Last week’s posts on modesty (here and here) led to some sharp exchanges in the comments section on the relationship between shame and the body and between sexuality and the visual. Yesterday, good Jonathan Dresner sent me this link to a Torah commentary by a Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld. The rabbi asks
How does the Torah describe Adam and Eve before their sin? How does it put into words the loftiness of these spiritual giants? “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and they were not embarrassed” (2:25). Is this all the Torah has to say about them — that they were naked — and too naive to feel any shame? There is nothing more profound or complimentary for the Torah to say?
The answer is that after the sin of Man, Man realized he had to cover his body — and the source of his passions. As soon as Adam and Even sinned, the Torah writes that they realized they were naked. Beforehand there was no need for clothes. Man’s physical and spiritual sides were in total harmony. There was no temptation to misuse the physical. It was entirely pure; it was a reflection of the spiritual world. Man’s body was no more than a tool to serve G-d. And of course, serving G-d gave it the ultimate physical pleasure. Before the Sin, that which was spiritually good was physically pleasurable as well. There was no contradiction.
With the fall of the physical world, however, this was no longer the case. The physical obscured G-d’s Presence. It could possibly be seen as something capable of being misused, as something which lived on its own and for its own sake. It could be corrupted. One could obtain a sense of pleasure — albeit a fleeting one — from living for the physical alone. It could be seen as having a reality of its own. Adam and Eve could have been seen — and could have seen each other — as objects of passion — as sex objects. The room for confusion — and the temptation for misuse — was great indeed. Man would now have to cover himself to avoid this misconception — as well as to preserve society. His physical was no longer pure or spiritually-inclined. Man could never again be totally comfortable with his inner passions.
Bold emphasis is mine. Those who come from outside the Abrahamic religious traditions may find this all a bit nonsensical, but the rabbi’s commentary fits nicely with Christian interpretations of modesty and the fall. Obviously, what body parts are covered varies from culture to culture to some degree (though virtually all Western cultures cover the genitals, and almost all cover the female breast). What doesn’t vary is the conviction that at least some parts of the body ought to be covered publicly because when exposed, the person who is exposed will inevitably be reduced to, as he puts it, an “object of passion.” Such body parts can and should be exposed to the spouse, but only after that spouse has come to “know” one for one’s true spiritual nature, and thus not inclined to reduce one to a mere object.
I’d be willing to quibble over how long one should be espoused before one can be said to know one’s spouse’s “spiritual nature” and consequently be free to expose one’s purely physical flesh.
In historic tradition, marriages between people barely acquainted, or even complete strangers, was the norm rather than the exception, but I doubt that most people would have accepted putting off the carnal aspect of the wedding night for a few months while the new couple explored one another’s spirituality.
In fact, as I recall, “proof” that a marriage had been consummated was often required after the first night of marriage.
Aside from that, I applaud the lofty spirit of the commentary, if nothing else. I don’t disagree that getting to know someone (spiritually or otherwise) “first” is admirable.