A visit to the zoo
I've accidentally stumbled upon this post, http://eterman.livejournal.com/32236.html
It deals with the issue (bestiality) which makes it particularly illuminating of the situation in general. The post gives a translation of the Mishnah and the Gemara in Avodah Zarah 22b
ONE SHOULD NOT PLACE CATTLE IN HEATHENS INNS, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF IMMORAL PRACTICE WITH THEM. A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE ALONE WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF LEWDNESS, NOR SHOULD A MAN BE ALONE WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF SHEDDING BLOOD.
The following was cited in contradiction: One may buy of them cattle for a sacrifice, and it need not be feared lest it committed, or had been used for, an immoral act, or had been designated as an offering to idols, or had been worshipped. Now we are quite right not to fear about its having been designated as an offering to idols or having been made an object of worship, since if it had been so designated or worshipped, its owner would not have sold it; but we surely ought to fear as to committing an immoral act! - Said R. Tahlifa in the name of R. Shila b. Abina in the name of Rab: A heathen would have regard for his cattle, lest it becomes barren. This would indeed hold good in the case of female cattle but what answer would you give in the case of males? - Said R. Kahana: Because it has a deteriorating effect on their flesh. Then what about that [Baraitha] which has been taught: 'One may buy cattle of any heathen shepherd'; ought we not to fear lest he used it for an immoral purpose? - The heathen shepherd would be afraid of forfeiting his fee. What then about this [other Baraitha] which has been taught: 'One should not entrust cattle to a heathen shepherd'; why not assume that the heathen shepherd would be afraid of forfeiting his fee? - They fear detection by one another since they know a good deal about it, but they are not afraid of us who do not know much about it. Rabbah said: This is what the popular proverb says. 'As the stylus penetrates the stone so one cunning mind detects another.' In that case, neither should we buy male cattle6 from women, for fear of their having used them for immoral practice! - She would be afraid of being followed about by the animal. What then about this which R. Joseph learnt: 'A widow should not rear dogs, nor accommodate a student as a guest'? Now it is quite right in the case of a student, as she might reckon on his modesty, but in the case of a dog why not say that she would be afraid of being followed about by it? - Since it would follow about on being thrown a piece of meat, people will say that it is because of being given such pieces that it follows her. Why then should we not leave female animals alone with female heathens? - Said Mar 'Ukba b. Hama: Because heathens frequent their neighbours' wives, and should one by chance not find her in, and find the cattle there, he might use it immorally. You may also say that even if he should find her in he might use the animal, as a Master has said: Heathens prefer the cattle of Israelites to their own wives, for R. Johanan said: When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her. If that be so [the same should apply] also to Israel! - When Israel stood at Sinai that lust was eliminated, but the lust of idolaters, who did not stand at Sinai, did not cease. The question was asked: How about fowls? - Come and hear: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel on behalf of R. Hanina: I saw a heathen buy a goose in the market, use it immorally, and then strangle it, roast, and eat it. Also R. Jeremiah of Difti12 said: I saw an Arab who bought a side [of meat], pierced it for the purpose of an immoral act, after which act he roasted and ate it. http://www.come-and-hear.com/zarah/zarah_22.html#PARTb
The post is tagged "racism" and the commenters are invited to vent their feelings of enlightened hatred towards the religious Jews in general and xenophobic Talmudic Sages in particular. I've frequently observed such outpourings; the comments are much more illuminating than the post itself.
First, it is immediately presumed that the Rabbis are telling tall tales about their neighbors in a feat of inventive xenophobia. In fact, the taboos against bestiality are rare. That it has been widely practiced across the ancient world is hardly a secret, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_and_cultural_perspectives_on_zoophilia
Herodotus wrote about religious bestiality in Egypt. Of the Biblical people, only the Hittites had any written laws against it. The Christians prohibited it only at the synod of Ancyra (300 AD); it was a minor sin punished by penance. If one looks at Asia, it was both normal and common throughout. In Arab tribes (a great hit with the commenters), bestiality has been reported since the antiquity. Actually, even zoosadistic penetration with fowl has precedents. In the Americas, nobody gave copulation with animals second thought, and these did not have to be alive, which was the Eurasian custom.
That the majority of modern people are not practicing bestiality is the direct consequence of their Christianization and Islamization. Despite centuries of Christianity, Kinsey reported staggering percentage of rural Americans having occasional sexual itercourse with farm animals. The rural way of life is becoming rare; one of the reasons we hear less about bestiality is this change. Observe that these Americans had every reason to be discrete about their habits. The Rabbis had unobstructed view of of their neighbors, as the heathens had nothing to hide, considering it their cultural norm. The sacrifice of the first-borns, ritual sex, etc. used to be considered Biblical exaggregations; now the archaeological and historical evidence is overwhelming. The Rabbis knew the customs of the people with whom they lived for a thousand years before the codification of the Talmud.
Surely, it is unpleasant to be reminded about one's pagan past. Of course, the pagans proper did not find anything abominable about their practices. Telling that the Arabs practice bestiality definitely has negative connotations, but this is only because the modern Arabs themselves consider such practices abominable. They did not discover these ethics on their own. The very reason the Gemara is called xenophobic is... the Jewish Law. If you reject this law, the ethnographic observations of the Rabbis are no more xenophobic than the observations of our own anthropologists and ethnographers; the "scientific" theories of this folk having about the same credence as the fanciful rationales of R. Johanan. If you accept it, then clearly the dealings of the people who consider bestiality immoral with those who do not have to be discussed and codified.
Second, the commenters clearly consider bestiality an immoral act, as othewise they would not find the passage xenophobic. On what grounds, exactly? Yes, certain cultural practices are described, so what? Different people have different cultural norms and moral codes. What, precisely, is the secular argument about immorality of bestiality? Homosexuality and sexual indicency in general are given equal status to bestiality under the Mosaic Law; I see no reason to be selective. Bestiality is legal in half of the states in the US and many European countries. The are some animal rights advocates telling that violence against animals leads to violence against humans, which makes bestiality immoral. Pleasing animals does not have to be violent. Peter Singer ("A Darwinian Left" of the Animal Liberation Front fame; he is a Kantian humanist) finds non-violent bestiality fully acceptable from the moral standpoint. Others say it is inacceptable because of passing sexually transmitted diseases. On this score, homosexuality is hardly any different. Animals cannot consent. Well, they also do not consent to be eaten; neither they require consent in sexual dealings with their own kind. Bestiality is not covered by the golden rule, the categorical imperative, human rights doctrines, or animal rights doctrines; it is not covered by any abstract ethical principle I know of. Neither secular utilitarian nor normative ethics has been able to produce any coherent argument for immorality of bestiality in 200 years. The arguments provided so far tend to be more bizarre and fanciful than the arguments of the Talmudic sages:
Kant, for example, renounced bestiality as a "crime against humanity in general." The nature of this crime is not discussed (see "Kant's Theory of Justice" AD Rosen). Hill argues that Kant viewed bestiality as a compact with non-human society, the betrayal that automatically excludes the perpetrator from human society (he deduces this from the fact that Kant advocates permanent expulsion as punishment). Also, illicit sex is considered animalistic and so undermining the rational nature of a Man and the humanity of the perpetrator. (Homosexuality and masturbation are treated along the same lines, of course).
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118835595/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=M21C902xNbLP7bm72vT3nWLqW84t79G1ycf4x2R4pl78QC9Z2Lyy!-239781194!1896127874?docId=5002526424
http://www.jstor.org/pss/27744817
Interesting views, aren't these? Frankly, I have no idea on which reasoning a self-professed atheist can make a credible case for bestiality being immoral or reprehensible - except, of course, the appeal to the tradition that can be traced to its Judaic origin. So we are coming to the same point: to consider Gemara xenophobic one needs to consider the Jewish Law authoritative. It is a Catch-22 situation.
Then, what is the meaning of such passionate displays?
Is it just the usual case of having it both ways?
It deals with the issue (bestiality) which makes it particularly illuminating of the situation in general. The post gives a translation of the Mishnah and the Gemara in Avodah Zarah 22b
ONE SHOULD NOT PLACE CATTLE IN HEATHENS INNS, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF IMMORAL PRACTICE WITH THEM. A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE ALONE WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF LEWDNESS, NOR SHOULD A MAN BE ALONE WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF SHEDDING BLOOD.
The following was cited in contradiction: One may buy of them cattle for a sacrifice, and it need not be feared lest it committed, or had been used for, an immoral act, or had been designated as an offering to idols, or had been worshipped. Now we are quite right not to fear about its having been designated as an offering to idols or having been made an object of worship, since if it had been so designated or worshipped, its owner would not have sold it; but we surely ought to fear as to committing an immoral act! - Said R. Tahlifa in the name of R. Shila b. Abina in the name of Rab: A heathen would have regard for his cattle, lest it becomes barren. This would indeed hold good in the case of female cattle but what answer would you give in the case of males? - Said R. Kahana: Because it has a deteriorating effect on their flesh. Then what about that [Baraitha] which has been taught: 'One may buy cattle of any heathen shepherd'; ought we not to fear lest he used it for an immoral purpose? - The heathen shepherd would be afraid of forfeiting his fee. What then about this [other Baraitha] which has been taught: 'One should not entrust cattle to a heathen shepherd'; why not assume that the heathen shepherd would be afraid of forfeiting his fee? - They fear detection by one another since they know a good deal about it, but they are not afraid of us who do not know much about it. Rabbah said: This is what the popular proverb says. 'As the stylus penetrates the stone so one cunning mind detects another.' In that case, neither should we buy male cattle6 from women, for fear of their having used them for immoral practice! - She would be afraid of being followed about by the animal. What then about this which R. Joseph learnt: 'A widow should not rear dogs, nor accommodate a student as a guest'? Now it is quite right in the case of a student, as she might reckon on his modesty, but in the case of a dog why not say that she would be afraid of being followed about by it? - Since it would follow about on being thrown a piece of meat, people will say that it is because of being given such pieces that it follows her. Why then should we not leave female animals alone with female heathens? - Said Mar 'Ukba b. Hama: Because heathens frequent their neighbours' wives, and should one by chance not find her in, and find the cattle there, he might use it immorally. You may also say that even if he should find her in he might use the animal, as a Master has said: Heathens prefer the cattle of Israelites to their own wives, for R. Johanan said: When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her. If that be so [the same should apply] also to Israel! - When Israel stood at Sinai that lust was eliminated, but the lust of idolaters, who did not stand at Sinai, did not cease. The question was asked: How about fowls? - Come and hear: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel on behalf of R. Hanina: I saw a heathen buy a goose in the market, use it immorally, and then strangle it, roast, and eat it. Also R. Jeremiah of Difti12 said: I saw an Arab who bought a side [of meat], pierced it for the purpose of an immoral act, after which act he roasted and ate it. http://www.come-and-hear.com/zarah/zarah_22.html#PARTb
The post is tagged "racism" and the commenters are invited to vent their feelings of enlightened hatred towards the religious Jews in general and xenophobic Talmudic Sages in particular. I've frequently observed such outpourings; the comments are much more illuminating than the post itself.
First, it is immediately presumed that the Rabbis are telling tall tales about their neighbors in a feat of inventive xenophobia. In fact, the taboos against bestiality are rare. That it has been widely practiced across the ancient world is hardly a secret, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_and_cultural_perspectives_on_zoophilia
Herodotus wrote about religious bestiality in Egypt. Of the Biblical people, only the Hittites had any written laws against it. The Christians prohibited it only at the synod of Ancyra (300 AD); it was a minor sin punished by penance. If one looks at Asia, it was both normal and common throughout. In Arab tribes (a great hit with the commenters), bestiality has been reported since the antiquity. Actually, even zoosadistic penetration with fowl has precedents. In the Americas, nobody gave copulation with animals second thought, and these did not have to be alive, which was the Eurasian custom.
That the majority of modern people are not practicing bestiality is the direct consequence of their Christianization and Islamization. Despite centuries of Christianity, Kinsey reported staggering percentage of rural Americans having occasional sexual itercourse with farm animals. The rural way of life is becoming rare; one of the reasons we hear less about bestiality is this change. Observe that these Americans had every reason to be discrete about their habits. The Rabbis had unobstructed view of of their neighbors, as the heathens had nothing to hide, considering it their cultural norm. The sacrifice of the first-borns, ritual sex, etc. used to be considered Biblical exaggregations; now the archaeological and historical evidence is overwhelming. The Rabbis knew the customs of the people with whom they lived for a thousand years before the codification of the Talmud.
Surely, it is unpleasant to be reminded about one's pagan past. Of course, the pagans proper did not find anything abominable about their practices. Telling that the Arabs practice bestiality definitely has negative connotations, but this is only because the modern Arabs themselves consider such practices abominable. They did not discover these ethics on their own. The very reason the Gemara is called xenophobic is... the Jewish Law. If you reject this law, the ethnographic observations of the Rabbis are no more xenophobic than the observations of our own anthropologists and ethnographers; the "scientific" theories of this folk having about the same credence as the fanciful rationales of R. Johanan. If you accept it, then clearly the dealings of the people who consider bestiality immoral with those who do not have to be discussed and codified.
Second, the commenters clearly consider bestiality an immoral act, as othewise they would not find the passage xenophobic. On what grounds, exactly? Yes, certain cultural practices are described, so what? Different people have different cultural norms and moral codes. What, precisely, is the secular argument about immorality of bestiality? Homosexuality and sexual indicency in general are given equal status to bestiality under the Mosaic Law; I see no reason to be selective. Bestiality is legal in half of the states in the US and many European countries. The are some animal rights advocates telling that violence against animals leads to violence against humans, which makes bestiality immoral. Pleasing animals does not have to be violent. Peter Singer ("A Darwinian Left" of the Animal Liberation Front fame; he is a Kantian humanist) finds non-violent bestiality fully acceptable from the moral standpoint. Others say it is inacceptable because of passing sexually transmitted diseases. On this score, homosexuality is hardly any different. Animals cannot consent. Well, they also do not consent to be eaten; neither they require consent in sexual dealings with their own kind. Bestiality is not covered by the golden rule, the categorical imperative, human rights doctrines, or animal rights doctrines; it is not covered by any abstract ethical principle I know of. Neither secular utilitarian nor normative ethics has been able to produce any coherent argument for immorality of bestiality in 200 years. The arguments provided so far tend to be more bizarre and fanciful than the arguments of the Talmudic sages:
Kant, for example, renounced bestiality as a "crime against humanity in general." The nature of this crime is not discussed (see "Kant's Theory of Justice" AD Rosen). Hill argues that Kant viewed bestiality as a compact with non-human society, the betrayal that automatically excludes the perpetrator from human society (he deduces this from the fact that Kant advocates permanent expulsion as punishment). Also, illicit sex is considered animalistic and so undermining the rational nature of a Man and the humanity of the perpetrator. (Homosexuality and masturbation are treated along the same lines, of course).
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118835595/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=M21C902xNbLP7bm72vT3nWLqW84t79G1ycf4x2R4pl78QC9Z2Lyy!-239781194!1896127874?docId=5002526424
http://www.jstor.org/pss/27744817
Interesting views, aren't these? Frankly, I have no idea on which reasoning a self-professed atheist can make a credible case for bestiality being immoral or reprehensible - except, of course, the appeal to the tradition that can be traced to its Judaic origin. So we are coming to the same point: to consider Gemara xenophobic one needs to consider the Jewish Law authoritative. It is a Catch-22 situation.
Then, what is the meaning of such passionate displays?
Is it just the usual case of having it both ways?