Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Let’s Get Physical

In this week’s Talmud reading, the soul addresses God, but the body has its own agenda

Print Email
(Photoillustration Tablet Magazine; original photo Shutterstock)
Related Content

Jewish Body Week

All the articles from our weeklong series

Literary critic Adam Kirsch is reading a page of Talmud a day, along with Jews around the world.

“Master of the Universe, You formed us with openings upon openings and cavities upon cavities. It is revealed and known before you, our shame and humiliation during our lives, and at our end, worms and maggots await us.” These are the words that—according to a baraita cited in Berachot 24b, in this week’s Daf Yomi study—you are supposed to recite if you pass gas while praying. The very existence of such a formula seems odd at first, and perhaps a bit comic. But reading the Talmud this week was a lesson in how little the rabbis shared our kind of embarrassment before the body. All kinds of things that we are taught not to discuss in polite society were debated quite matter-of-factly in this week’s reading: semen, urine, feces, flatulence. The rabbis’ attitude toward all of them is well expressed in the words of the above prayer: God made us with openings and cavities, and it is up to us to find out a way to live decently with them. The condition of embodiment is not something to celebrate, since it is linked with humiliation and death; but neither is it fundamentally unnatural, a case of a soul trapped in the prison of the body.

It makes sense that these kinds of issues should come up in the tractate devoted to prayer, since prayer is the moment at which the tension between body and soul becomes most acute. The soul is addressing God, but the body has its own agenda—as the rabbis acknowledge in discussing the case of Judah HaNasi, also called Rebbi. While praying, Rabbi Chanina testified, Rebbi belched, yawned, sneezed, spat, and handled his garment.

This testimony presents a problem, not because of the apparent insult to Rebbi’s dignity, but for a reason that, in Talmudic terms, is far more serious: It raises a contradiction in the sources. It is assumed that Judah HaNasi—the editor of the Mishnah and its authoritative voice—would not do anything contrary to the law. Yet the Gemara goes on to cite a baraita holding that yawning, sneezing, and spitting during prayer are serious offenses. How to reconcile the law with Rebbi’s practice?

This kind of problem of reconciliation is, I have already come to recognize, the bread and butter of the Gemara. Nothing is more characteristic of the pages I have read so far than the use of imagination and logic to bring apparently contradictory sources into harmony. In the case of Rebbi, the challenge is to reconcile his all-too-human behavior during prayer with the law that forbids it. Lo kashya, “There is no contradiction,” the Gemara triumphantly holds: The law must have been directed against yawning and belching deliberately, while what Rebbi did was unintentional and therefore innocent.

But, the rabbis go on to point out, this logic will not work when it comes to sneezes, for sneezes are always unintentional, yet the baraita still holds, “One who sneezes during his prayer, it is an evil omen for him.” How to solve this contradiction? Again, lo kashya: what Rebbi did was an ordinary sneeze, but what the law meant to forbid was a sneeze “from below”—that is, passing gas.

One may feel that there is something too easy about this redefinition of sneezing. After all, if the baraita meant to prohibit passing gas, why didn’t it just say so? This kind of objection occurs to me fairly regularly in reading the Talmud, when the seemingly plain sense of a text is reinterpreted to meet the necessity of an argument. But I am trying to think my way into the logic of the rabbis, and it seems to me the best way to do this is by challenging my own sense of probability. To me, thinking in a basically secular way, it is probable that a text means just what it says and improbable that it could mean something different. By the same token, it strikes me as quite probable that Judah HaNasi could have sneezed during prayer, thereby breaking a law; after all, he too was only human, and if he did sneeze he probably repented for it afterward.

But this way of thinking about probability is ruled out by what seem to be the first principles of the rabbis. For these men, what seemed most improbable of all is that a holy man could have broken a law. It is far more probable that the law said something different than what it appears to say. The hierarchy of likelihoods is reversed, and that is why the rabbis seize on the possibility of redefining sneezing as “sneezing from below.”

But they implicitly recognize that this is something of a stretch, which is why they go on to bring another piece of supporting evidence. Rav Zeira cites an opinion he was taught, which holds that sneezing during prayer is actually a good omen: “For just as [sneezes] give him satisfaction below, in this world, so do they give him satisfaction above, in Heaven.” (The antinomian possibilities opened up by this saying are fearful, but the rabbis do not pursue them.) Now the balance of authorities with regard to sneezing is neutral: One is for it, the other against it. In these circumstances, it becomes more probable than ever that sneezing itself is not prohibited—which means that sneezing as the baraita used the term must actually mean passing gas.

A similar problem comes up a bit earlier, in Berachot 24a, with regard to the proper handling of tefillin. After a long discussion of how to treat tefillin in various situations—when entering a latrine, while sleeping—Rabbi Chanina once again testifies to a dubious practice of Rebbi’s: “I saw Rebbi suspend his tefillin from a peg.” This seems to fly in the face of another prohibition that states: “One who suspends his tefillin, his life will be suspended.” How to solve this contradiction? In this case, the rabbis focus on the ambiguity of the word “suspend.” It is forbidden to suspend tefillin by the strap; but what Rebbi must have done was to suspend them by their pouch. This feels like a convincing answer: After all, it does seem more impious to drape the strap of your tefillin over a peg than to put it in a pouch and hang the pouch from a peg.

This way of discussing points of law by observing the practice of the great rabbis gives the Talmud a vividness and humanity you might not expect from a law code. In addition to preserving the opinions of the rabbis, the Talmud preserves flashes of their behavior and even their personalities. (At least twice so far, rabbis have explained their deviation from ordinary ritual practice by saying that they were “delicate people”; it is hard not to feel warmly toward a legal system that allows this as a formal excuse.) Even at its most abstract, the Talmud reminds you that it is rooted in the behavior and beliefs of real individuals with real bodies, refractory and inescapable as our own.

***

Like this article? Sign up for our Daily Digest to get Tablet Magazine’s new content in your inbox each morning.

Print Email

Another great column! But when you say, “This way of discussing points of law by observing the practice of the great rabbis gives the Talmud a vividness and humanity you might not expect from a law code” – you repeat the misconception that the Talmud is a law code. Indeed, as you pointed out, aggadah and law are equal partners in the composition. You might as well call it a collection of midrashim, theological speculation or folk wisdom – since it’s all of those.

Lawrence says:

This series is worth 100 yeshivot. Why? Because Kirsch is approaching it from a fairly secular perspective, interpreting it without bias. For readers without any religious training, this seems like a great way to be introduced to the Talmud (I have recommended it to several people I know). Please keep this up!

I was struck by the references to shame and humiliation. Where does that come from? Are there historical reasons why this book would attempt to answer those fears? The splitting off of different psychic parts seems characteristic of childhood abuse and violence. The emphasis of rule breaking as the ultimate sin is fascinating. Of course, there is no internal thing that can be done to change external trauma. I am remembering a lecture on the significant fighting in the area during the period of the writing. Bloody empires sweeping back and forth and the dissolution of governments. It is said tragedy drives the best literature. Of course, any external loss is taken personally by children as their fault. Great articles. How rich this book is! Remarkable for an Iron Age culture.

I’m also learning solo. I’m

chayar says:

No need to wonder what would happen today, Deborah. Ask any Torah observant Jew (we don’t view Torah from an Ivory Tower) and they’ll tell you: Occasions do arise where these types of questions (pertaining to matters of observance especially in the realm of the “certain difficulties of a delicate person”) are absolutely relevant. Then, we ask for a rav to advise us. (Certainly, a rabbi can most likely rule for himself).
There are “delicate people” (this is a specific designation and there are some parameters) and their situation during mourning, Yom Tov and other times might call for certain measures that ordinary people don’t find necessary. Therefore, they ask and they find out if and how they can alleviate their extreme discomfort, which in some specific instances, might mean they receive heterim or leniencies. Yes, today, we still live by these halachas whether we’re delicate or not. As the saying goes,
The Torah (and this includes Talmud/Shulchan Oruch/etc.) wasn’t given to angels but to human beings.

Joseph Adler says:

It is important to note that the Mishna and Beraita were often intentionally written in ways that were cryptic. This is because this was the first instance of the oral law being put into writing, something done only out of necessity. As a result, the Rabbis wrote the mishnah in a minimal and obscure way so that an oral tradition would still be required to understand it.

The passage Adam Kirsch refers to with such surprise is no surprise to any observant Jew who recites the daily morning prayers. The prayer, as determined in ancient times, does not refer to shame and humiliation at all. Rather, it reads like this (using the translation of Chief Rabbi Joshua Hertz (z’l), The Authorized Daily Prayer Book — the same Hebrew words are found in other siddurs known to me, such as the Artscroll Siddur, and are also given in the ancient Seder Rav Amram Gaon, from the 9th century, which was one of the key works establishing the specific wording of prayers for later generations): “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast formed man in wisdom, and created in him many passages and vessels. It is well known before thy glorious throne, that if but one of these be opened, or one of those be closed, it would be impossible to exist and stand before thee. Blessed art thou O Lord, who art the wondrous healer of all flesh.”

I consider this prayer a special delight whenever I recite it. It points to the marvellous complexity of this body I have, which continues to sustain me, and it stresses that it is a blessing given me by God, something holy that I can celebrate and be grateful for. There is nothing God made that cannot be raised to spiritual meaning. It makes even going to the bathroom in the morning a spiritual and holy thing that is a testimony to God and the blessing of life itself. Spirituality and the world of Creation are not two separate spheres, but deeply and truly intertwined. Judaism aims as a religion at the integration of heaven and earth into holiness. Without understanding this, the greater part of the Talmud loses its real significance.

The prayer is followed in Rav Amram’s Siddur (this is a logical progression, but the order differs in different prayer books) with the equally wonderful blessing regarding the soul (again I use R. Hertz’s translation, despite its archaisms of “thee” and “thou,” etc.): “O my God, the soul which thou gavest me is pure; thou didst create it, thou didst form it, thou didst breathe it into me. Thou preservest it within me, and thou wilt take it from me, but wilt restore it unto me hereafter. So long as the soul is within me, I will give thanks unto thee, O Lord my God and God of my fathers, Sovereign of all works, Lord of all souls! Blessed art thou, O Lord, who restorest souls unto the dead.” (The reference to death is because sleep is one-sixtieth of death.)

Tzur, I am afraid you are mixing up the Asher yatzar prayer from the siddur, with a different prayer that is mentioned in the Talmud and shulchan aruch that one is to say if passing gas during the amida. Today it is not customary to say this prayer in actuality so it is no wonder that you may not be familiar with it.

Thank you for your helpful correction, Aaron. You are right, and I should have read Adam Kirsch’s article more closely. However, the wording of the blessing made when passing wind closely resembles the regular morning blessing I mentioned, and both blessings certainly still help to throw a lot of light on the very positive Rabbinic view of bodily functions. In this regard my comments still apply.

Defining terms, here. Mishnah: “… the first major written redaction of the Jewish oral traditions called the “Oral Torah”. It is also the first major work of Rabbinic Judaism. (Wikipedia). Beraita: “…a tradition in the Jewish oral law not incorporated in the Mishnah. “Baraita” thus refers to teachings “outside” of the six orders of the Mishnah.” (Wikipedia)

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Let’s Get Physical

In this week’s Talmud reading, the soul addresses God, but the body has its own agenda

More on Tablet:

Is Leonard Cohen’s New Album His Best Yet?

By Liel Leibovitz — The singer has had better songs, but his new record captures his ideas more clearly than ever