the religiously observant who might perceive sex

as defiling.44

However, the problem of illicit and gratuitous sex was still very much on the minds of the

rabbis. The Bible does not contain explicit instructions regarding marriage, nevertheless,

39 Schwartz, People of the Body: Jews and Judaism from an Embodied Perspective,17. 40 Daniel Boyarin, in his Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture, brilliantly argues that the Talmudic rabbis actively engage in resisting the dominant gnostic culture of the Hellenists. In fact, unlike the dominant Hellenistic culture which viewed sexual intercourse as the cause of Adam and Eve’s fall, the Rabbis felt that “the intercourse of married couples, belongs not to the demonic realm of the snake but to the innocent realm of the Garden of Innocence itself.” (Boyarin, 1993) The Rabbis even advanced the argument that sex perpetuates the world. The Talmud relates that when the exiled Israelites returned to Israel from Babylonia, they prayed that their desire to worship idols end. When God granted their request, they saw that it was an auspicious time to request from God and subsequently asked God to remove their desire for sexual sin. As a result, even the chickens stopped laying eggs! In other words, sexual desire is inherently composite; with the desire to procreate comes the desire to sin sexually and “killing off desire for illicit sex will also kill off the desire for licit sex, which is necessary for the continuation of life.” (Boyarin, 1993) 41 Kimelman, Reuven. “The Rabbinic Theology of the Physical: Blessings, Body and Soul, Resurrection, Covenant and Election.” The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, ed. Steven Katz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 946-976. 42 Ibid., 954; and David Biale in Eros and the Jews: From Biblical Israel to Contemporary America, 31, where he writes that “Sex defiles, but it is also divine.” 43 In fact, Reuven Kimelman points out that by the Rabbis “de-demonizing” the body and “de-divinizing” the soul, the physical body becomes the medium through which the soul can serve God, Ibid., 953. 44 Ibid., 954. 13

“Postbiblical Halakhah relies therefore on interpretation of the Biblical text in legislating

marriage.”45 Marriage served as a means to control one’s sexual impulses by channeling them

into a sanctioned relationship. In fact, Ashkenazic Jewry in the Middle Ages sought to marry off

their children close to puberty as a means of suppressing sexual desire.46 That said, within the

confines of marriage, rabbinic literature viewed sexuality in an overwhelmingly positive light. In

Nedarim 20a-b, the Talmudic rabbis discuss sexual positions and their permissibility, conceding

that “Anything that a man wishes to do with his wife, he may do.” In the same discussion, the

Talmud relates that a woman came before Rabbi Judah and complained that her husband “turned

the table”47 to which he responded, “The Torah has permitted you, and I, what can I do for you?”

Furthermore, Jacob ben Asher, the author of the Arba’ah Turim, compares refraining

from procreation to murder, “and one who does not engage in creation is like one who spills

blood, for it is written [whoever spills] ‘man’s blood’ (Gen 9.6) and right next to it ‘And you

shall be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen. 9:1).”48 However, despite procreation being the primary

duty of mankind, the Tur does not list it as the primary reason for marriage. In his formulation,

marriage first and foremost serves to quell loneliness:

Blessed be the name of God who desires the good of his creations, for He knew that it is not good for man to be alone and therefore made a help-mate [ezer k’negdo] for him, and

45 Biale, Rachel. Women and Jewish Law: An Exploration of Women's Issues in Halakhic Sources. New York: Schocken, 1984. Print, 44-45. 46 The following excerpt from the Talmud supports this strategy: “Our Rabbis taught: Concerning a man who loves his wife as himself, who honours her more than himself, who guides his sons and daughters in the right path and arranges for them to be married near the period of their puberty, Scripture says, And thou shalt know that thy tent is in peace. This is yet more evidence of the importance of marriage in a man’s life according to the rabbis. For more on this, see David Biale in Eros and the Jews: From Biblical Israel to Contemporary America, 128; and Grossman, Avraham. Pious and Rebellious: Jewish Women in Medieval Europe. Waltham, MA: Brandeis UP, 2004. Print, 46; and Roth, Norman. Medieval Jewish Civilization: An Encyclopedia. New York: Routledge, 2003. Print, 426. 47 This refers to a non-standard types of intercourse such as anal sex, vaginal sex from behind, or vaginal sex with the woman on top. 48 Sameṭ, Aharon, and Mekhon Yerushalayim. Mifʻal Ha-Ṭur ṿeha-Shu. ʻa. Ha-shalem. Arbaʻah ṭurim Ha-shalem. Yerushalayim: Mifʻal Ha-Ṭur ṿeha-Shu. ʻa. Ha-shalem, Mekhon Yerushalayim, 1989. Print. Even Ha-Ezer, Chap. 1, Laws of Procreation I 14

furthermore, that the purpose of creation of man is procreation and multiplication. . .49

Jacob ben Asher formulates his argument by arguing that the primary reason for marriage is

companionship; the secondary reason is procreation. 50 This framework of marriage plays a

crucial role in the development of legal (halachik) and philosophical (hashkafic) Judaism. In

fact, referring to an episode in the Babylonian Talmud in which Samuel ruled that a widow must

not remain without a wife because of the verse in Genesis II, 18 which states, “It is not good that

man should be alone,”51 Daniel Boyarin observes,

Sexual companionship had come to be valued for its own sake, even when procreation was impossible or contraindicated medically. Further support for this point can be drawn from the following facts: In rabbinic practice sex is recommended during pregnancy and following menopause; widowers are enjoined to remarry even when they have fulfilled the obligation of procreation; and widowers may even marry a woman proven to be infertile.52

For the rabbis, pleasure and sex go hand-in-hand. Men are required by the laws of onah, that is

the laws requiring a man to provide for his wife financially and sexually, to sexually satisfy their

wives, as David Biale writes, “not only is there a commandment to engage in sexual relations

independent of procreation, but the purpose of such relations is explicitly to give pleasure.”53

Sexual desire between husband and wife, like pleasure, also considered positive in the

Babylonian Talmud. In fact, the Babylonian Talmud contains many passages which indicate that

sexual desire is an important part of marriage. For example, the Talmud reports that Rabbi

Yehuda states in the name of Rav, “It is forbidden for a man to get engaged to a woman until he

sees her, lest he see something in her that is repulsive, and she will become repugnant to him,

49 Ibid. 50 Biale, Rachel. Women and Jewish Law: An Exploration of Women's Issues in Halakhic Sources, 61. 51 B.T., Yebamot, 61b. 52 Boyarin, Daniel. Carnal Israel, 55-56. David Biale differs on this point. According to him, the Rabbinic view of non-procreative sex is, at best, ambiguous. See Eros and the Jews, 56. 53 B.T., Ketubot, 62b; and Bava Kama, 82a. 15 and he will hate her.”54 A similar reason is given for the prohibition to have sex while a woman is menstruating, “Rabbi Meir used to say: Why did the Torah say that a woman will be niddah for seven days? Because he [might become] used to her and disgusted with her. Therefore the

Torah says: Let her be impure for seven days so that she become desirous to her husband like the hour they entered the marriage canopy.”55 These cases suggest that sexual attraction and desire is an important part of the marital relationship for the husband. In both cases, sexual desire is a necessary and important part of the relationship for the husband.

Female sexual desire is also deemed important. The Mishnah states, “These are compelled to divorce their wives: a man who has boils, or has a polypus, or gathers [feces] or is a coppersmith or a tanner . . .”56 The Talmud elaborates, “What does ‘one who has a polypus’ mean? Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Samuel: an offensive nasal smell.”57 According to

Rachel Biale, “The general principle . . . is that men who are physically repulsive to their wives, because of either medical or occupational conditions are compelled to grant their wives a divorce.”58 Sexual desire, then, is not only the basis for a good marriage, but plays a large role in defining particular halakhot.

Kabbalah and the Baalei HaNefesh

The kabbalistic understanding differs considerably from the rabbinic perspective. The

Baalei HaNefesh, the legal compendium of menstrual laws written by Abraham ben David of

Posquières (RaABaD, c. 1125-1198), and the anonymous Iggeret HaKodesh, a letter detailing

54 B.T., Kiddushin 41a. 55 B.T., Niddah 31b. 56 Mishnah Ketubot 7:10 57 B.T., Ketubot 77a. 58 Biale, Rachel. Women and Jewish Law, 86. 16

proper sexual behavior, are two such kabbalistic works. Whereas the Talmud does not preoccupy

itself with a person’s intention during the sexual act, kabbalistic texts, beginning with the

RaABaD’s Baalei HaNefesh, a text which influenced the Iggeret HaKodesh,59 consider the intention of the act as fundamental.60 Jeremy Cohen addresses the issue of intentionality during

sex in the Baalei HaNefesh,

Ranking specific alternative motivations for a particular human activity, RaABaD approached the issue of intentionality (kavanah) in religious behavior in a manner uncharacteristic of classical talmudic literature . . .halakhic discussions had not typically . . . drawn inferences concerning proper versus improper intentions of married sexual partners.61

Notably, the increasing awareness and emphasis put on the intention of the act was not

developed in a vacuum. Christian theologians of the twelfth century began to reexamine

Augustine of Hippo’s De nuptiis et concupiscentia and De bono conjugali. Late eleventh and

twelfth century Christian works such as Ivo of Chartres’ Decretum and Peter Lomabard’s

Sententiae sought to clarify the paradox of divinely approved marriage with sinful sexuality. The

RaABad’s Ba’alei HaNefesh delineates the motivations for conjugal sex in similar, if not identical, categories as Augustine.62 Concomitant to the rise in sexual literature was the rise of the Cathar movement in France, Italy and Spain. The movement venerated celibacy and asceticism.63 Thus, the resultant discourse, both Jewish and secular, became deeply concerned

with sex.

59 Cohen, Seymour J., and Nahmanides.̣ The Holy Letter: A Study in Medieval Jewish Sexual Morality, Ascribed to Nahmanides. New York: Ktav Pub. House. 1976. Print, 45. In his introduction to the translation, he notes that the author of the Iggeret HaKodesh “leaned heavily on the Rabad.” 60 Cohen, Jeremy. "Rationales for Conjugal Sex in RaABaD's Ba'alei Ha-nefesh." Hîstôry¯a Yêhûdît = Jewish History 6.1 (1992): 65-78. Web, 74. 61 Ibid., 73. 62 Ibid., 72-73. 63 Biale, David. Eros and the Jews, 95-96. 17

The authors of Ba’alei HaNefesh, the Iggeret HaKodesh, and Mitat Kesef were

profoundly impacted by Kabbalah, especially theosophical Kabbalah Theosophical kabbalah’s

main premise regarding sex between husband and wife is reflective of its theology in general --

that there are “correspondences between the activities of the body and the interactions of the

sefirot.”64 When the body performs actions with the proper kavanah, “the interaction of intent

and holiness in the performance of the deed transforms both act and actor, placing them in the

hierarchy of holiness and thus connecting them with God.”65 The sexual act itself, therefore, with

the proper kavanah and corresponding physical actions, can be a mystical and, indeed, virtuous

activity. However, paradoxically, kabbalistic texts attempt to monitor this virtuous deed,

imposing ascetic regulations on marital relations. According to Steven Fraade, asceticism is

defined as “(1) the exercise of disciplined effort toward the goal of spiritual perfection (however

understood), which requires (2) abstention (whether total or partial, permanent or temporary,

individualistic or communalistic) from the satisfaction of otherwise permitted earthly, creaturely

desires.”66 There is much debate among the scholars about whether ancient Judaism did in fact encompass an ascetic component.67 What is clear, however, is that both theosophical and theurgic Kabbalah absolutely did. Marital sexuality in the Zohar, kabbalah’s founding text, and

the Iggeret HaKodesh are both rife with ambivalence about sex. As David Biale writes, “the

Jewish mystics did not renounce human sexuality in favor of a spiritualized erotic relationship

64 Guberman, Karen. "To Walk in All His Ways": Towards a Kabbalistic Sexual Ethic." The Journal of Religious Ethics 14.1 (1986): 61-80. Web, 76. 65 Ibid., 64. 66 Fraade, Steven D. “Ascetical Aspects of Ancient Judaism.” Jewish Spirituality from the Bible Through the Middle Ages, ed. Arthur Green. New York: Crossroad, 1986-1987, 253-288. 67 See, for example, Steven Fraade’s discussion regarding the disagreement between Yitzchak Fritz Baer, who believed that asceticism was inherent to Judaism, and Ephraim Urbach who believed that Jewish asceticism was a response to events. 18

with God, but neither did they embrace it unambiguously.”68

The Iggeret HaKodesh

Of primary importance in the discussion about the Iggeret HaKodesh’s outlook on sex is its view of women during the sexual act. At first glance, the text seems to present an undeniably favorable view toward women. Yet a more in-depth look at the text reveals women as passive, secondary actors.

As mentioned above, the text of the Baalei HaNefesh influenced the Iggeret HaKodesh in

its view of intentionality as a primary component of the sexual act. However, the text repeatedly

designates the man as the partner whose intentions have the affective power in producing pious

sons to the exclusion of the woman. The intended audience of the Iggeret HaKodesh, according

to David Biale, is a very restricted group of “male mystics who were instructed to channel their

physical practices very narrowly in the service of an elite spirituality.”69 One could argue that because the text addresses male mystics, the language utilized must necessarily be directed solely to the male in the relationship. I would contend, however, that passages describing certain processes in which both the husband and wife are involved unnecessarily exclude and, indeed, belittle the woman’s involvement. Throughout this textual analysis, it becomes clear that the

Iggeret HaKodesh downgrades the centrality of the female in two main ways: by diminishing female desire and by promoting the husband’s role in bearing offspring, for his intentions alone will endow the couple with pious or impious sons.70

The Iggeret HaKodesh’s “scientific” knowledge regarding conception is based on the

68 Biale, David. Eros and the Jews, 113. 69 Ibid., 108. 70 This idea will be explored further later in this essay. 19

Pythagorean notion that the semen is developed in the brain and spinal marrow.71 Thus the text reads, “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.”72 Semen is also

thought to create the form of the body, as the homunculus theory suggests.73 Charles Mopsik

notes that this doctrine regarding semen in the non-Jewish world did not incorporate the mystical

(ie. “drawn in holiness and purity”) aspect described in the Iggeret HaKodesh.74 In other words, the Iggeret HaKodesh adds a mystical component to an otherwise physical understanding of semen. Another example of this ideology arises when the author writes about orgasm. Following the Talmudic tradition that if a woman orgasms prior to her husband, she will conceive a son,75

the woman is compared to natural“ - 76"האשה כדמיון החומר" the Iggeret HaKodesh notes that matter.” The semen, on the other hand, is “compared to the Creator, who created His design on

The semen, then, is the decisive ”.זרע האיש נמצא כדמיון היוצר שמצייר צורה בחומר.“ - ”material things

substance in conception. Monford Harris notes, “when intercourse takes place in total purity . . .

the sperm itself carries the human being into a higher sphere. The sperm becomes a kind of

epistemological escalator.”76F77 Furthermore, the man is instructed in chapter four of the Iggeret

71 Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pythagoras, 19. Smith, Justin E. H. (2006). The Problem of Animal Generation in Early Modern Philosophy. Montreal: Concordia University, p. 5. The direct quote is, “[τὸ δε σπέρμα εἶναι σταγόνα ἐγκέφαλου];” and P. van der Horst, ‘Sarah’s Seminal Emission: Hebrews 11:11 in the LIght of Ancient Embryology’, in Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity: Essays on Their Interaction (Leuven, 1998), 221-240. והסוד כי טיפת הזרע כשהיא נמשכת בקדושה ובטהרה נמשכת ממקום “ ,Iggeret HaKodesh, Perek Sheini. he Hebrew text reads 72 ”.הדיעה והבינה שהוא המוח 73 See David Biale Eros and the Jews, Chapter 5, endnote 19. The endnote says, “This is the term used by Giles of Rome, whose De Formatiione Corporis Humani in Utero appeared a few decades after our text . . . Giles text reveals a similar notion, taken from Aristotelian medicine, of the sperm as the force that gives shape to the embryo.” 74 Mopsik, Charles. Lettre Sur La Sainteté : (Igueret Ha-Qodech), Ou La Relation Entre L'homme Avec Sa Femme. Lagrasse: Verdier, 1993. Print, 192-193. 75 B.T., Niddah, 31a. 76 Naḥmanides. Iggeret Ha-ḳodesh : She-shalaḥ Ha-Ramban Le-eḥad Ha-ḥaverim Be-ʻinyan ḥibur Ha-adam El Ishato. Berlin: ḥ. Mo. L., 1792. Print, Perek Shlishi. 77 Harris, Monford. “Marriage as Metaphysics: A Study of the Iggereth HaKodesh.” Hebrew Union College Annual ידיעה זו היא חבור הנפש ,Web. Page 208. He quotes the text of the Iggeret HaKodesh which reads .19-220 :(1962) 33 20

of semen “will be clean and “טיפה“ HaKodesh to monitor his diet so that his

moderate,”78allowing for the conception of a wise and pious son. The regulating of what the

husband eats relies on the premise that the food imbibed affects a person’s character. Foods such

as blood, fat, predatory birds, beasts, pigs and rodents, while explicitly prohibited by Jewish law,

are also discouraged on mystical level in order to avoid spiritual impurity, “And now we will tell

you this introduction, know that when the blood is formed and is converted to body, the blood

takes on the nature of the food from which it is made.”79 Since blood, according to the author of the Iggeret HaKodesh, is converted into semen, the husband’s diet must consist of sanctioned foods that are “clean and pure.”80 In contrast, there is no parallel instruction or attention paid to

.זרע the effects of a woman’s diet on her

The Iggeret HaKodesh is also very concerned with the production of male offspring. The

to denote offspring. Of course, the term בנים זכרים or בנים text exclusively uses either the term

is ambiguous as it can refer only to sons or sons and daughters. However, the use of the term בנים

is usually associated with acts traditionally affiliated with males, such as the learning of Torah,

becoming “masters of the law,” and sanctifying the Divine name.81 Alternatively, in the third

specifically focusing on the ,בנים זכרים chapter of the Iggeret HaKodesh, the text speaks about

time of the coital union between the couple and strategies for conceiving a male son. The term

first appears in a quote from the Talmud in which Abba Benjamin says, “All my life I took great

pains about two things [that my prayer should be before my God] and that my bed should be

השכלית ודבוקה באור העליון ולא נקרא שיודע דבר פלוני עד שנדבק חשכל במושכל “תהיה הטיפה נקייה וממוצעת“ ,78The Hebrew reads 79 Naḥmanides. Iggeret Ha-ḳodesh : She-shalaḥ Ha-Ramban Le-eḥad Ha-ḥaverim Be-ʻinyan ḥibur Ha-adam El Ishato. Berlin: ḥ. Mo. L., 1792. Print, Perek Rivi’i. My translation. 80 Ibid. In Perek ”.לבנים בעלי הוראה ראויים לקבל את עול מלכות שמים“ ,The Iggeret’s introduction includes text that reads 81 Similarly, the text ,א"כ בין והתבונן בזמן שראוי לו לאדם לשמש מטתו ותהיה זוכה לבנים ראוים להוראה “ ,Shlishi the text reads ”.בנים הגונים וכשרים, ראויים לכתר עליון, בעלי תורה ויראה והוראה“ ,also says in Perek Hamishi 21 placed north and south.”82 Certainly the floorplans of the bedroom are an important aspect of sex as “whosoever has his bed from north to south, he will have male sons.”83 The text is not surprising because it centers on producing male offspring; the desire for a male heir is a common one. In medieval European law, for example, there was a preference for male over female heirs regarding physical property, eventually giving rise to the feudal system.84 It is the complete omission of female offspring from the Iggeret HaKodesh that is notable. This, too, ties into the theme of women’s invisibility in the bedroom. Even if, as we will explore, the woman involved in the sexual act is imperceptible or essentially passive, we might expect that her offspring, whether male or female, would be acknowledged. But this is not the case. Only male offspring are worthy of being noted.

The last aspect of women’s invisibility in the text of the Iggeret HaKodesh reduces the role of the woman and her desire to a passive one. According to Charles Mopsik and other

Kabbalah scholars, passivity “is not the opposite of ‘activity’ but rather of ‘impassibility.’ To be passive is to have the faculty of receiving, of undergoing, which does not exclude the ability to act.”85 This definition clarifies the actual ramifications of defining women as passive; by describing women as receptive, women inherently cannot be the initiators. In other words, being a receiver is dependent on one’s counterpart, the benefactor or the initiator. In the Iggeret

HaKodesh, the text regards men as the initiators of sexual activities despite the husband’s

82 B.T., Brachot, 5b 83 Naḥmanides. Iggeret Ha-ḳodesh : She-shalaḥ Ha-Ramban Le-eḥad Ha-ḥaverim Be-ʻinyan ḥibur Ha-adam El Ishato. Berlin: ḥ. Mo. L., 1792. Print, Perek Shlishi 84 Colby, Frank Moore, and Talcott Williams. The New International Encyclopaedia. Vol. 18. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1914. Print, 656. 85 Mopsik, Charles, Daniel Abrams, and Joseph Ben Abraham Gikatilla. Sex of the Soul: The Vicissitudes of Sexual Difference in Kabbalah. Los Angeles: Cherub, 2005. Print, 19. 22

responsibility to engage in sexual intercourse at his wife’s bidding.86 In other words, the

appropriate times for intercourse are not subject to her desire for it. Ironically, the appropriate

time for sex is Friday nights, a night which according to the Zohar, is associated with the

feminine.87 Furthermore, the only way to truly achieve a spiritual unity with God is by engaging

in sex with one’s wife.88 Despite the necessity for a wife in order to fully engage with spiritual

realm, the wife is the lesser of the two actors.

The Iggeret HaKodesh employs excerpts that, curiously, revolve around the woman

while simultaneously implying her passivity. In chapter four of the Iggeret HaKodesh, the author

discusses the proper diet for a male trying to produce a pious son:

God placed the section in His Torah regarding ‘A woman shall emit seed’ (Leviticus 12:2) next to the section regarding forbidden foods. And it is stated,’“to separate between impure and pure, and between an animal that may be eaten and an animal which cannot be eaten.’(Leviticus 11:47) And He placed nearby ‘A woman shall conceive and give birth to a male.’ and He placed these this near to the plagues. And these three sections contain wondrous secrets and the section ‘And the woman shall conceive’ is in the middle to make known that if a man separates from bad food, he will have proper, holy and pure sons. If not, great and strong plagues will come upon them because of the drop of seed that is made from these horrible foods. 89

are used interchangeably.90 For example, when ”אדם“ and ”איש“ Throughout the text, the terms

האדם הוא as the male, he writes אדם obviously rendering ”,האדם ואשתו“ the author uses the phrase

הנה הש"י אמר בתורה (שמות כא) שארה ,The Iggeret HaKodesh quotes the Babylonian Talmud 61b in Perek Shlishi 86 כסותה ועונתה לא יגרע. ועונה האמורה בתורה מפורשת בגמרא (כתובות סא ב) כי העונות משתנות כפי סדר כל בני אדם 87 Kimelman, Reuven. 'Lekhah Dodi' ṿe-ḳabalat Shabbat : Ha-mashmaʻut Ha-misṭit. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2003. Print, 3. He writes that the Zohar uses only feminine imagery when referring to Shabbat. This is in contrast to Maimonides, who uses masculine imagery. Whereas Maimonides imagines Shabbat as a King, the Zohar regards shabbat as a queen or bride. 88 Ibid., 61, 66. 89 Naḥmanides. Iggeret Ha-ḳodesh : She-shalaḥ Ha-Ramban Le-eḥad Ha-ḥaverim Be-ʻinyan ḥibur Ha-adam El Ishato. Berlin: ḥ. Mo. L., 1792. Print, Perek Rivi’i. My translation. is typically אדם is typically translated as “a man” while איש .are ambiguous terms אדם and איש The terms 90 translated as “human.” 23

,as male.91 Thus, in this passage אדם again interpreting the term ,סוד החכמה והאשה סוד התבונה which could potentially be translated as “ ...to tell you that if a person abstains from impure foods ...” the reader must defer to previous usages of the term and conclude that the duty to eat a healthy diet pertains only to the man.92 Furthermore, the text continues by stating that the “drop

determines the outcome of the union. The content of this passage is “טיפת הזרע“ of seed,” or striking. It uses a Biblical verse in which the woman is the main actor, “And the woman shall conceive,” to reassign the behavior to the male. Similarly, later the author recalls the language used in Genesis when recounting the generations of the forefathers,

Because according to the thoughts you have during intercourse, so the form comes upon the seed. This is the secret of “These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son. Abraham begat Isaac.” (Genesis 25:19) For after God told im that Sarah, your wife, will give birth to a son, “And I will establish my covenant with him,” (Genesis 17:19) Abraham concentrated during intercourse and his thoughts cleaved to the upper, and therefore he had a son worthy of what God promised him. This is the meaning of ‘Abraham begot Isaac.’ And this is ‘And these are the generations of Isaac the son of Abraham.’ And the sages of blessed memory said, ‘a righteous son of a righteous father’ (Genesis Rabbah).93

Once again, the text alleges that the man is the main actor during the sexual act; it is he who produces righteous offspring. Just as the patriarch Abraham begat Isaac through his kavvanah during intercourse, the Iggeret HaKodesh suggests, man should make God their focus

91 Ibid., The text is replete with examples to support this notion. The only instance in the text I could find where the author refers to both male and female actors is when he stresses the importance of purifying one’s thoughts before ,The full text is “. כל אדם“ the sexual union. The language used there, in referencing both the husband and wife, is ,However ”.וצריך כל אדם לנקות מחשבותיו והרהוריו ולזכותם בשעת תשמיש, ולא יהיה מחשב בדבר עבירה וזמה רק בדברים הקדושים“ the text quickly reverts back to the husband being the main actor regarding intent. A few sentences later the author writes that the “those thoughts affect the semen, and the child will be conceived in that image. . .” or in the Hebrew, ”.הנה אותו ההרהור הטוב חל על טפת הזרע ויהיה הולד מצוייר כצורת אותו הרהור ועתיד להיות צדיק גמור“ דע כי בהיות הדבר כמו שאנו אומרים, סמך השם יתברך בתורתו הקדושה פרשת אשה כי תזריע “ ,Ibid. The Hebrew text reads 92 למאכלות אסורות ואמר (ויקרא יא) ולהבדיל בין הטמא ובין הטהור ובין החיה הנאכלת ובין החיה אשר לא תאכל, וסמיך ליה אשה כי תזריע, וסמך מצד אחר פרשת נגעים. ואלו הג' פרשיות לסודות נפלאים. ופרשה כי תזריע באמצע להודיע שאם יבדל אדם מן המאכלות הרעים הויין לו בנים הגונים קדושים וטהורים, ואם לאו הרי נגעים מתחדשים עליהם מצד טפת הזרע שהיתה מאותן מאכלות האסורות והמשוקצות וזהו סוד (בראשית כה) ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם אברהם הוליד את יצחק, כלומר אחר שאמר ליה הקב"ה שרה אשתך יולדת “ ,.Ibid 93 לך בן, נתכוין אברהם בשעת החבור כוונה יתרה על כל מדותיו הטובות, בהיותו מדבק מחשבתו בעליונים ומתכוין להוליד בן שיהיה ראוי למה שאמר לו הקדוש ב"ה. וזהו סוד אברהם הוליד את יצחק, נתכוין להוליד בן שיהיה צדיק גמור כמותו. וזהו אלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, אז"ל .My Translation ”.(בראשית רבה סג א) צדיק בן צדיק 24 during sex. Just as in the Biblical text, the male produces the child, leaving female reproductive capacities out of the narrative.

Another example appears in the course of quoting the Talmud. The Iggeret HaKodesh quotes Berakhot 20a in which Rabbi Yohanan, a man of great physical beauty, would sit at the gates of the mikvah. His rationale was that, “When the daughters of Israel come up from bathing, they look at me and have children as handsome as I.”94 Although the Iggeret HaKodesh does admit that the woman has some involvement in the formation of her child (“the thought that is in her imagination will shape the form of the child according to her fantasy”)95 the woman is incapable on her own of imagining a beautiful, pious child. Indeed, she needs an outward stimulus in order to provoke within her an image of her male offspring. Interestingly, the handsome male is the object of the female gaze and desire, causing the woman to conceive beautiful children who look like him rather than her husband. While her husband is enjoined to contemplate God, the wife is encouraged to fantasize about the erotic beauty of man (a base instinct compared to the lofty act of kavvanah).

One final example involves the act of coitus itself. Not only does the Iggeret HaKodesh warn the man that if he engages in “simple conversation” with his wife, he, and not she, “must give reckoning in time to come,” but the woman, it seems, must be reminded of how to be “pious and modest.”96 The Iggeret HaKodesh perceives piety as refraining from extraneous talk during

94 B.T., Brachot 20a. 95 Naḥmanides. Iggeret Ha-ḳodesh : She-shalaḥ Ha-Ramban Le-eḥad Ha-ḥaverim Be-ʻinyan ḥibur Ha-adam El Ishato. Berlin: ḥ. Mo. L., 1792. Print, Perek Hamishi. 96 The text quotes B.T., Chagiga 8b which says, “Even for a simple conversation between man and wife during intercourse, a man must give reckoning in time to come. . . Tell her how pious and modest women are blessed with upright, honorable and worthy sons, students of Torah, God-fearing, and people of accomplishment and purity . . .” ומספר עמה בדברי נשים חסידות וצנועות, היאך יצאו מהם בנים הגונים וכשרים, ראויים לכתר עליון, בעלי תורה ויראה “ ,In Hebrew ”והוראה 25

sex and modesty as covering one’s hair, both of which are incumbent upon the woman.97

However, it is the duty of the male to refocus his wife’s thoughts on the sanctity of the sexual

act, reminding her of her place, thus inseminating both her mind and body simultaneously.

The Evolution of the Yetzer in Rabbinic Thought

At this point, it is advisable to explicate the evolution of the yetzer in rabbinic literature

as it can provide a more complete understanding of Mitat Kesef. Before we delve into the text

itself, let us look at the historical evolution of the yetzer from a benign, neutral human

inclination, to the more modern understanding as the evil and often sexual inclination. In the

multiple Tannaitic midrashim (composed c. 0-220 C.E.), Rabbi Akiva’s conceptualization of the yetzer “seems to indicate nothing more than the normal human tendency toward self-interest.”98

Ishay Rosen-Zvi details the three times that the idiom “Torah spoke regarding the yetzer” is used

in Tannaitic literature; each appearance is associated with Rabbi Akiva himself or his school of

thought. In the first instance, Rabbi Akiva addresses the law regarding the prohibited status of

the consumption of fruit for the first three years after planting. In the fourth year, the fruits are

permitted under several restrictions. Only in the fifth year can the fruits be freely eaten.

And on the fifth year you may eat its fruit, that its yield to you may be increased (Lev 19:15) -- R. Yose ha-Glili says: It is as if you are adding the produce of the fifth year to the produce of the fourth . . . Rabbi Akiva says: The Torah spoke regarding the yetzer so that the person would not say: for four years I have troubled myself for nothing. Therefore, it is said: That its yield to you may be increased.99

The most relevant point to this essay is that Rabbi Akiva understood the verse literally; the tree-

כמעשה קמחית שזכתה לז' בנים שכולם שמשו בכהונה גדולה, ,The text quotes the B.T. Yoma, 47a which refers to Kimhit 97 ושאלוה חכמינו ז"ל במה זכתה, ואמרה להם אפילו קורות ביתי לא ראו שער ראשי מימ “Like Kimhit who merited 7 sons that were all High Priests. The wise men, may their memory be blessed, asked her how she merited this. She told them, “Even the walls of my house have not seen the hair on my head.” 98 Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. Demonic Desires : Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania, 2011, 16. 99 Sifra, Kedoshim 3:9. Translation by Ishay Rosen-Zvi. 26

owner is promised more fruit in the future as a reward for his hard work. This promise, according

to Rabbi Akiva, is necessary in order to satisfy the neutral yetzer. A similar excerpt can be found

in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai on Exodus 34:24. Here, God reassures the yetzer of

the Children of Israel that if they make pilgrimage to the Temple three times a year, “no one will

covet your land when you go up to appear.”100 Rosen-Zvi notes the conceptual similarity between God’s promise in the first instance and His reassurance in the second.

The third instance, like the previous two, involves a neutral yetzer which feels dissatisfied by a Biblical command. In this instance, two verses, one which states that a person must return his fellow’s ox (Deut 22:1), and another which states that a person must return his enemy’s ox

(Ex 23:4) potentially agitate the “the natural human disposition to treat a foe and a friend differently,a natural tendency that oe should overcome and subject to higher moral precepts.”101The “natural human disposition” in the text is the yetzer.102It must be pointed out

that the texts in the aforementioned examples refer to the inclination simply as “the yetzer” --

there is no adjective, neither good (tov) nor bad (ra) attached.

Rabbi Ishmael, on the other hand, describes a yetzer hara. Although there are multiple

examples of Rabbi Ishmael’s conception of the evil yetzer, one example will suffice. In a

dramatic retelling of the Boaz and Ruth story, the Sifre, the Tannaitic midrash on Numbers, describes the scene in which Ruth lies at the feet of Boaz in the threshing floor thus:

As the Lord lives! Lie down until morning (Ruth 3:13) -- because his evil yetzer sat and importuned him the entire night. It said to him: “You are unmarried and you want a woman, and she is unmarried and she wants a man (teaching that a wife is acquired by sexual intercourse). So go and have intercourse with her, and she will be your wife. He

100 Exodus 34:24. Rosen 101 Ibid.,Rosen-Zvi, 16 Ishay. Demonic Desires, 16. 102 This midrash is in Sifre Deuteronomy, 222. The yetzer, once again, is the “normal human tendency toward self- interest” as described above. 27

took an oath against his evil yetzer: As the Lord lives! -- I shall not touch her; and to the woman he said: Lie down until morning.103

Here the yetzer is evil. Furthermore, “the sexual drama here is focused on thoughts and

reflections no less, and possible even more, than on actions. Human beings are threatened from

within . . . the yetzer draws people to illicit acts.”104

The next step in the evolution of the yetzer, according to Rosen-Zvi, was the development

of the yetzer not as a singular entity, but as a dual one. He writes:

The homilies of the school of R. Ishmael present a yetzer that differs significantly in character and scope from Rabbi Akiva’s “the Torah spoke regarding the yetzer.” Both schools, however, posit only one yetzer -- a natural human tendency in one school, and a demonic entity in the other (thus the term “evil yetzer”). This simple fact runs contrary to the conventional scholarly view which holds that the rabbinic yetzer system has two yetzarim, good and evil . . .taking the one-yetzer model seriously demands a thorough revision of the conventional theory of rabbinic anthropology. . . Boaz does not need a good yetzer to best his evil one; he struggles with it and defeats it himself.105

In this model, humans have the potential to ward off the yetzer, which is part of man, without the

help of external forces. .

However, this is not true in the Amoraic conceptual of the yetzer. The innovation of the

Amoraic conception of the yetzer is twofold; in the first place, the yetzer became a physical

entity. In the second, the yetzer became a national one.106 Rosen-Zvi writes,

It is now useful to look at these phenomena more broadly: amoraic literature uses yetzer imagery that is different both qualitatively and quantitatively from that found in tannaitic literature. Amoraic yetzer is more developed, reified, and demonized; it acquires a distinct character and even physical shape. It is compared to other demonic beings and

103 Sifre, Numbers 88. Translation by Ishay Rosen-Zvi. 104 Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. Demonic Desires, 19. 105 Ibid., 26-27 106 See Chapter 4 of Demonic Desires. In it, he details multiple cases in Amoraic literature that describe the yetzer as a physical being and a national threat to the Children of Israel. For example, Genesis Rabba 22:6, 89:1, and Babylonian Talmud Berachot 5a. 28

acquires a place in cosmological structures.107

The question remains, what is the purpose of using the yetzer in these rabbinic texts? In other words, why direct the reader’s attention to the yetzer? In effect, by identifying the yetzer as

something dangerous and to be avoided at all costs, the Rabbis similarly identify particular issues

as dangerous.108 And because sexuality is such an incendiary topic, sexuality becomes associated

with the yetzer. Interestingly, there is a stark difference between the Palestinian and Babylonian

Talmuds regarding the association of sexuality with the yetzer. Whereas the Palestinian Talmud

does not overwhelmingly associate the yetzer with sexuality (only five out of twenty occurrences

are sexual in content), the Babylonian Talmud is saturated with the fusion of sex and the

yetzer.109 In fact, the redaction of the Babylonian Talmud added layers of sexual references to the

text. Furthermore, the anonymous voice (or the “Stam”) in the Babylonian Talmud creates an

almost exclusively sexual yetzer.110

Chronologically the yetzer developed from an evil force (not necessarily sexual) in the

amoraic statements in the Babylonian Talmud to hypersexualized in the post-amoraic, redacted statements. One more element of the Babylonian yetzer is crucial to our understanding of the yetzer: the yetzer undergoes a transformation from an external force to an inward, psychological one.111 Thus, Babylonian rabbis shift the “focal point of the discussion from the fear of actual sin

(i.e. prohibited sexual intercourse) to the internal struggle (of males) against the yeṣer. In this

context, the evil yeṣer, as a psychological embodiment of sexual desire, becomes the main

107 Ibid.,Rosen-Zvi, 82 Ishay. Demonic Desires,82. 108 Ibid., 87. 109 See Chapter 6 of Ishay Rosen-Zvi’s Demonic Desire. 110 Ibid., 108. 111 Ibid., Chapter 4. 29

protagonist of the talmudic drama.”112 In sum, “In this scheme, marital sex, which includes some form or another of sexual gratification is mainly seen as a means to extinguish sexual desire, which itself was believed to be ignited by an unrealized and unquenched sexual urge. … and in contradistinction to the widespread conviction that sexual desire can be controlled and tamed via temporary or permanent forms of abstention, the Babylonian rabbis viewed marital sex, first and foremost as a means to extinguishing sexual desire.”113

There is yet another complexity regarding the yetzer which directly pertains to Mitat

Kesef: what, if any, relationship does the yetzer have with women? If, as stated above, the yetzer

is associated with sexuality and desire, the question regarding women’s yetzarim is an important

one. Apparently, while women do indeed have a yetzer, their ability to overcome it is limited,

“The rabbinic story of the struggle against the yetzer is clearly a masculine one, and so images of

virility and heroism are is building blocks. The yetzer, at first, is ‘weak, like a female, and then

becomes strong like a male’ (Gen. Rab. 22:6).”114 Furthermore, there is not one story in either the Palestinian or Babylonian literature in which a woman struggles against her yetzer.115 In an

even more interesting twist, the rabbis “associate women with the other side of the yetzer

economy, as its allies, not its victims.”116 The post-Amoraic rabbinic agenda is clear-- they

diminish women’s sexual desire and concomitantly depict women as the embodiment of that

desire (i.e. the yetzer). Men must exercise caution when it comes to women whereas women are

“never tempted themselves.”117

112 Kiel, Yishai. Sexuality in the Babylonian Talmud : Christian and Sasanian Contexts in Late Antiquity. 2016, 55. 113 Ibid., 55 114 Ibid., 121 115 Ibid., 125 116 Ibid., 121. 117 Ibid., 125. 30

CHAPTER TWO: Mitat Kesef and its Treatment of Women

In Jacob Emden’s Siddur Beit Yaakov, a whole section entitled Mitat Kesef is devoted to

Friday night sexual behavior between man and wife. The text is highly influenced by the Iggeret

HaKodesh, the RaABaD’s Shaar HaKedusha in Baalei HaNefesh, and kabbalistic texts such as

the Zohar and Sefer HaGilgulim. These influences are not insignificant. Because each text

regards women as secondary actors in the sexual act, Emden’s perspective regarding women

clearly agrees with these previous perspectives. In Emden’s strategic quoting of these texts, the

aforementioned ways of erasing women and their desire, that is, the focus on the male intention

during the act, the preoccupation with having male offspring, and male initiative, are reinforced.

How the Text is Divided

Emden’s Mitat Kesef can be subdivided into the following general sections: quotations

and amendments of the Iggeret HaKodesh and his own analysis and presentation of the sexual

act. In the first section, Emden inserts the RaABAD’s four acceptable kavanot during sex

through which a man gets rewarded, while in the second section he includes excerpts from the

Zohar, Sefer HaGilgulim, and his final thoughts regarding sexual activity. An outline listing the

sections and their subdivisions is below:

פרק א : לצווג של שבת Chapter 1: The Coupling of Shabbat

:פרק ב : בענין הזווג כלל Chapter 2: The Coupling in General

31

פרק ג : במהות החיבור Chapter 3: The Nature of the Union

פרק ד : בזמן החיבור Chapter 4: The Time of the Union

חלק א : בזמן העונה בימים Subsection 1: How often a month

חלק ב : בזמן העונה מצד המזון והשעות Subsection 2: How soon after a

meal and at what time of night

פרק ה: המזון הראוי לחבור Chapter 5: The Appropriate Food for the

Union

פרק ו : בכוונת החבור Chapter 6: The Intention of the Union

פרק ז : בהנהגת החבור Chapter 7: Behavior During the Union

חוליא א: בכמות המשגל Subsection 1: The Amount of

חוליא ב: באיכות הפועל הלז Intercourse

חוליא ג: מותר הדינים הנקשרים בזה הפועל Subsection 2: The Quality of the

Act

Subsection 3: The Remaining Laws

Connected to this Act

Jacob Emden and Sexuality

Chapters 1-6 are a general rehashing of the Iggeret HaKodesh. It is in chapter six, in the

midst of Emden’s reiteration of the Iggeret HaKodesh, that Emden inserts the RaABAD’s four

acceptable kavvanot during sex. As mentioned earlier, the author of the Iggeret HaKodesh had

32

been influenced by the Baalei HaNefesh, specifically in its veneration of proper kavvanot during

the sexual act. The four kavvanot are of particular interest in that they are addressed to men; once

again, they diminish women’s role and desire in the sexual act.118 The four rationales are listed in

descending order, the first being the most noble and the last deserving the least reward. Emden

summarizes the rationales as follows:

(1) The first is that the intention should be solely for procreation to fulfill the commandment and repay his debt and this is the most proper of them all. (2) The second is for the well-being of the fetus; during the last six months [of pregnancy] sex is good for it for sex allows it to emerge pale-skinned and energetic. This intention also relates procreation because it is for the welfare of the fetus. (3) The third does not contain either of the previous reasons, but refers to when the wife yearns for him and when he recognizes that she is seducing him with words. At the time when he travels or returns from a trip, she will surely yearn for him. This [motivation] also is deserving of reward. (4) The fourth rationale is that he intends to guard himself through her so that he will not come to desire to sin. When he sees that his inclination is overcoming him and he desires this thing and perhaps he will become ill if he does not engage in sexual relations, this intention is also deserving of reward, although not to the extent of the first [rationales]. Perhaps he can push off his inclination and withstand his desire. 119

Jacob Emden’s truncated version contains the same philosophical problems as that of the

Shaar HaKedusha: ignoring female desire. For example, the first rationale acknowledges the

husband’s debt regarding the laws of Onah; he must provide her with sex. However, the first

rationale does not acknowledge her desire as a central aspect of this debt. The RaABAD’s

placement of the commandment to procreate first is not troubling as both the duty to procreate

and the duty to sexually fulfill one’s wife are halachically incumbent upon men. However, the

duty to have sex for the welfare of the fetus, the second rationale, is not a divine command. A

118 Jeremy Cohen references Dalia Hoshen’s work in Rationales for Conjugal Sex in Footnote 11. He mentions that she holds that the RaABAD’s reasoning is much more restrictive regarding the sexual act than the Talmudic view. 119 Emden, Jacob, and Kluger, Solomon Ben Judah Aaron. Sidur Bet Yaʻaḳov. Tel-Aviv: ʻAm ʻolam, 1967. Print, 158-160. My translation. 33 man’s obligation to sexually fulfill his wife when she desires sex is listed only after the welfare of the fetus. Since having sex for the welfare of the fetus is not a divine command, placing it before the command to satisfy one’s wife sexually consigns female desire to the background.

Furthermore, the last rationale for sexual relations relegates women to be at the beck and call of her husband whenever his sexual appetite becomes too much to bear. This model, then, simultaneously diminishes the importance of her desire and objectifies her.

Emden’s own struggle with his considerable sexual appetite may have influenced the wording of the fourth rational. His wording differs significantly from the RaABaD’s; Sha’ar

HaKedusha states regarding the fourth rational:

And the fourth [rationale], he who intends to protect himself from sins so that he does not desire to sin because he sees his inclination is overpowering him to do that thing, even this receives reward, but not like the first three because he can conquer his inclination and overcome his desires. Regarding this they said "every man has a small appendage (penis), if he feeds it it will grow hungry, and if he starves it it will be satisfied." They also said, "with the inclination, a child, and a woman, the left (hand) pushes and the right (hand) draws in." In any event, someone who intends to do this, to be satisfied from the permissible and not to hunger and desire the prohibited, he intends for the good. [Such a person] has merit like a person who can fast for a whole day without great strain, without dying, without becoming ill or pained overmuch, even still he eats just a little bit like a person that no one notices eating, and receives merit for it, for showing his soul a little bit of pleasure, and he does not want to pain his soul, as it says (Proverbs, 11) "One who redeems his soul is a pious man, and one who afflicts his is cruel" and it also says (Proverbs, 13) "a righteous one eats to satisfy his soul."120

Here, the possibility of becoming sick and dying is explicitly tied to fasting and only implicitly tied to refraining from sex. Emden, however, inextricably links the two:

The fourth [reason] is that he intends to guard himself with it in order that he should not come to desire to sin, when he sees his inclination is overcoming him with desire. And maybe he will get sick if he does not have sex. Also this intention receives reward. But not like the first [reasons].

120 Abraham Ben David. Baʾale Ha-nefesh : ʻim Haśagat Zeraḥyah Ha-Leṿi ṿe-hilkhot Nidah Leha-Ramban. ṿe- hosafnu ḳuṭres Be-ʻinyene ḳedushat Ha-ziṿug Leha-Ramban Be-shem Igeret Ha-ḳodesh.Ṿarsha: Bi-defus Y. Unṭerhendler, 1881. Print. My translation. 34

Perhaps the word choice reflects Emden’s “personal need for sexual relations on a regular basis.”121 In fact, Emden noted that he “suffered pain due to the withholding of my desired function and natural need to discharge the surplus (semen) which is gathered.”122 Furthermore, later in Mitat Kesef, he remarks that sex is necessary in order to release the stagnant semen and prevent illnesses that “can affect the heart, brain, and stomach, damaging his health, and possibly cause fatal illnesses. [This occurred] with men who had sex on a regular basis and then refrained for a long time, they died suddenly.”123

Chapter seven of Mitat Kesef continues with Emden’s digression from the Iggeret

HaKodesh into a pseudo-scientific analysis of sex. In the third subsection of chapter seven,

Emden writes that having quoted from the RaABaD’s Baalei HaNefesh and the Iggeret

HaKodesh, he must quote from the Zohar. Immediately afterward, in point 15, he quotes Chayim

Vital’s Sefer HaGilgulim. The excerpt is telling. It reads:

When a man engages in intercourse with his wife, it is possible that they are both concentrating on the commandment or the opposite or that only one is concentrating on the good and the other on bad. And behold, from the strength of the father the son is given the secret of the external light and from the strength of the mother he is given the inner light. And if the woman concentrates on the good as does the man, a son will be born who is a completely righteous man with both external and internal light. And the opposite [scenario]. If the father concentrates on the good and the mother on the bad, [the son] will be externally good and internally bad. But with the passage of time, his external [good] will make the internal good. And if the opposite [occurs], the external bad will subjugate the outward good and he will be an evil man [like his father]. . . This factors into the importance of the strength of the father. And if he is lazy, the strength of the mother, the inward strength, overtook him. And all of this is according to the father. If he concentrates, then it is good. The son will be quick to do the work of

121 Schacter, Jacob J. Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works. N.p.: n.p., 1988. Print, 407. 122 Emden, Jacob Israel Ben Zebi. Sefer Shimush. Yerushalayim: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1974. Print. Ḳunṭresim, Meḳorot U-meḥḳarim. Sidrah A ; 47a. 123 Naḥmanides. Iggeret Ha-ḳodesh : She-shalaḥ Ha-Ramban Le-eḥad Ha-ḥaverim Be-ʻinyan ḥibur Ha-adam El Ishato. Berlin: ḥ. Mo. L., 1792. Print, Perek Shevi’i. 35

God and will be a great scholar of Torah. And if [the father] concentrates on the vanities of the world, [the son] will be quick to be busy with the vanities of the world . . .124

Elliot Wolfson elucidates the symbolic inner and outer light at work in this excerpt:

In the hierarchical structure of the sefirot, the feminine is associated with the external container and the masculine with the internal content. This hierarchy is operative on two different planes in the sefirotic realm: Malkhut is the vessel that contains the internal light of Tif’eret, just as Bina is the light that encompasses the interior light of Hokhmah . . .The image of the encompassing light attributed to Malkhut signifies, therefore, that the lower feminine has been elevated to the higher feminine, which is masculine in relation to the former. . . This is not to say that the female becomes higher in status than the male, but only that the female itself is integrated into the male on a higher level.125

What is important here is that both Malkhut and Bina, typically associated with the feminine, are

vessels that contain the internal light of Tif’eret and Hokhmah, typically associated with

masculinity. In other words, the feminine sefirot represent externality while the masculine sefirot

represent internality. This clarifies the notion that the man’s intention during the sexual act is the

final decisor of the quality of the child rendering the woman invisible in the creation of progeny,

according to Mitat Kesef. Moreover, Mitat Kesef calls into question the need for the woman’s

intention to be aligned with her husband as the fetus’ nature relies solely on the father’s intent.

By quoting the Sefer HaGilgulim Emden actually undermines the validity of having both the

husband and wife unite in intent.

Another striking element is how Jacob Emden, quoting Chayim Vital, incongruously

juxtaposes “doing the work of God” and being a “great scholar of Torah” with “the vanities of

the world.” A more logical construction would be to position “doing the work of God” opposite

124 Emden, Jacob, and Kluger, Solomon Ben Judah Aaron. Sidur Bet Yaʻaḳov. Tel-Aviv: ʻAm ʻolam, 1967. Print. Perek Shevi’i. My translation. 125 Wolfson, Elliot R. ""Tiqqun Ha-Shekhinah": Redemption and the Overcoming of Gender Dimorphism in the Messianic Kabbalah of Moses ḥayyim Luzzatto." History of Religions 36.4 (1997): 289-332. Web, 324. 36

“acting sinfully,” just as the opposite of being a “great scholar of Torah” should be “unlearned in

Torah.” This may have reflected the waning authority of the rabbis at the time and the power of

wealthy lay leaders. In fact, many rabbis “pronounced their disappointment and frustration with

with the decline of rabbinic authority and other Jewish traditional values in Western European

Jewish communities.”126 Perhaps Emden recalled this passage to bolster the rapidly deteriorating

position of the Torah scholar within his own community in Altona in 1744. By championing the

Torah scholar, Emden created a polemic against Jewish men involved in secular affairs and

business.

Another compelling aspect regarding male prominence in Emden’s Mitat Kesef is its

emphasis on having male children. The mere fact that Emden uses the same terminology as the

Iggeret HaKodesh throughout Mitat Kesef betrays his preference for male over female children.

However, even independent of the Iggeret HaKodesh, Emden writes of strategies to conceive

In part three of chapter seven, he writes, “He who wants to make male offspring,” and .בנים זכרים

goes on to give pertinent sexual advice, such as having sex twice in a row and only engaging in

consensual sex with his wife, “He who wants male children will have sex and repeat, and

he is called a ,(בעל כרחה) specifically with his wife’s knowledge. If he does this against her will

sinner.”126F127 In addition, at the end of Mitat Kesef, Emden writes, “And a man who behaves at the

126 Carlebach, Elisheva. The Pursuit of Heresy : Rabbi Moses Hagiz and the Sabbatian Controversies. New York: Columbia UP, 1990. Print,6. 127 Here Emden is referencing the Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 100b which states, ואמר רמי בר חמא אמר רב אסי אסור לאדם שיכוף אשתו לדבר מצוה שנאמר ואץ ברגלים חוטא וא"ר יהושע בן לוי כל הכופה אשתו לדבר “ מצוה הויין לו בנים שאינן מהוגנין אמר רב איקא בר חיננא מאי קראה (משלי יט) גם בלא דעת נפש לא טוב תניא נמי הכי גם בלא דעת נפש לא טוב זה הכופה אשתו לדבר מצוה ואץ ברגלים חוטא זה הבועל ושונה איני והאמר רבא הרוצה לעשות כל בניו זכרים יבעול וישנה ל"ק כאן ”:לדעת כאן שלא לדעת My English translation: Rami bar Hama said in the name of Rabbi Assi: It is forbidden for a man to force his wife to [perform] the obligation [of sex], as it says, "And he that is quick with feet sins." Rabbi Joshua Ben Levi said, "Whoever forces his wife [to perform] the obligation [of sex] will have unworthy children." Rabbi Ika bar Hanina said, "What is the 37

time of the fulfilment of his sexual duties according to everything written above, and he

sanctifies himself during sex, he sanctifies himself very much. And he is assured that he will

have righteous male children.”128 As the penultimate sentence of Mitat Kesef, this sentence is a

strong indicator that Emden wanted to inspire his audience with thoughts of male progeny.

The Yetzer in Mitat Kesef

Hearkening back to the explication of the yetzer, we can now turn to Emden’s Mitat

Kesef to uncover the underlying themes and nuances of sexuality and the yetzer. The yetzer is mentioned a few times in Mitat Kesef, the first time being in chapter four, “The Time of the

Union.” In subsection one, which deals with the number of times per month a married couple should have sex, Emden quotes the Babylonian Talmud, which states, “The yetzer, children, and women should be pushed away with the left (hand) and brought close with the right (hand).”129

Here, Emden quotes a baraita, a Tannaitic text, substantiating the claim that even before the

Amoraim, there was a tendency to associate the yetzer with women.130 Emden expounds upon

this idea:

כי עם היות העונה קבועה לכל אדם לפי כוחו ותענוגו. לפי שאמרו חכמינו זיכרונם לברכה דעת האשה שהיא מתפייסת בכך למלא תשוקתה. אמנם אם יצטרך על המעשה ההוא . הרשות בידו להוסיף. עם הוא מכוין בו להנצל מן העבירה. על זה הזהירו שיעמוד קצת נגד יצרו. ולא ימלא כל תאוותו בדחיית השמאל. ותהא בו הקרבת הימין. כדי שלא תתבטל עונתו. מתוך הכניעו את יצרו והלחמו עמו. וכן הדבר מצד האשה. עם היות

Scriptural proof? Also without consent the soul is not good." It was also taught also without consent the soul is not good: this refers to someone who forces his wife to [perform] the obligation [of sex]. "And "he that is quick with his feet is a sinner" refers to a man who has sex twice in a row. But this cannot be right! Didn't Raba say, "He who wants all his children to be males should have sex twice in a row?" This is not a difficulty, this one deals with [the woman's] consent and this one, without [her] consent. 128Emden, Jacob, and Kluger, Solomon Ben Judah Aaron. Sidur Bet Yaʻaḳov. Tel-Aviv: ʻAm ʻolam, 1967. Print. וכשהיתנהג האדם בשעת קיום העונה ככל הכתוב למעלה ויקדש עצמו בתשמיש מקדישין אותו הרבה ומובטח שיהיו לו בנים זכרים צדיקים. 129 Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 107b 130 Rosen-Zvi writes regarding this beraita, “Such association appears even before the yetzer has gained any special sexual connotation. . . women and yetzer appear side by side, as two potential stumbling blocks to man, who must contend with them in order to achieve his goals.” Page 123 38

עונתה קצובה. וכבר נתפייסה בהכנסה לחופה. שלא לבקש יותר ממה שהוטל על הבעל (לפי עניניו לחובה). אמנם עם היא צריכה לכך בהשתדלותה עמו ומתקשטת לפניו. הרי הוא חייב לשמחה בדבר מצוה אפילו שלא בשעת עונה 131

Because the Onah132 is set for everyone according to his strength and desire. As the sages, blessed be their memories, said that the tendency of the woman is to reconcile and fill her sexual desire. But if he needs to do this act (sexual intercourse), he has permission to add (to the number of times of sexual intercourse) if he has the intention to save himself from sin. Regarding this they cautioned that he should stand up to his yetzer. And he should not fill his urge by pushing away with the left but bring close with the right so that he does not cancel his obligation of Onah. He must subjugate his yetzer and fight against him. This thing is similar from the woman’s side. If this is the time she when her husband can fulfill his obligation of Onah and she has already entered the marriage canopy (i.e. if she is already married to her husband), she should not ask more than what imposed on the husband as an obligation (according to what his obligations are). However, if she needs this [sexual intimacy] and lobbies him and adorns herself before him, he must, with happiness, do this mitzvah, even if it is does fall under his the actual time of Onah.

The second time the yetzer is mentioned is in the sixth chapter of Mitat Kesef, “The

Intention of the Union.” Emden, based on the RaABaD’s four reasons for conjugal sex, lists the four permissible reasons to have sex with one’s wife. The last reason reads:

131 Emden, Jacob. Mitat Kesef, Chapter Four, subsection one. 132 I found it difficult to find a word for word translation of Onah. I defined it earlier as “the laws requiring a man to provide for his wife financially and sexually.” Here, it applies specifically to the husband providing for his wife sexually. The Mishnah in Ketubot chapter 5, delineates the proper amount of sex between a couple; this amount is directly linked to the husband’s profession. Rachel Biale sums it up nicely, “The Mishnah provides a basic timetable for the frequency of sexual relations. This timetable is adjusted according to a man’s profession . . ..” There is a debate between post-Talmudic rabbis regarding whether the amount of times listed is the maximum or minimum amount. Significantly, the RaABaD, the author of Baalei HaNefesh, on which Emden based much of Mitat Kesef, is of the opinion that this Onah prescribed by the Mishnah is a minimum. Later, the Tur and Shulchan Aruch interpret this Mishnah as a maximum. The Mishnah and its translation are below: המדיר את אשתו מתשמיש המיטה--בית שמאי אומרין, שתי שבתות; בית הלל אומרין, שבת אחת. התלמידים יוצאים לתלמוד תורה שלא ברשות, שלושים יום; והפועלים, שבת אחת. "עונה" (ראה שמות כא,י) האמורה בתורה: הטיילים, בכל יום; הפועלים, שתיים בשבת; החמרים, אחת בשבת; הגמלים, אחת לשלושים יום; הספנים, אחת לשישה חודשים, דברי רבי אליעזר.

One who takes a vow limiting himself from his wife sexually-- the House of Shammai said, “Two weeks;” the House of Hillel said, “One week.” Students who go out to learn Torah without permission can leave [their wives] for thirty days; workers, for one week. The Onah prescribed in the Torah are: independent men every day; for laborers twice a week; for donkey-drivers, once a week; for camel-drivers, once in thirty days; for sailors, once in six months. These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. 39

הרביעית שהוא מתכוין לגדור עצמו בה. כדאי שלא יתאוה לעבירה כשרואה את יצרו מתגבר עליו ונתאוה לדבר זה. ואולי יחלה ים לא ישמש . גם הכוונה הזאת יש לה שכר. אך לא כראשונית. כי שמא היה יכול לדחות את יצרו ולעמוד נגד תאוותו. ואמרו ז"ל (סוכה נב:) אבר קטן יש באדם משביעו רעב וכו'.

The fourth rationale is that he intends to guard himself through her so that he will not come to desire to sin. When he sees that his inclination is overcoming him and he desires this thing and perhaps he will become ill if he does not engage in sexual relations, this intention is also deserving of reward, although not to the extent of the first [rationales]. Perhaps he can push off his inclination and withstand his desire. And the sages said, “Man has a small organ which satisfies him when hungry [and makes him hungry when satisfied].” 133

The last two times the yetzer is mentioned are in chapter seven, “Behavior During the

Union,” subsection three, “The Remaining Laws Connected to this Act.” This chapter lists several relevant halakhot to the sexual act between husband and wife. Numbers 20 and 22 explicitly mention the yetzer as follows:

(כ) ולפיכך אני אומר שגם אדם הראשון היה בו יצר זה מתחילה קודם שחטא. עצת בוראו היא לשסות בו הנחש לדעת את אשר בלבבו . למען האכילו שכר טוב בנצחו אותו...שזה היה כל פרי העבודה וגמול לאדם . ולא היה רשאי הנחש להסיתו אם לא היו נותנין לו רשות. על כן בודאי מאז בריאת האדם נמצא היצר סמוך לו לטובתו ולא יתכן מציאותו בלתו.

(20) And therefore I say that also Adam had this yetzer in him before he sinned. The advice of his creator was to have the snake attack him in order to know what was in his [Adam’s] heart. In order to nurture him with a good reward in his victory of it [the yetzer]. Because this is all the fruit of labor and reward for man. And the snake did not have the right to attack if they didn’t give him permission. Therefore, certainly from the creation of man, we find the yetzer placed next to him for his own benefit and it is not possible to exist without it [yetzer].

(כב) לפיכך צריך שמירה יתירה לעמוד נגד זה היצר. להביאו במסורת הברי"ת. שלא לעוררו כל האפשר. כי אם בעת ובזמן הישר. הוא ליל שבת המוכשר. שכבה אש חיצוני. וכשמתעוררת בו האהבה על ידי אש התאוה מצד שמאל הוא מצד הקדושה . ואש קודש הוא שעל ידו מתקדש גם היצר הנאחז מאותו צד. ובזה הוא נעשה תוספת מחול אל הקודש ומתטהרו. כשהיתנהג האדם בשעת קיום העונה בכל הכתוב למעלה ויקדיש עצמו

133 B.T., Sukkah, 52b 40

בתשמיש (22) Therefore, he needs fastidiousness to stand against this yetzer. To bring him into the tradition of man. In order not to provoke it as much as possible. Only at the proper time which is the proper time of the night of the Sabbath. The external flame was extinguished and when love awakens due to the fire of desire from the left side, this is the side of holiness. And the holy fire, is the one who sanctifies the yetzer and grabs it by this side. And through this, he adds the profane to the holy and they will be made pure. And if a man behaves in during the sexual act according to everything above, he will sanctify himself with sex.

Before addressing the unifying themes within the above excerpts, it would be useful to look at some of the concepts and anomalies that Emden chose to include in his text. In the first excerpt, Emden seems to acknowledge that women have a yetzer, warning that they “should not ask for more than what is imposed on the husband as an obligation.” I would like to argue, however, that the language used is ambiguous. He never directly states that women have a yetzer, and indeed, just a few lines before, quoted the Talmud associating women, the yetzer, and children. In another fascinating development, between halakhot twenty and twenty-two in chapter seven, Emden writes about the sin of Adam, stating that the sin of Adam was “that he failed due to his haste, like water, to fulfill the first commandment of reproducing and multiplying was that he did not wait to have sex; that he performed it not for its own sake.”134

This is an interesting point of departure from mainstream halakhic convention. Even as far back

as the Mishnah, doing a mitzvah with haste was considered positive:

ר' פנחס בן יאיר אומר זריזות מביאה לידי נקיות ונקיות מביאה לידי טהרה וטהרה מביאה לידי פרישות ופרישות מביאה לידי קדושה וקדושה מביאה לידי ענוה וענוה מביאה לידי יראת חטא ויראת חטא מביאה לידי חסידות וחסידות מביאה לידי רוח הקדש ורוח הקדש מביאה לידי תחיית המתים ותחיית המתים בא על ידי אליהו זכור לטוב אמן

Rabbi Pinhas ben Yair says: Haste leads to cleanliness, cleanliness leads to purity, purity leads to restraint, restraint leads to holiness, holiness leads to humility, humility leads to the fear of sin, the fear of sin leads to piety, piety leads to the Divine spirit, the Divine

”במה שהיה פחז במים בקיום מצוה הראשונה היא מצות פריה ורביה. שעשאה שלא לשמה“ ,The hebrew reads 134 41

spirit leads to the resurrecting the dead and the resurrection of the dead will come about through Eliyahu the prophet who is mentioned for good, Amen!

or “A commandment that comes to ”,מצוה הבאה לידך אל תחמיצנה“ ,Another Tannaitic text states

your hands, do not let it spoil.”135 Hence, the otherwise healthy and preferred method of doing a

commandment is negated. By Emden describing Adam’s sin as his haste to engage in the

and not simply sexual pleasure, Emden goes implies that ,(פרו ורבו) commandment of procreation

all sex, even for procreative purposes, is sinful.

This overall negativity regarding sex and sexuality permeates these excerpts. In fact, it is

one of their unifying themes. In all of the above cases, the goal is to restrict the desire for sex by

standing up to the yetzer and not engaging in excessive amounts of sexual intercourse:

“Regarding this they cautioned that he should stand up to his yetzer,” ”Perhaps he can push off

his inclination and withstand his desire,” “Therefore, he needs fastidiousness to stand against

this yetzer.” Additionally, sex in its proper time can be holy, but sexuality via the yetzer is

dangerous: “In order not to provoke it as much as possible . . . And the holy fire, is the one who

sanctifies the yetzer and grabs it by this side . . .” The comparison between sexuality and fire is

an important one-- while fire can be constructive, it can be just as destructive.136 This pervasive

negative attitude toward sexuality recalls the agenda of the Babylonian rabbis: “to extinguish

sexual desire, which itself was believed to be ignited by an unrealized and unquenched sexual

urge.”137

135 Mekhilta, Exodus 12,7. This Midrash is using a play on words, as this chapter in Exodus discusses the exodus due to the haste with which they had to (חמץ) from Egypt and the inability of the Israelites to make leavened bread escape. Similarly, when an opportunity to fulfill a commandment arises, a person should not let it “rise” or “spoil” .and instead perform it hastily (תחמיצנה) 136 For more on “holy fire” see Garb, Jonathan. Shamanic Trance in Modern Kabbalah. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2011. Apparently, later sects of Hasidim required “purification by ‘holy fire’ during the sexual act, so as to burn out the fire of lust, thus fighting fire with fire,” 86. 137 Kiel, Yishai. Sexuality in the Babylonian,55. 42

Applying Foucault to Mitat Kesef

Although there seem to be endless Foucaultian applications to any text, this paper will focus on the aforementioned ideas in relation to Jacob Emden’s Mitat Kesef. As mentioned previously, regarding the scrutiny on marital relations, Foucault writes:

The sex of husband and wife was beset by rules and recommendations. The marriage relation was the most intense focus of constraints; it was spoken of more than anything else; more than any other relation, it was required to give a detailed accounting of itself. It was under constant surveillance: if it was found to be lacking, it had to come forward and plead its case before a witness.138

Similarly, Mitat Kesef focuses on the constraints and rules, the permitted and encouraged, the

ideal and less than ideal modes of sexual intimacy between husband and wife. Many of the laws

Emden lists are based on early rabbinic texts such as the Babylonian Talmud. Many of these

halakhot have to do with time and space, recalling part of Foucault’s definition of discipline as:

an uninterrupted, constant coercion, supervising the processes of the activity rather thanits result and it is exercised according to a codification that partitions as closely as possible the meticulous control of the operations of the body, which assured the constant subjection of its forces and imposed upon them a relation of docility-utility.139

Emden’s reiteration of certain talmudic halakhot such as having sex in the dark, the husband

refraining from standing after sex, having sex only at night (as opposed to during the day with

the windows closed), and having sex completely naked140 are means of disciplining the body by

means of an approved sexual ethic.

However, instead of solely relying on earlier halakhic authorities, Emden adds

suggestions that, as far as I know, have no other source. For example, in chapter seven of Mitat

Kesef, the man is advised to tell his wife that she must “be quiet after having sex if she wants to

138 Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage Books, 1990. 37 139 Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish, 137. 140 Emden, Jacob. Mitat Kesef, Chapter Seven, Section 3. 43

conceive.”141 The husband, then, is not only in control of his own docile body, but is also

accountable for his wife’s docile body.

Halakhah, in one sense, functions as does the Foucaultian idea of surveillance. Foucault

writes:

Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.142

I wish to offer a disclaimer: I am in no way intimating that religion is or has to be like a prison.

In fact, some find structure and routine to be the ultimate lifestyle choice. In fact, I would argue

that surveillance in-and-of-itself is not always negative-- a sick person must constantly be

surveilled in order to ensure his/her state of health.

What I am arguing here is that halakhah could theoretically be used as a means of

surveillance. For example, menstrual purity laws, laws requiring women to perform internal

vaginal examinations, laws requiring women to immerse in the waters of the mikvah in order to

be sexually permitted to their husbands, require a constant state of surveillance from both the

immediate participant and those around her (i.e. the woman who deems another woman kosher

after immersing in the mikvah waters).

In this case, the rabbinic notion of ascetic matrimonial sex, sex that is restricted by the confines of both halakhah and kabbalah (where intent and metaphysical forces are intertwined), allows the rabbis to surveill the community. Furthermore, the kabbalists, by introducing the

141 Emden, Jacob. Mitat Kesef, Chapter Seven, Section 2. The Hebrew reads, ”ותשקט האשה אחר כך אם תרצה לחתעבר“ 142 Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish, 203. 44 notion of a metaphysical tikkun through proper matrimonial sex, place God as the ultimate overseer of sexual relations between husband and wife.

Foucault writes at length about the nature of discursive power as a means of regulating specific power structures and maintaining them. In her introduction to Meneket Rivkah, a sixteenth century Yiddish morality book written by Rivkah bat Meir Tiktinir, Frauke von Rohden writes:

At the same time, the discourse produces power relationships by producing concepts of social action. However, in order to generate a discourse, or in order to take power over a discourse, specific regulations must be observed. In that sense, certain taboos must be respected in order to prevent random wild growth of the discourse, and certain socially determined and determining limits of knowledge may not be overstepped. When transferred to Jewish moral literature, this means that the intangibility of rabbinic normative authority is never questioned, and the field of exclusive rabbinic knowledge, namely the halakha, may never be invaded by unauthorized persons-- women and

unlearned men.143

In other words, by rabbis being the authors of authoritative texts, the process not only kept the laity in a subservient position, but maintained rabbinic power.

However, Foucault also acknowledges that where there is power, there is resistance to said power. He writes:

We must make allowances for the complex and unstable process whereby a discourse can be both an instrument and an effect of power, but also a hindrance, a stumbling point of resistance and a starting point for an opposing strategy. Discourse transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines and exposes it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart.144

Sabbateanism, according Ada Rapoport-Albert, allowed women to become prophets and charismatic leaders of the movement. She writes that the Sabbatian redemptive vision “had promised to deliver the equality and liberation of women – acknowledging their prophetic

143 Tị kṭ iner,̣ Rivkaḥ Bat Meʼir., and Frauke Von. Rohden. Meneket Rivkah: A Manual of Wisdom and Piety for Jewish Women. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 2008, 29. 144 Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, 101. 45 inspiration, investing them with power as autonomous agents, and fully engaging them en masse as an active constituency of the messianic movement. . .”145 In this way, they could resist the otherwise male dominance of mainstream halakha.

Meneket Rivkah, too, is a fascinating counterexample to the male-dominated sphere of literature. Written by Rivkah bat Meir Tiktiner, it provides evidence for Biblically-educated women during the sixteenth century. The text is filled with Biblical references as well as practical relationship advice for women. However, the sexual relationship between husband and wife is one arena which is almost completely absent from the text. According to Von Rohden, early modern morality books simply did not address sex between husband and wife. That

Mineket Rivkah merely states that “conjugal intercourse should be conducted with ‘love and affection,’”146 is a harsh product of the reality that sex manuals, as opposed to Yiddish morality books assumed a specifically male, learned audience; no such Jewish sex manual exists for women written by women before the late twentieth century.

Finally, the genre of literature to which Mitat Kesef belongs, I would argue, lies squarely between what Foucault calls ars erotica and scientia sexualis. Foucault writes about ars erotica:

In the erotic art, truth is drawn from pleasure itself, understood as a practice and accumulated as experience; pleasure is not considered in relation to an absolute law of the permitted and the forbidden, nor by reference to a criterion of utility . . . it is experienced as pleasure, evaluated in terms of its intensity, its specific quality, its duration, its reverberations in the body and soul. . . Consequently, the relationship to the master who holds the secrets is of paramount importance; only he, working alone, can transmit this art

in an esoteric manner.147

This is contrasted to his definition of scientia sexualis, or the “procedures for telling the truth of sex which are geared to form a knowledge-power strictly opposed to the art of initiations and the

145 Rapoport-Albert, Ada. Women and the Messianic Heresy of Sabbatai Zevi, 295. 146 Ibid., 48. 147 Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, 57. 46 masterful secret.”148 While the Jewish sex manual relies on the expertise of the rabbi to transmit the esoteric art of sex as a way to commune with the divine, it does so not to encourage experiencing pleasure, but to tell the “truth of sex” and to uphold the power relations between man and woman, scholar and layman, spiritual and physical. The Jewish sex manual does everything to discourage pleasure and desire yet does not quite fit into a scientific framework.

Instead, it relies on pseudo-scientific spirituality meant to uplift males.

148 Ibid., 58. 47

CHAPTER THREE: Socio-historical factors in the production of Mitat Kesef

Like any significant written work, Emden’s Mitat Kesef is a product of the context during

which it was produced. A confluence of external factors could have influenced Emden’s decision

to include the manual in his siddur. First, the rate of illegitimate births among the general

population in Germany during the mid-to-late eighteenth century was very high, generating the

need for foundling hospitals to prevent the increasing rate of infanticide. As a result, a dispute

ensued between those in favor of the hospitals due to their more open minded-attitude toward

illicit sex, on the one hand, and those opposed to the hospital as a means of reinforcing the

immediate family as the sole nurturers of children.149

Although the rate of illegitimate births among Jews is unknown, it is notable that Emden

deals with questions of illegitimate children, abortion, and pilagshim (concubines) in his

responsa.150 151 Two noteworthy responsa may help shed light on Emden’s treatment of

illegitimacy (or his silence on the subject) in Mitat Kesef. In She’elot Ya’avatz number 43,

Emden addresses the question of whether an adulteress can abort the fetus upon becoming pregnant. He concludes that not only can the female abort the fetus, but because the adulteress’ own life is forfeit due to her transgression, she may commit suicide without fear of

149 For more on this dispute and the sociological, economic and religious circumstances surrounding it, see Otto Ulbricht, "The Debate about Foundling Hospitals in Enlightenment Germany: Infanticide, Illegitimacy, and Infant Mortality Rates." Central European History 18.3-4 (1985): 211-56. Web. 150 Emden, Jacob. Sheʾelat Yaʻavets. Lemberg: Bi-defus Uri Zeʾev Ṿolf Salanṭ, 1884. Print, number 43 for more on Emden’s permissive view of abortion in the case of adultery. 151 Emden also takes a permissive view on the issue of concubines. See Emden, Jacob. Sheʾelat Yaʻavets. Lemberg: Bi-defus Uri Zeʾev Ṿolf Salanṭ, 1884. Print, no. 15. 48

punishment.152 In another noteworthy responsum, Emden takes a permissive view of a man

having a concubine in order to quell sexual promiscuity. In fact, he writes:

In this matter, if the couple will adhere to all that has been said above,153 then there will be no burden of guilt or sin to bear whatsoever in this regard. On the contrary, it will be considered a mitzvah, one of removing obstacles that lead to sinfulness. Even more so do Torah scholars need to know of this option. For “one who is more spiritually evolved than their fellow, their lustful inclination is that much greater, too.” (Babylonian Talmud, Sukah 52a)154

In both responsa, the woman is treated as secondary once again. In the first instance, Emden

allows the adulteress to commit the sin of committing suicide, deeming her life unworthy. In the

second, the man’s sexual appetite is deemed more important than the woman’s right to a ketubah

and having the status of a wife.

Sabbateanism, too, may have influenced Emden’s outlook on sex and women. Emden

was famously anti-Sabbatean; his position toward Sabbateanism’s reputed sexual culture of

excess is made clear in his Sefer Shimush, in which he disparages Sabbeateans for being “steeped

in immorality” and having sex with married women. According to Ada Rapoport-Albert, Emden

“understood the conceptualization of the new, messianic Torah as a break with the halakhic

system of prohibitions, particularly those relating to illicit sexual unions,” and that by means of

“the inversion of ritual law . . .above all sexual transgression,”155 the Sabbateans intended to

restore the world to perfection. Emden wrote, “They turn day into night, making of transgression,

152 In fact, Emden writes that the abortion of a mamzer fetus could even be a mitzvah. For more on this, see Schiff, Daniel, and Ebrary, Inc. Abortion in Judaism (2002). Web. 153 “All that has been said above” refers to laws regarding a Pilegesh, namely that the pilegesh will have a private room, cannot be in yichud with other men, must immerse in the mikvah, and the man must tell her that all of their progeny are considered legitimate unless she has sex with another man during their relationship. Emden, Jacob. Sheʾelat Yaʻavets. Lemberg: Bi-defus Uri Zeʾev Ṿolf Salanṭ, 1884. Print. no. 15 154 Translation by Gershon Winkler. For more on this responsum see Winkler, Gershon. Sacred Secrets : The Sanctity of Sex in Jewish Law and Lore. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1998. Print. 155 Rapoport-Albert, Ada, and Deborah Greniman. Women and the Messianic Heresy of Sabbatai Zevi: 1666--1816. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2011. Print, 140. 49

commandment-- and of commandment, transgression-- and they turn all the prohibitions in the

Torah, particularly those against whoring and adultery, into great acts of tikun for their souls,

which are hewn from the rootstock of filth.”156 In Emden’s opinion, non-Sabbateans’ sexual

impulse “is greater than [the Sabbatean impulse]” yet non-Sabbatean Jews are somehow able to

keep from sinning sexually.157 Furthermore, Jacob Schachter notes regarding Emden’s

responsum about pilagshim, “the objective tone of this responsum masked the inner personal

need reflected.”158 In other words, Emden himself was a highly sexual person.

Aside from Emden’s concerns about the excessive sexual transgressions in the Sabbatean

movement, he was also concerned with the general egalitarian nature of the movement. In a

passage describing Rabbi Judah Hasid, the well-known Sabbatean, bringing Torah scrolls and speaking in women’s synagogues, Emden expresses his disapproval.159 According to Ada

Rapaport-Albert, “What really bothered him (and his father) were Rabbi Judah’s appearances in

‘the women’s synagogue’-- the special sermons he preached to the women, and the Torah scrolls

he brought them in his arms, apparently in order to read them, or possibly even to call them to

the reading from the Torah, as Sabbatai Zevi had done before him.”160 Emden “utterly rejected

the association of the messianic heresy’s egalitarian leanings with the eschatological rabbinic

notion of a new Torah, which alluded to the collapse of gender boundaries and the establishment

of novel relations between the sexes in the messianic era.”161 Thus, it can be surmised that

156 Jacob Emden, Akitsat Akrav, 7a. Translation from Ada Rapoport-Albert’s Women and the Messianic Heresy of Sabbatai Zevi: 1666-1816. 157 Schacter, Jacob Joseph. Rabbi Jacob Emden : Life and Major Works. 1991. Print, 407-408. 158 Ibid. , 408. 159 Rapoport-Albert, Ada, and Deborah Greniman. Women and the Messianic Heresy of Sabbatai Zevi: 1666--1816. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2011. Print, 140. 160 Ibid., 140. 161 Ibid., 140. 50

Emden’s sexual treatise was written in part as a response to the rampant sexual transgressions of the Sabbatean movement.

The diminishing power of the rabbis, which Emden was eminently aware of, may have factored into his production of Mitat Kesef, as well. In fact, Emden, like other Rabbis of the time,

“felt a critical need to defend the legitimacy of their own religious leadership by publishing books and pamphlets defending the rabbinic tradition they embodied while lashing out at all those who sought to undermine their position.”162 This explains why Emden fought so hard against the Sabbatean heretics; the Sabbateans were not only desecrating the written Torah, but desecrating rabbinic power. It also explains why Emden used so many other source texts in Mitat

Kesef. He truly believed in rabbinic authority and by calling upon so many earlier sexual treatises, he was, effectively, supporting their authority and buttressing his own.

Intended Audience

The question of the intended audience of Emden’s Mitat Kesef is crucial to the analysis of the work. Schachter notes that because of its inclusion in the siddur, Mitat Kesef was “intended for all.”163 However, Schachter also observes that Emden “had two types of audiences in mind when he wrote the work-- the masses as well as those religiously and intellectually superior.” In fact, the siddur includes both elementary halakhic instructions as well as suggestions for pious and wise men. For example, he notes that since a talmid hacham only has sex on Friday nights, he will reserve relevant sexual halachot to the Friday night portion of the siddur.164 Because of the broad spectrum of readers to whom he tried to appeal, Emden included in his introduction an

162 Ruderman, David B. Early modern Jewry: a new cultural history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton U Press, 2011. Print, 152. 163 Schacter, Jacob Joseph. Rabbi Jacob Emden : Life and Major Works. 1991. Print, 296. 164 Ibid., 298 51

analysis of Kabbalah for the beginner.165

However, while the siddur may, indeed, have been “intended for all,” Mitat Kesef was

almost certainly intended for an audience of men, especially those who were not especially

learned but aspired to be pious. As mentioned earlier, by virtue of the text of Mitat Kesef

instructing men regarding sexual behavior such as sexual positions, the importance of semen in

procreation, and guidelines for how to speak to one’s wife during the act,166 the text necessarily

belongs to a male-only sphere, severely limiting women’s involvement in the process.

165 Ibid., 300. 166 Emden reiterates the idea of husbands speaking gently to their wives, a principle found earlier in Iggeret HaKodesh. One interesting change occurs in Perek Shishi during his citing and amending of the Iggeret HaKodesh. כמה צריכה האדם להזהר ולהזהיר לאשתו בשעת התשמיש שיהיו נקיים וטהורים מכל הרהור ומחשבות רעה אז כל “ He tells the reader is unique to this להזהיר The terminology of being forewarned and warning one’s wife using the word ”אשר יעשו יצליחו text. 52

CONCLUSIONS

“In Brünn, Wolf took up lodgings with Dobruschki, who was married to a flagrant whore,”167 wrote Emden, describing the married Schöndl-Katherina Hirschl, a Sabbatian woman

who presumably had sex with the alleged Sabbatean messiah Wolf Eybeschuetz. Throughout the

text, Emden consistently refers to her as “the whore” or the “strumpet of Brunn.”168 Wolf, on the

other hand, is referred to by name, or simply as “he.” This is not to say that Emden thought

kindly of Wolf, but that in writing about Wolf, Emden did not define him by his sexual behavior.

Schöndl-Katherina, on the other hand, is defined only by her sexual behavior.

Emden’s treatment of Schöndl-Katherina recalls the quote with which Chapter One began: “Everyone knows that a woman is similar to a pitcher full of filth and her mouth full of blood, yet all run to her.”169 This phrase is written at a juncture in Mitat Kesef where no other

sexual treatises are being quoted. In other words, Emden’s choice to include this Talmudic quote

is not out of deference or devotion to the accuracy of another text, but is his own unique addition.

By examining the text through a Foucaultian lens, I would argue that the addition of this phrase

indicates Emden’s agenda of keeping power relations static. The premise of Mitat Kesef is

having a sacred sex life which necessarily involves the wife in the husband-wife relationship.

Yet there is an obvious tension between the wife being an essential partner and being treated as a

secondary participant. The fact that God comes to replace the wife in the bedroom substantiates

167 Emden, Jacob. Sefer Hitabekut, 19b. 168 Rapoport-Albert, Ada, and Deborah Greniman. Women and the Messianic Heresy of Sabbatai Zevi: 1666--1816. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2011. Print, 88. 169 B.T., Shabbat 152b. 53

this claim further. A final complication which relegates women to a secondary status is Emden

reducing the emphasis of women’s desire by quoting the Ba’alei HaNefesh’s four rationales for

proper sex.

The yetzer plays an interesting role in its relationship to women and sex, as well. The yetzer came to represent a force that had to be overpowered by men; in some texts, it became the vixen, in others, an overwhelming sexual desire that had to be extinguished. The result was that, over time, the yetzer became the enemy. Thus, even sexual desire between husband and wife, a

desire that according to many Talmudic sources should not only be permitted, but encouraged,

had to be extinguished. I would even venture to say that because the yetzer was something to be

overpowered, the tendency to overpower women, at least by using denigrating phraseology in

texts, may have emerged. Interestingly, Emden seemed to lean toward women having a yetzer.

This is not quite clear in the earlier Talmudic text but is an important point as women having a

yetzer requires that they be able to overpower it and implies that her status is equal to a man’s.

Whatever the case, Emden chose to include the idea of the yetzer in his own sexual treatise,

reinforcing sexuality as a negative human drive.

Mitat Kesef uses older texts such as the Iggeret HaKodesh, Baalei HaNefesh, the Zohar,

and Sefer HaGilgulim to buttress Emden’s overall philosophy of sex between husband and wife.

Like other Kabbalistic texts, Mitat Kesef adds restrictions to sex between husband and wife much

more than Biblical and Talmudic texts. And like all texts, Mitat Kesef is a product of the

sociohistorical circumstances in existence when it was written. Thus, the perception of sexual

promiscuity in both the Sabbatean movement and in Germany at large during Emden’s lifetime

could have inspired Emden to recapitulate a certain sexual dignity, like the Iggeret Hakodesh and

54 the Baalei HaNefesh before it, in which men are the primary agents. This not only places all the onus for a sexually pure experience on men, but once again simultaneously relegates women and their desire to a secondary status. Consequently, sex does not become an equally shared experience between two equal partners, but an experience between man and God, with man’s invisible wife as a third, less crucial, partner.

55

Bibliography

Primary Sources: Abraham Ben David. Baʾale Ha-nefesh : ʻim Haśagat Zeraḥyah Ha-Leṿi ṿe-hilkhot Nidah Leha- Ramban. ṿe-hosafnu ḳuṭres Be-ʻinyene ḳedushat Ha-ziṿug Leha-Ramban Be-shem Igeret Ha-ḳodesh.Ṿarsha: Bi-defus Y. Unṭerhendler, 1881. Print. Bass, Shabbetai Ben Joseph, Davis, Avrohom, and Kornfeld, Nachum Y. Ḥamishah ḥumshe Torah : Ḥumash, Targum Onḳelos, Rashi, Śifte ḥakhamim, Yalḳuṭ, Haftarot : Meturgam Le-Anglit. 1st Printing. ed. Brooklyn, N.Y. : Lakewood, New Jersey: Metsudah Publications ; Distributed by Israel Book Shop, 5770. Print. Emden, Jacob Israel Ben Zebi. Sefer Shimush. Yerushalayim: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1974. Print. Ḳunṭresim, Meḳorot U-meḥḳarim. Sidrah A ; 42. Emden, Jacob. Sheʾelat Yaʻavets. Lemberg: Bi-defus Uri Zeʾev Ṿolf Salanṭ, 1884. Print. Emden, Jacob, and Kluger, Solomon Ben Judah Aaron. Sidur Bet Yaʻaḳov. Tel-Aviv: ʻAm ʻolam, 1967. Print. Naḥmanides. Iggeret Ha-ḳodesh : She-shalaḥ Ha-Ramban Le-eḥad Ha-ḥaverim Be-ʻinyan ḥibur Ha-adam El Ishato. Berlin: ḥ. Mo. L., 1792. Print. Sameṭ, Aharon, and Mekhon Yerushalayim. Mifʻal Ha-Ṭur ṿeha-Shu. ʻa. Ha-shalem. Arbaʻah ṭurim Ha-shalem. Yerushalayim: Mifʻal Ha-Ṭur ṿeha-Shu. ʻa. Ha-shalem, Mekhon Yerushalayim, 1989. Print. Zoribin, Efrayim. Talmud Bavli : Mevoʾar Be-tosefet Heʻarot ṿe-heʾarot ʻim Tsilum Shas Ṿilna. .Mahad. 1. ed. Bruḳlin, N.Y.: Masorah Arṭsḳrol, 1997. Print ;..׳ 1מהד

Secondary Sources: Baader, Benjamin Maria., Gillerman, Sharon, and Lerner, Paul Frederick. Jewish Masculinities : German Jews, Gender, and History. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2012. Print, 36. Biale, David. Eros and the Jews: From Biblical Israel to Contemporary America. New York, NY: Basic, 1992. Print. Biale, Rachel. Women and Jewish Law: An Exploration of Women's Issues in Halakhic Sources. New York: Schocken, 1984. Print. Boyarin, Daniel. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: U of California, 1993. Carlebach, Elisheva. The Pursuit of Heresy : Rabbi Moses Hagiz and the Sabbatian Controversies. New York: Columbia UP, 1990. Print. Cohen, Seymour J., and Nahmanides.̣ The Holy Letter: A Study in Medieval Jewish Sexual Morality, Ascribed to Nahmanides. New York: Ktav Pub. House. 1976. Print Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pythagoras, 19. Smith, Justin E. H. (2006). The Problem of Animal Generation in Early Modern Philosophy. Montreal: Concordia University. p. 5. Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. “The Problem of the Body for the People of the Book.”People of the Body: Jews and Judaism from an Embodied Perspective, ed. Howard Eilberg-Schwartz. Albany, NY: State U of New York, 1992. Print. Fraade, Steven D. “Ascetical Aspects of Ancient Judaism.” Jewish Spirituality from the Bible Through the Middle Ages, ed. Arthur Green. New York: Crossroad, 1986-1987. 253-288.

56

Print Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish : The Birth of the Prison. 2nd Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage, 1995. Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage Books, 1990. Garb, Jonathan. Shamanic Trance in Modern Kabbalah. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2011. Grossman, Avraham. Pious and Rebellious: Jewish Women in Medieval Europe. Waltham, MA: Brandeis UP, 2004. Print Guberman, Karen. ""To Walk in All His Ways": Towards a Kabbalistic Sexual Ethic." The Journal of Religious Ethics 14.1 (1986): 61-80. Web. Kiel, Yishai. Sexuality in the Babylonian Talmud : Christian and Sasanian Contexts in Late Antiquity. 2016 Kimelman, Reuven. “The Rabbinic Theology of the Physical: Blessings, Body and Soul, Resurrection, Covenant and Election.” The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, ed. Steven Katz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. pp. 946-976. Print. Kimelman, Reuven. 'Lekhah Dodi' ṿe-ḳabalat Shabbat : Ha-mashmaʻut Ha-misṭit. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2003. Print Mopsik, Charles. Lettre Sur La Sainteté : (Igueret Ha-Qodech), Ou La Relation Entre L'homme Avec Sa Femme. Lagrasse: Verdier, 1993. Print. Roth, Norman. Medieval Jewish Civilization: An Encyclopedia. New York: Routledge, 2003. Print. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. Demonic Desires : Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania, 2011. Satlow, Michael L. Tasting the Dish : Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars, 1995. Print. Brown Judaic Studies ; No. 303. Schacter, Jacob Joseph. Rabbi Jacob Emden : Life and Major Works. 1991. Print Schiff, Daniel, and Ebrary, Inc. Abortion in Judaism (2002). Web. Ulbricht, Otto. "The Debate about Foundling Hospitals in Enlightenment Germany: Infanticide, Illegitimacy, and Infant Mortality Rates." Central European History 18.3-4 (1985): 211- 56. Web. Winkler, Gershon. Sacred Secrets : The Sanctity of Sex in Jewish Law and Lore. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1998. Print. Rapoport-Albert, Ada, and Deborah Greniman. Women and the Messianic Heresy of Sabbatai Zevi: 1666--1816. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2011. Print, 140 Ruderman, David B. Early modern Jewry: a new cultural history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton U Press, 2011. Witte Jr., John. The Western Case for Monogamy Over Polygamy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Print, Wolfson, Elliot R. ""Tiqqun Ha-Shekhinah": Redemption and the Overcoming of Gender Dimorphism in the Messianic Kabbalah of Moses ḥayyim Luzzatto." History of Religions 36.4 (1997): 289-332. Web.

57