Visions of Lilith (Adam's First Wife)

This past semester was the first in which I was exposed to any characteristically feminist scholarship, and I found a lot of interesting points made by authors chosen for both my religious theories and religious ethics courses.  I found these perspectives generally illuminating, and I wasn't overpowered by any of my preconceived concern that it would be primarily focused on bashing the behavior of men with whom I don't necessarily relate anyway.  Rather, it seemed that a lot of the grievances contend with general disregard for/ignorance about women's perspectives and abilities, rather than male aggression toward women.  I found myself pleading ignorance or acquiescent guilt to sex role-assumptions and implicit attitudes upon which I was raised, and thus I found most of the charges made by feminist authors like Darlene Juschka, Mary Daly, and Judith Plaskow to be quite fair. 

While in some essays she does take fairly radical/progressive stances, I was struck in my early reading of Plaskow - who is a scholar of Jewish feminism - by her midrashic description of Lilith, the first wife of Adam.  She rightfully provides "a new" (in other words, "recovers women's") perspective in The Coming of Lilith, identifying her as strong, beautiful, sisterly, and completely human (this last point is indeed relevant).  I was surprised, though, upon reading the Talmudic renditions of Lilith, that Plaskow could resist tearing these rabbis apart.  Certainly, she conveys a strong and more positive message by keeping her focus on the recovered version of Lilith, but more allusions to the fairly horrific Talmudic Lilith character might have further reinforced the need for Plaskow's midrash.

I'm still working through some ideas to read more into Plaskow's essays and bring them into conversation with other modern feminist theologians.  For now, though, I thought it might interest others to read a recap of some of the vivid language through which Lilith has been described.  The following is an informal, late-night summary/reaction paper to a weekly reading assignment in my ethics class from a few months back.

Plaskow’s vs. the Talmudic Lilith

           Plaskow calls her Coming of Lilith story a midrash – “a form of biblical interpretation that often begins from a question, silence, gap, or contradiction in a biblical story and writes the story forward in response to the interpreter’s questions” (85) – of the original Talmudic midrash of Lilith.  While she is clear about the significance of writing the Coming of Lilith 23 years prior, her reflection on the piece reinforces its continued benefits and meanings for her and other feminist theorists today.  Even though she admits that she appropriated the story of Lilith more for how the character fit the bill of helping interpret the feminine experience, I think she could have said more about just how different her depiction of Lilith was from Talmudic descriptions.  Her motivations were not directly reactionary to the Talmudic moods surrounding Lilith, but Talmudic depictions reinforce just how much of a leap forward Plaskow’s Lilith makes with respect to themes of strength and sisterhood as well as understandings of her (or woman’s) qualities and place in the world with Adam (or man) and God.

            The prevailing themes differ vastly between Plaskow’s story of Lilith and that which was developed through Talmudic writings.  Where Plaskow focuses on positive connotations and traits for Lilith and her legacy, readings from the Talmud paint a much more negative picture.

            Plaskow’s Coming of Lilith (30-31) introduces a Biblically-set, mythical example of women made stronger by sisterhood.  Lilith is Adam’s first wife – predating the creation of Eve – and she is self-respecting in the face of Adam’s power moves.  Not “one to take any nonsense, [Lilith picked] herself up, uttered God’s holy name, and flew away” (31).  She would not stay away forever, though, and sometime after Eve is created Lilith makes two unsuccessful attempts to return – not passively but aggressively, by force – to the garden (31).  On the second occasion, “Eve [gets] a glimpse of her and saw she was a woman like herself”, and months later Eve acts upon her own curiosity by muscling her way over the wall and out of the garden.  Over the course of many meetings, Lilith is welcoming to Eve and the two develop a strong sense of sisterhood over shared teachings, stories, laughter and tears (32).

            The strengths possessed by the Talmudic Lilith are much less enviable.  She has no intentions of returning to the garden, and strikes a troubling deal to stay in exile.  Having been, in her own attributed words, “created to strangle newborn infants,” Lilith trades the lives of 100 of her “demon offspring” daily in return for the right to prey upon infants whose amulets do not bear the protective names of three angels working for God (216).  Her ability to negotiate and generally have her way, as the original woman, is less of a boost to the perception of all women to follow when the terms guarantee death and destruction motivated by bloodlust.  Lilith’s sexual lust is described in predatory terms, too, as she seeks to seduce men – especially the best among them, as in the example of Rabbi Elimelekh of Lizhensk (219) – and steal their seed (217).  Thus, the Talmudic depiction of the first woman unmistakably lists seduction among her powers, with high murderous and lustful capacities as well.  The descriptions of her interactions with men are immoral or even evil, while importantly her interactions with women are unaddressed.

            The stories also differ in meaningful ways with regard to Lilith’s identifying features and how she is described in relation to Adam and God.  Lilith is made, with Adam, of dust in the same creative act of God, and she does not signify the subordination of woman (or, analogously, community) to man (or Jesus).  She is a link, with Eve, in the first community building efforts in the women’s experience but her status as an equal to Adam in all ways precludes justification of her subordination, even if Adam himself is displeased with Lilith’s “uppity” nature (31).  In fact, it is Lilith and Eve who are in such a position of power with their sisterhood that they instill expectancy and fear in God and Adam for the day that the women would return to the garden (32).  To these very clear descriptions of a more represented and equal (even powerful) womanhood I must add one subtlety that I found to be personally meaningful.  While Plaskow does not strip God of the male gender and pronouns typical of God-language (44) – a conscious decision she defends retrospectively (82) – she does make an alteration that I saw in the Coming of Lilith for the first time.  The “Adam and Eve” duo with which I am so familiar is instead addressed as “Eve and Adam” (31).  While it is a subtle difference, it was so novel in appearance that – perhaps indirectly indicative of a bias with which I was always taught the story – my first reaction was to the effect of “wait, did I misread that?”  Plaskow’s Lilith is not described in terms of specific features, but instead more generally as “beautiful and strong” in Eve’s estimation, whereas the Talmudic descriptions of Lilith describe her long dark/black (217, 219) or red hair (218) and seductive ornamental (218) or scant (219) attire.  Lilith is still described to have been created from dust but, like Eve, she comes after the lonely Adam (216).  The Talmudic version of Lilith lacks not just equality with Adam but, at times, simple humanity.  Rather than a woman, Lilith is in many places referred to instead as a “witch”, “evil female spirit” (217), “Queen of Demons” (218) and the “incarnation of lust” (217).

            Coming from the long discussion of women’s experience and Lilith in Plaskow’s essays, the short Talmudic excerpts even more dramatically depict a much less favorable, less human understanding of Lilith.  The strength of Lilith and Eve for Plaskow is rivaled by Talmudic Lilith’s influence in sealing deals with murderous terms and seducing men and demons alike, while the sisterhood or community as formed between Plaskow’s Lilith and Eve apparently has no precedent in the Talmud.

Further Reading
   References to Plaskow's work are found in The Coming of Lilith: Essays on Feminism, Judaism, and Sexual Ethics, 1972-2003. Beacon Press, 2005.
   The tone of Talmudic descriptions may well be fairly consistent in any available print of the text.  I don't have a name at hand but I can find the translator(s) of the referenced snippets in my old notes upon request.

Tried and True, the Self-Interview

Rather than take for granted the likelihood that visitors to this blog (if they ever do show up) for many months or more will be people who know me and want to show their support (or pity) for me, I've decided to throw together a quick icebreaker.  I chose the self-interview, a schizophrenic method popularized by a legitimately crazy person way back in my 10th grade speech class.  His topic was 9/11 - which made his reading of the interview transcript all the more uncomfortable - but I think I'm a light enough topic that the method can be revisited here.

Interviewer:  So, the first question I wanted to ask you (myself?) was, "Why start a blog?"

Donovan:  Great question.  My answer isn't fully formed, but know I want some practice writing on topics and in styles of which my professors/advisers don't really encourage.  Often, their scopes and interests are much too specific, and as I've stated previously I want to make some novel logical connections rather than cut deeper and deeper into familiar, specialized subject matter.

I:  You seem a bit uneasy with this whole interview process.  Would you like a glass of water, or an opportunity to speak freely without prepared questions?

D:  No, no.  (Clears throat)  I can feel the chemistry building.  Next question.

I:  Very well.  Do you have any credentials?

D:  I've completed two bachelors degrees at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis - a BA in biology through Purdue and a BA in religious studies through IU.  I'm currently working on an MS in biology at IUPUI, in which I split my time taking classes, teaching classes (upperclass ecology and freshman biology labs), and doing research (see: literally watching grass grow). 

I:  What visions do you have for this blog?

D:  At worst, it will be a writing journal which people will roll their eyes at when they accidentally stumble upon it.  At best, I would like to think that my sort of mid-range level of education and expertise puts me in a position where I can have conversations and write pieces in such a way that they aren't too pedestrian for academic elites but also are not so specific or technical that they fail to have more universal attraction.  It seems that folks on opposite ends of the educational spectrum often assume that they must choose how/what they read and write in a polarizing (or at least static) manner, while I hope to provide information and opportunities that could draw both toward the center.  Regardless, I've got an outlet to practice some of my writing and articulate the thoughts that are swirling around in my head.

I:  What are some example topics that you're considering bringing into the blog?

D:  The list is substantial, so I'll list just a bunch off the top of my head:  Things I learn/experience as a TA, recaps of articles/books I read and essays I write academically, urban ecology, environmental change, trees, religious history, classic films - esp. film noir, inspiring/intriguing/ridiculous things I hear in an average day in Indianapolis, and sights and stories from trips to nature preserves and parks.  Particularly in season, I'll surely try to force something about baseball into the mix, too.  There are many other ideas in addition, plus I'll be interested in following up on requests or sidebars that come up in the event of discussion ever happening.

I:  Riveting.  I think I speak for all future readers when I say that hopefully you'll be satisfied to stop defining yourself and the blog and just write the thing from now on.

D:  You took the words right out of my mouth.

Rules I Intend to Break

I'm not sure what all the rules - written or unwritten - of a good blog are.  I know there are lists and guides out there to direct me, but since they can be contradictory or written in styles/on blogs which fail to keep my attention I feel I should just do my own thing and slap a disclaimer on it.

So, in the interest of full disclosure:

1) I don't guarantee that every post will be on the same topic.  In fact, I intend to bounce around.  The term philomath captures the essence of my attitude (philo="loving"; math="to learn").  For some reason, it is in my nature to resist specialization.  Probably because I'm easily bored.  I like fresh questions and answers.  With few exceptions, every class in high school interested me so much that I aspired to study it.  Any given week, I wanted to be a writer, an economist, a chemist, an historian, or a journalist.  Just before college, my latest intellectual captor was biology.  So I got a degree in it.  Then, as soon as I started to get more serious with a Masters program, I decided to tack on a religious studies degree too.  I've spent good money and some of my best years refusing professional pigeon holes.  My blog must be well-rounded or I will let it die.

2) My interests are in numerous topics, yet I'm not going to come at them with excessive political or otherwise opinionated force.  That's not my style.  If I feel strongly about something it will show, but in most discussions with 2+ opposing sides I'll start somewhere near or on the fence, preferring to let the learning process unfold organically.  If I'm inclined toward a certain position on a heated issue, I intend to ask questions first, then seeking answers from outside contributions or my own research.  In the fortunate case that the questions I raise are of interest to others, I hope those with good info will share their findings and feelings.  My lack of dogmatism should be seen as an open door policy - ideas should be developed beyond my endeavors.  I would much rather moderate a discussion than alienate people by assuming an overpowering attitude that I don't even have.

3) Especially with more practice and ideas, I will want to bring my wide ranging interests together in interdisciplinary manners.  I often get chuckles and comments about the fact that I've pursued scholarship in both scientific and religious studies.  The idea that religion and science are utterly incompatible is a perspective I've witnessed from rigid sympathizers of each, but I refuse to start off with the staunch belief that any two subjects at seeming odds cannot be reconciled, at least in part.  I'm optimistic that the language and ideas of any contentious subject can be used to better understand the supposedly contradictory discipline.  Thus, while any given post may be overwhelmingly devoted to forestry, or urban ecology, or Buddhist ethics, or film noir, or baseball, or my teaching experience, or any of countless other subjects, I'll be most satisfied when two or more of my interests can be brought into conversation somehow.  Hopefully, with an influx of new ideas my range of interests will continue to grow, and by connecting ideas and putting unfamiliar/uninteresting subjects in more palatable terms, I can influence some new interests in others and welcome their perspectives.

4) At times, I will probably write exceedingly long blog posts.  Conciseness is a skill which I intend to develop over the course of time.  If you're still with me, you're aware that I've got my work cut out for me.  Part of what I hope has gotten you this far is my use of numbering and meaningful emphasis (italics and underline) on major points of interest.  If I see where it is helpful and applicable, I'll try to break up anything that looks like a ramble into a list form with stylistic emphases.  I'm coming at the blog, initially, from a fairly selfish angle.  I have a lot to gain in this forum.  I have underdeveloped ideas and connections in my head, and I'll be sharing the writing exercises through which I make sense of these loose ends.  I communicate better in writing than oral debate, at least for now, so I'm trying to play to my relative strengths.  Hopefully - especially when I'm presenting a review of facts - I can make the writing economical despite its length, giving you more information per unit of reading effort.  It is my sincere hope that others will come to find some value or opportunity to speak as well in the contexts I provide, but I won't approach blogging like a job with a certain target audience.  I'd love to see well-informed discussion, but rather than write for particular people in this setting I'd like to achieve some variety or universality of ideas and perspectives by making it more generally interesting and accessible.

That should be a fair place to start.  Other than maybe a more straightforward description of the author, more foundational stuff will follow only as necessary.