Parashas Balak: The Appeal of Baal Peor (and Darwin)

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Parashas Balak: The Appeal of Baal Peor (and Darwin)

"Israel settled in Shitim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moav. [The women] called the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. Israel attached itself to Baal Peor, and the wrath of Hashem flared against Israel." (Bamidbar 25:3)

It is safe to say that the most disgusting form of avodah zarah (idolatry) mentioned in Tanach is the worship of Baal Peor. The character of this mode of worship is alluded to in the name of the deity itself. "Peor" (פ.ע.ר.) means "to open," and denotes "the opening of an orifice" - in this case, the rectum, as we shall soon see. Thus, "Baal Peor" means "Master of the Rectum Opening." The method of Baal Peor's worship is codified by Torah she'baal Peh (the Oral Torah) in Sanhedrin 7:6:

One who defecates on Baal Peor is liable, for this is how it is customarily worshiped.

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 64a) provides a rather vivid description of how this worship was implemented in practice:

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: There was an incident involving a gentile woman who was very sick. She said, "If I am healed, I will go and worship all of the avodah zarah in the world." She was healed, and went to worship all of the avodah zarah in the world. But when she came to the avodah zarah of Peor, she asked [one of] the priests, "How do you worship this one?" He said, "You eat and drink laxatives and defecate in its face." She said, "I would rather be sick again than to worship avodah zarah like this!" 

The Gemara then reports that the highest level of Baal Peor worship was, sadly, demonstrated by a Jew:

But the Jews were not that way ... There was an incident involving Savta ben Elas who rented out his donkey to a gentile woman. When they reached Peor she said to him, "Wait here until I go in, [worship], and come out." After she came out he said to her, "You, too, wait for me until I go in, [worship], and come out." She asked him, "But aren't you a Jew?" He responded, "That's none of your business." He went in, defecated in its face, and wiped himself on its nose, causing the priests to praise him saying, "We've never seen anyone worship like this before!"

Those who learn these facts about Baal Peor for the first time are likely to react by falling to their knees, gazing heavenward with outspread palms, and exclaiming, "WHYYYY????" 

As "civilized Westerners" with "modern sensibilities" it is difficult enough to relate to the standard modes of avodah zarah, such as bowing down to a statue or offering incense and libations - but at least we can understand the appeal in such rituals. Baal Peor, on the other hand, runs contrary to all of our common-sense assumptions about religion, both modern and primitive. To my knowledge, human feces is regarded as repulsive across all cultures and time periods. The notion of a religion built around bowel movements strikes us as absurd.

The question is: What was the appeal of Baal Peor? [1] How could dung be elevated to the level of devotion? How could people regard excrement as sacrament? How could poo prove piety? ... okay, that's enough scat-talk for now. 

Today I came across an explanation given by Rav Hirsch [2] which opened up [3] an entirely new world of insight for me. He writes:

There were various baalim, deified powers. There was Baal Tzefon, a midnight god of the desert (Shemos 14:2). In contrast, there was Baal Maon (Bamidbar 32:38), a god of dwelling places, and Baal Bris (Shoftim 8:33), a god of the union of people. There was also Baal Zevuv (Melachim II 1:2), apparently a god of decay to whom they would turn in times of illness and inquire of him about life and death.

And there was also Baal Peor, a god of shamelessness, who was worshiped by giving brazen prominence to the most bestial aspects of human life. Hence, Hoshea says: "They came to Baal Peor and dedicated (va'yinazru - from the same root as "nazir") themselves to shamefulness" (Hoshea 9:10) - [that is to say, they] sanctified/designated themselves for shamefulness. 

The cult of Peor is an illustration of the type of Darwinism that glories in man's descent to the level of the beast, where, stripping himself of his Divinely-given nobility, he comes to regard himself as merely a highly-developed animal.

Allow me to repeat the key elements of Rav Hirsch's answer: "Baal Peor, [was] a god of shamelessness ... [Bnei Yisrael] sanctified/designated themselves to shamelessness." This, in essence, was the appeal of Baal Peor and its peculiar form of worship. In order to understand the underlying philosophy and nature of this cult, we need a brief refresher on the relationship between shame and pleasure.

Ever since the cheit (sin) of Adam and Chava, the human psyche has been forced to operate under the ever-present surveillance of the conscience. The fear, shame, and guilt that are generated by the conscience are virtually inescapable. Although the conscience was given to us for our benefit, as a counter-force to keep man's instinctual nature in check to help mitigate the consequences of the cheit [4], it has also given rise to a number of difficulties - some of which are objective (e.g. shoulds and religious guilt), and others of which are subjective. 

One of these subjective difficulties is the fact that it is impossible for us to simply enjoy pleasure, like an animal does. Instead, we are compelled to justify our pursuit of pleasure within the parameters of value systems to which we subscribe. When we partake of a pleasure in a manner that runs contrary to our value systems, we experience cognitive dissonance - usually in the form of fear, shame, or guilt. The easiest way to get out of this state of conflict is through rationalization. Rather than confronting the causes and effects of our "moral failings" [5] it is much easier to hastily explain away our misdeeds by coming up with excuses. If such moral lapses become habit, we tend to alter our value systems in order to legitimize our new pattern of behavior. Ultimately, morality yields to habit and desire.

I believe that the reason why the cult of Baal Peor - "the god of shamelessness" - was so attractive is that it granted license for the unbridled indulgence in physical pleasure by sanctifying the rejection of the conscience. 

In other words, the appeal was two-fold: (1) Baal Peor worshipers were granted the freedom to gratify all of their basest animalistic desires, and (2) their rebellious flaunting of shamelessness - epitomized in the hallowed ritual of public defecation - was imbued with religious value, thereby allowing them to bypass the cognitive dissonance that they ordinarily would have experienced.

This dual-allure of Baal Peor worship carries tremendous power. Imagine informing a lazy student that neglecting his homework and tearing up his tests will earn him an "A" in his least favorite class class, or telling an alcoholic that nightly binge-drinking will win him free booze the next day. Similarly, if a priest of Baal Peor tells people that there is a god who wants them to abandon themselves to their hedonistic tendencies, and that the path to freeing oneself from shame is to revel in shamelessness, then he is bound to attract a multitude of followers. Add to this the perk of not needing to pay exorbitant sums of money for lavish offerings (excluding the cost of food and laxatives), and you've got yourself a recipe for a powerful cult.

We can now understand why the worship of "The God of Shamelessness" was accompanied by the sexual corruption which is emphasized by the Torah as the leading cause of Bnei Yisrael's downfall. On the surface it would seem that there is no relationship between fecal rites and sexual promiscuity, but in light of Rav Hirsch's explanation, the connection is clear: the licentiousness of the daughters of Moav was sanctioned by the religion of shamelessness. Their unrestrained sexual depravity was fueled by their worship of Baal Peor, who - in their minds - found favor in acts of wanton debauchery.

According to Rav Hirsch, this explains the enormous number of Jews who died as a result of their attachment to Baal Peor: "The number of those who died was 24,000" (Bamidbar 25:9). Rav Hirsch compares this tally to the number of deaths at the Cheit ha'Egel (Sin of the Golden Calf) and offers an explanation for the discrepancy:

At the Cheit ha'Egel only 3,000 died. Even though there were other sinners there who died an immediate death, it would seem that the number of deaths here was much greater. [Apparently,] idolatrous worship involving physical licentiousness is infinitely more severe than the metaphysical error of avodah zarah alone. 

In other words, both the Cheit ha'Egel and the cheit of Baal Peor involved "the metaphysical error of avodah zarah," but [7] in the case of Baal Peor, this error became anchored in the world of taivah (addiction to physical pleasure), which opens the doors to a more diverse range of consequences and is far more difficult to remedy - especially when the sexual immorality involves mingling with foreign women and a foreign culture.

It is interesting that Rav Hirsch associates the philosophy of Baal Peor with Darwinism. Rav Hirsch and Charles Darwin were contemporaries, and wrote their major works at around the same time. [8] It is important to note that Rav Hirsch was  not opposed to the theory of evolution per se on religious grounds. To the contrary - he wrote: [9]

Even if this notion [of evolution] were ever to gain complete acceptance by the scientific world, Jewish thought, unlike the reasoning of the high priest of that nation (probably a reference to Thomas Huxley, who advocated Darwinism with missionary fervor—N.S.), would nonetheless never summon us to revere a still extant representative of this primal form (an ape—N.S.) as the supposed ancestor of us all. Rather, Judaism in that case would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus, and one single law of “adaptation and heredity” in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know today, each with its unique characteristics that sets it apart from all other creatures.

Nevertheless, Rav Hirsch clearly sensed that Darwinism - as a social ideology - tapped into the same underlying sentiments as the ancient worship of Baal Peor. In contrast to the Baal Peor devotee who assuages his conscience by making a stool deposit at the Shrine of Shamelessness, the Darwinian acolyte rationalizes his animalistic behavior by embracing a philosophy that preaches: "You are essentially an animal; it is only natural to act like one."

Here we have two examples of metaphysical outlooks which come prepackaged with a moral philosophy: the ancient, religious, primitive devotion to Baal Peor and the modern, atheistic, scientific devotion to Darwinism. Both are insidious because they contain a core of truth: the creed of Baal Peor plays upon our latent sense that the conscience is an unnatural burden (which, from the strict standpoint of the Torah's account of creation, is accurate), and dogmatic Darwinism rests upon a foundation of empirical evidence and scientific validity.

The take-away lesson here may be stated as follows: beware the seductiveness of a belief-system which caters to the desire to live like an animal, unsaddled by the yoke of conscience and unbound by confines of objective morality. These doctrines will appear to be legitimate, due to their authoritative veneer - whether it be the religious appeal to the spiritual mind, or the rational appeal to the scientific mind - but know the terrible cost of hearkening to their siren song. How apt is the mashal (allegory) in Mishlei which, according to the Rambam, depicts heresy as a harlot:

For the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey, and her palate is smoother than oil, but her end is as bitter as wormwood, as sharp as a double-edged sword. Her feet lead to death; her footsteps support her to the grave. Lest you liken the path of life [to hers] - her courses wander [astray]; you cannot know.

And now, children, listen to me, and do not stray from the words of my mouth. Distance your way from her, and do not come near the door of her house, lest you give your glory to others, and your years to the cruel one. Lest strangers be sated with your strength, and your painfully earned wealth [be] in a stranger's house. You will groan at your end when your flesh and your body perish. Then you will say, "How could I have hated mussar, and my heart spurned rebuke? I have not listened to the voice of my masters, and have not inclined my ear to my teachers. For a pittance [of enjoyment] I was into everything evil, in the presence of congregation and assembly!" ... (Mishlei 5:3-14)

The woman of foolishness croons; [the woman] of simpleness, who does not know anything. She sits at the door of her house, on a chair at the city heights, to call out to the passerby, who make their ways upright: "Whoever is a simpleton, let him turn here." As for the one who lacks understanding, she says to him: "Stolen waters are sweet, and bread [eaten] in secret places is pleasing." But he does not know that dead men are there, that those she invites are in the deepest grave. (ibid. 9:13-18)

Thus, the account of Baal Peor isn't merely a historical record of a sin committed by our ancestors. It stands as a contemporary warning about the ever-present threat of moral degeneracy masquerading as an elite ideology.

[1] Readers of the old blog might recall a post I wrote - entitled The Yetzer ha'Ra for Avodah Zarah - which offered an explanation of the aforementioned Gemara, along with a general answer to our question. That answer was heavily predicated on a Freudian framework. I will eventually repost it, but I suspect that the answer given in this post will find acceptance by a wider audience.

[2] Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, Commentary on Sefer Bamidbar 25:3
[3] No pun intended ... maybe.

[4] For a full treatment of this, see the Rambam's Moreh ha'Nevuchim 1:2. Also, here's a quick summary (from the transcript of an audio shiur) of how the conscience was intended to function:

G-d's punishment is different from that of man. A punishment from G-d is given to help benefit man. An analysis of the verses subsequent to the sin can help us to understand the punishment and its ramifications with respect to the human personality. In chapter 3, verse 7 states, "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths." Prior to the sin, the Torah explicitly tells us that they were not ashamed of their nakedness. The Torah is teaching us by contrasting these fact, that prior to the sin, man did not experience embarrassment. Shame is a function of man's conscience. Before man sinned, man's energies were naturally directed to chochmah, to intellectual pursuits. After the sin, man fell prey to the instinctual. The intellectual was overpowered by the instinctual. However, man now had an additional ally to help combat the forces of the physical . . . his conscience. The conscience of man helps him to determine good from evil. The yetzer ha'tov, man's good inclination, helps man to withdraw his energies from the world of the physical and re-direct it to the world of chochmah, wisdom. However, before man sinned, he did not possess the ability to discern good from evil. His mind was naturally drawn to the intellectual. After the sin man's energies flow first to the physical, which is capable of paralyzing him. G-d thereby instilled in man a conscience to help him progress into the world of the ideational and not stagnate in the world of the physical. It is only with the aid of the yetzer ha'tov, the ability to discern good, that man can use his free will and channel his energies to the acquisition of wisdom. It is therefore no coincidence that immediately after G-d pronounced His punishment for the sin (and man was endowed with both good and evil inclinations), man began to utilize his conscience to channel his energies properly. First, he experienced shame and covered his nakedness. Then, as chapter 3, verse 20 relates, "And the man called his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living." It seems incongruous that this occurs immediately after the pronouncement of man's punishment. However, the reason is now readily apparent. This manifests that man was using the yetzer ha'tov to help direct his energies towards wisdom. He exercised his intelligence to classify and name his wife. It was a definitional exercise that required his intellectual abilities. From this we can ascertain that a punishment from G-d is unique, as it is executed for the benefit of man. This particular event bestowed man with good and evil inclinations. It is only with the aid of the yetzer hatov that man can overcome the pratfalls of sin and can withdraw his energies away from the physical and utilize his intellect to live a life based on wisdom.

[5] I'm using quotation marks because this "moral failing" is defined by the particular value system, which may or may not have any basis in reality.
[6] al tikri "dual" ela "doo-al"
[7] butt
[8] Rav Hirsch: b.1808, d. 1888. Charles Darwin: b.1802, d.1882. Rav Hirsch published his Chumash commentaries in the years spanning 1867-1878. Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex in 1871.
[9] Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, “The Educational Value of Judaism,” Collected Writings, vol. VII, p. 264

Guilt, Halacha, and The Grapes of Wrath

Casy and Uncle John

Originally posted in August 2012.

Guilt, Halacha, and The Grapes of Wrath

This summer I reread John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath (1939). One of the main characters is John Joad, or "Uncle John," as he is called in the family. Uncle John as an extremely guilty fellow. He deeply believes that the sins of his past have condemned him to a life of unhappiness and continue to be a source of bad luck and misfortune for his family.

Uncle John feels especially guilty for the premature death of his wife. One night she developed a pain in her stomach. She told him that he'd better get a doctor, but he said, "Hell, you jus' et too much." She died the next afternoon of a burst appendix (or, as Tom Joad puts it, "somepin jus' bust in her. Ap—appendick or somepin").

Tom goes on to explain the impact that this event had on his uncle: "Well, Uncle John, he's always been a easy-goin' fella, an' he takes it hard. Takes it for a sin." Uncle John feels entirely responsible for her death, as though he killed her intentionally, and his guilt dominates his entire life.

At several points in the book Uncle John speaks with Reverend Casy (the ex-preacher) about the nature of sin. In the first instance, Casy speaks about the difficulty of identifying a sin:

Casy said gently, "Sure I got sins. Ever'body got sins. A sin is somepin you ain't sure about."

Uncle John brings up his feeling of culpability for the death of his wife. He asks Casy, "You think it was a sin to let my wife die like that?" Casy's response reveals his concept of sin:

"Well," said Casy, "for anybody else it was a mistake, but if you think it was a sin - then it's a sin. A fella builds his own sins right up from the groun'."

Later in the book, Uncle John reiterates Casy's definition:

Uncle John scratched the earth deeply with a long rusty nail. "He knowed about sin. I ast him about sin, an' he tol' me; but I don't know if he's right. He says a fella's sinned if he thinks he's sinned." 

Call me naive, but I was shocked and horrified by this notion of sin, in spite of the fact that it is probably the prevailing view of sin in the world. But this initial feeling of shock coalesced into a realization about several qualities of Halacha (Jewish Law) I hadn't fully appreciated beforehand, and it is this these qualities which I would like to briefly explore in this blog post.

Artwork: Burden of Guilt, by John Stanko

We humans are a guilty lot. Say what you will about guilt, but one thing is for certain: guilt is difficult to escape. Unless you are a sociopath or a true philosopher, chances are that you will experience guilt when you act contrary to the values and standards of right and wrong to which you subscribe.

Unfortunately, guilt has a way of dictating its own standards - and that is where all the trouble starts. These standards tend to be vague, obscure, and extremely difficult to pin down with any degree of precision. Additionally, they are erratic and inconsistent, making them highly unreliable. Perhaps the most insidious quality of guilt is its subjectivity. The conscience doesn't give a damn about objective reality, and it can punish you with the same degree of guilt for any and all "transgressions," real and imaginary alike.

Elusiveness, inconsistency, and subjectivity: these are the weapons which make guilt such a formidable tyrant, and it is these three qualities which are mitigated by the nature of Halacha.

Halacha, in its true form, is certainly not elusive, vague, and obscure. Any human action in any given situation can be classified under the halachic categories of mutar (permitted), assur (prohibited), chayav (obligated), patur (exempt), etc. Halacha is precise in its legal definitions on a practical and a conceptual level. Even in cases of doubt and uncertainty, Halacha prescribes a definitive course of action, such as safek de'oraisa l'chumra (when in doubt about a Biblical law, we are stringent), safek de'rabbanan l'kula (when in doubt about a Rabbinic law, we are lenient), and so on. Knowledge of Halacha is readily accessible, whether by firsthand investigation or by asking a posek (halachic adjudicator) and drawing upon his expertise. Especially in this day and age, even poskim on the other side of the world can be reached immediately. Suffice it to say, Halacha does not square with Reverend Casy's definition of sin as "somepin you ain't sure about." Halacha is sure about sin. Sure and exact.

Halacha is neither erratic nor inconsistent. True, at the present time there is a multiplicity of shitos (halachic opinions), chumros (stringencies), kulos (leniencies), and minhagim (customs) - some valid and some invalid. Nevertheless, within the framework of each shitah or each person's practice, Halacha is consistent and reliable. In 99% of the cases, what was assur yesterday will be assur today, and what is mutar now will be mutar in the future. Casy's statement, "A fella builds his own sins right up from the groun'" - is not true of Halacha. Halacha was given to us by Hashem at Sinai. The halachic system has been in place before we came onto the scene, and it will continue to be here after we have left. It is not "built up from the ground by individual human beings."

Last, and most importantly, Halacha is not subjective. Halacha is objective: it applies equally to you, to me, and to everybody else. Halacha is objective in that it is an independent system which operates by its own set of principles, regardless of the feelings and actions of its practitioners. Halacha is objective in that is a regimen designed by the Creator as a means of helping human beings attain perfection. Like the blueprint of a skyscraper, the formula for a chemical compound, and the recipe for a cake, the rules and guidelines of Halacha must be rooted in the objective reality of the human being's design in order to achieve its goals. Casy's statement "for anybody else it was a mistake, but if you think it was a sin - then it's a sin" might be true of other religious doctrines, but not Halacha.

Now, this certainly doesn't mean that the adherents of Halacha are immune to guilt. We noted at the very outset that it is extremely difficult to escape from guilt entirely. This is especially true in the modern age, due to the influence of Christianity which has saturated our culture and tainted our relationship to Torah. 

My intent is merely to bring to our attention the marvelous fact that halacha, by its very nature, undermines the foundations of religious guilt. I'm not claiming that halacha was designed this way for this specific purpose. All of the aforementioned qualities are inherent to the halachic system, and it would be a stretch to claim that Hashem "planned" it this way in order to counteract guilt. It's just that I had never really appreciated this aspect of halacha until I encountered Uncle John's character in The Grapes of Wrath. I never fully realized how all-consuming this guilt can be, and how halacha goes a long way in preventing us from getting bogged down in this type of guilt. (Yes, I realize that Uncle John might still feel guilty for the death of his wife, but much of the guilt he experiences from his amorphous sinfulness throughout the story; the same goes for Rosasharn and the guilt she feels after being lectured by the Christian woman in the camp.)

The more I learn, the more I realize and appreciate the manifold (and often subtle) characteristics of Torah which make it the uniquely beneficial system that it is. As the Rambam writes at the conclusion of Hilchos Megilah v'Chanukah 4:13: "How great is peace! For the entire Torah was given to make peace in the world, as it is stated, 'its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace' (Mishlei 3:17)."

Mishlei 13:1 - Listening to Authority

משלי יג:א

בֵּן חָכָם מוּסַר אָב וְלֵץ לֹא שָׁמַע גְּעָרָה:

Mishlei 13:1

A wise son [listens to] the discipline of his father, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke.

Questions / Difficulties

1. Why does the pasuk emphasize the ben chacham (wise son) listening to the discipline of his father, specifically? Wouldn't the ben chacham listen to discipline from anyone? Moreover the second half of the pasuk talks about how the leitz (scoffer) reacts to any rebuke - not just the rebuke of his father. Why the asymmetry?
2. Why does the pasuk have to tell us that the leitz doesn't listen to rebuke? This is part of his very definition! There are many pesukim in Mishlei which highlight this quality of the leitz: "One who chastises the leitz acquires shame for himself" (Mishlei 9:7), "Do not rebuke a leitz, lest he hate you" (ibid 9:8), "A leitz does not like being reproved; he will not go to the wise" (ibid. 15:12), and more. What does our pasuk add? 
3. Why does the pasuk us the word "gaarah" for rebuke? Usually I'm not bothered by such nuances in the words, but in this case, it's strange. Ordinarily, Mishlei would use more conventional terms, like "tochahah" or "mussar" or even "eitzah." The weird thing about the word "gaarah" is that it means "rebuke" but it also means "shouting" or "shrieking." What does this mean? 

Four-sentence Summary of the Main Idea

All human beings harbor a certain degree of resistance to authority. The ben chacham is able to rise above this resistance even when being disciplined by his father - the supreme psychological authority - and learn from what he has to offer. In contrast, the leitz's psychological resistance is so pronounced that he hears all rebuke as if the rebuker is yelling at him; consequently, his mind will be completely closed to criticism. The only way to get through to the leitz is to bypass his psychological resistance and get him to see the consequences of his actions with his own mind; as long as these consequences are framed in practical terms rather than superego terms (e.g. "bad" "sinful" "evil"), there is at least a remote possibility that he will listen.