Naso: An Invitation for Feminist Imagining.

This week’s Torah portion is Naso (Numbers 4:21-7:89).  The portion discusses who, among the Israelites, carries the components of the Miskan (Tenting of Meeting) while wandering through the desert.  It also entails a census of the tribe of Levi, describes various offerings that were brought to the Tent of Meeting in general and for its twelve days of dedication, decrees keeping the ill and ‘contaminated’ out of Israelite settlements, details the Nazirite vow, gives us the priestly blessing, and proscribes the process through which women are acquitted or found guilty of affairs.  There are many components of this parshah that offer food for thought when it comes to a feminist analysis, but for today, I am going to focus on where there is equality between men and women within the text and where there isn’t.  

In Naso, the Nazirite vows are available to men and women.  Verse 6:2 reads, “A man or woman who sets himself apart by making a nazirite vow to abstain for the sake of the L-rd.”  Here, we see a clear option for both men and women although the language then switches into the generic masculine to discuss the Nazirite. I would not automatically assume that means that women didn’t take the vow.  Rather, I understand the verse to be discussing any Nazirite and that anyone who took the vow followed the same rules regardless of gender.   The problem with Biblical Hebrew is the language is gendered as I have mentioned in previous posts.  There is no way to talk about humanity outside of gendered pronouns, and within patriarchy that default is going to be male.  However, we can find evidence that women have taken the vows and could do so today in even more feminist ways.  

In addition to this aspect of equal treatment in this parshah, there is another.  Verse 5:6 reads, “…When a man or woman commits any of the sins against man to act treacherously against G-d, and that person is [found] guilty.”   Interestingly, after this verse, the language continues in the plural for a while – here I would assume to include both the woman and the man – but then switches to addressing only the man (note 1). This is an interesting detail that deserves further attention.  The parshah seems to be addressing a problem specific to men – they might have no kin.  Is Naso telling us something about the different social situations between men and women during the wanderings in the desert?  I think it is probable (note 2).  An Israelite man, unlike Israelite women, may have lived among the Israelites and have had no immediate family.   This also means that this would not be the case for Israelite women; they always have kin around.  Part of me really likes the idea that Israelite women were always in the presence of relatives.  However, I wish their traditions had survived.  

This reminds me of the call by Monique Wittig, who said when lacking information, inventing stories is needed (note 3).  As an example, in the Jewish tradition, we have Anita Diamant’s Red Tent that describes the life of Dinah from Genesis 32.  Naso provides us an opportunity to supply missing information.  I think we are called to dream, invent, and recreate the lives of those wandering Israelite women.  What were their rituals? How did they celebrate life cycles? What religious traditions did they follow? How did they celebrate bonds between each other? The possibilities for Jewish feminist reimagining are endless.

The final mention of women in the parshah is verses 5:12-31.  Naso describes here what to do when a husband suspects his wife of cheating on him but does not have any proof (i.e. they were not caught in the act).  The parshah describes a lengthy ritual to divine whether the wife is guilty or not.  The kohen forces her to drink bitter, cursed water (5:24, 27).  If she is guilty, the waters will cause specific bodily symptoms including a swollen belly and a ruptured thigh (5:27), but if she is innocent, these bodily changes will not happen and she will still be able to have children (5:28).  This ritual is an obvious instance in which women are being controlled rather violently and their sexuality policed.  The trial also includes an aspect of humiliation, uncovering of a woman’s hair (5:18).  What’s more, this can be done by a man who is just experiencing jealousy.  In fact, the parshah mentions simple jealousy as an acceptable reason for pursuing such a ‘trial.’  This ritual is a harsh reminder that no matter how much I want to see redeemable aspects within the Torah, it is, at its heart, a text written within patriarchy.  At least we can give thanks that such a ritual no longer is practiced today, and this is another reason why it is good that the Temple no longer stands (note 4).

In this brief look at Naso, we have seen some areas in which men and women are treated with relative equality: the Narizite vow and the atonement for sin.  However, the parshah also fails women in the ways in which it singles them out and allows jealous husbands to put them on trial and control their lives.  We can and should acknowledge patriarchal elements of Naso, but the text also leaves us with something less patriarchal to think about: to imagine the lives of those women wandering in the desert who were always surrounded by kin.  As Wittig says, we are allowed to invent their history. How would you imagine it?

Notes:

1. I assume the man here is the one that has been victimized, but the language is not the clearest in my opinion.
2. Of course, here if man is meant to be the generic human, then this interpretation does not work.  Unfortunately, we cannot know which one is meant with certainty.
3. I have most recently read about this in Carol P. Christ’s article “Why Women Need the Goddess,” which can be found in WomanSpirit Rising (1992, p. 277) or here.
4. I have written extensively in my posts here about why rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem is problematic. Here is one example.