Until the discussion of Lilith came up in class last week, I was unaware that two different stories of creation existed. Naturally, I was enraged to find out that Lilith was essentially condemned for being created equal to Adam. I have participated in past discussions about today’s gender norms being influenced by the interpretations of “Original Sin”, but the story of Lilith seems to have much more of a responsibility of not only the interactions between men and women, but women and women as well.

            One of the reasons I was so taken back by the story of Lilith is that I also felt that (as far as reform Hebrew School taught me), the female figures of biblical stories were just as significant as many of the men. Even in prayers, like the Avot, the wives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Sara, Rachel and Leach) are mentioned in the same breath. Perhaps that is just a testament to the political correctness my synagogue was adhering to, but I find it difficult to reconcile that her story is so much less referred to than the “standing” story of Adam and Eve.

            Additionally, all offense aside, I find it interesting that that concept of women as equals to men, though obviously repudiated, came before women as second to men. The thought that this societal perception came to someone’s consciousness then was changed is mind-blowing to me. What if Lilith had survived as a successful character? What if she was constructed to collaborate equally with men and women? What would society be like today if the Bible dictated that the first woman had just as much pull as the first man? In the same respect, without a biblical baby-eating woman running around, would the dynamics between women change as well? It’s not uncommon for women to feel threatened by other women, especially strangers; I find it too coincidental for this to have nothing to do with the story of Lilith.

            While both Bibles are filled with “healthy” moral standards, there are certain interpretations that have manipulated society into a hierarchy that has become difficult to dispute considering how old these origins actually are. They cloud the argument of nature versus nurture in terms of gender roles. We will never know what it is to live in a society uninfluenced by Biblical guidelines, and I find that to be a pretty haunting reality.

The first time I really learned about Lilith was in a class I took last year called Love Sex and the Hebrew Texts, during which we discussed many of the biblical Jewish tales. The story of Lilith was one of those tales. Lilith is a significant figure within the Judaic, Islamic and Christian religions. She was Adam’s first wife. She and Adam were created from the clay of the earth at the same time and because of this Lilith felt that she was equal to Adam. Adam disagreed. He felt that despite the fact that they were created at the same time, he was superior to her. The problem between them began when Lilith wanted to be on top during intercourse. Adam refused; he felt that because he was superior to her, he should lie on top. Because of Adam’s refusal, Lilith left. Lilith’s continued refusal to return to Adam, she was labeled as a demon.

The portrayal of Lilith depends entirely upon the context in which one learns about her. Over time, Lilith has been portrayed as a demon, the first feminist, a “bitch”, or a baby killer. After Eve was created, Lilith’s sole demonic purpose was to kill newborn babies. I have an issue with the fact that solely because Lilith didn’t want to deal with Adam’s crap (essentially) she was turned into something that symbolized a threat to human society and future generations all together. Women today are constantly threatened by strong, confident, and self-sufficient women like Lilith. Women continually feel like they need to protect and defend what’s theirs because of this fear. By portraying Lilith as demonic, we only further the notion that women who demand equality are only trying to abate the way our society works.

This story makes it clear that the power struggle between men and women dates back to the biblical times. The patriarchal systems within Christianity, Judaism and Islam consistently give men the upper hand in this power struggle and seem to frequently ostracize women who fight for equality. Will this ever change? And if it ultimately will, the question then becomes when? When will these three religions look back to the bible and start pushing for equality?

In many ways, taking a class with a religious focus such as this is intimidating for me. I was raised Quaker, which essentially means that I was taught the basic values that are prevalent in almost all households (religious or not), with emphasis on equality and simplicity.  I have no familiarity whatsoever with the Bible, relationship with a God figure, or prayer in my every day life. For this reason, I struggle with many of the ideas behind religion. In my mind, how can someone believe so unfailingly in something that is so beyond human comprehension that it is generally impossible to prove?

There are several things that have broadened my understanding of this question since I have begun taking this class.

One is our reading of Ilana Pardes’ article, Imagining the Birth of Ancient Israel. Particularly because my mother is an English teacher and has passed along some of her interest in literature to me, Pardes’ approach to the Bible was appealing to me. Viewing the Bible simply as a piece of literature to analyze has helped me to understand how Jews and Christians alike have taken the symbolism so much to heart. When uncovered in that way, I can see how the writings of the Bible can be applied to real life and real situations. Even for the elements of the Bible that are completely illogical to my scientifically oriented, 21^st century mind, I see that the messages inherent in the stories are perhaps more important than the realism of the stories themselves.  It is a form of what the rabbinic tradition calls “building a fence around the Torah.” This I can relate to, because I have felt the effect of hundreds of books and stories that have brought meaning, understanding, and guidance to my own life.

Another part of this article connects to a class I am currently taking in addition to this one to further my understanding of this devotion to something so intangible as God.  Pardes discusses how Israel’s connection to God is that of a father and a son – loving, sometimes dysfunctional, but always unconditional. I understood this connection in theory, but I couldn’t help but wonder how a people could feel such an intimate connection with an entity they never have, nor could ever, meet.  In my cross-cultural psychology class, we read a book that addressed the ideologies of Hinduism. According to the reading, Hindus believe that there are two ways to connect to God, and one may take either path, depending on his or her personality type. One is picturing God as a part of them, intangible but always there within your soul. The other, which I think is more applicable to the majority of Jewish belief (although in some ways, particularly as the “son” of God, a Jew may be apt to feel that a little bit of God is in fact within him or her as well), is that one must picture God as something tangible – perhaps even EVERYTHING tangible; the world, for example – and then love it with all of your heart. Put everything into this God, and see that He loves you in return. These two readings both enhance the other for me, and help me to understand both. When you have been raised with the constant message that God is, in essence, your father, and loves you unconditionally, you will form a type of devotion that cannot be broken easily.

As a Hebrew School student my favorite part of the Torah was Genesis, especially the stories about the patriarchs and matriarchs. I always liked that the characters that created the foundation of Judaism, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and even Moses, had flaws. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his own son, Jacob tricked his father, Joseph tormented his brothers when they were in Egypt, and Moses did not listen to G-d. While reading Ilana Pardes’ article, “Imagining the Birth of Ancient Israel,” it made me look at my favorite bible characters not as main characters in their own individual stories, but secondary characters in the story of the Jewish people. Pardes’ conclusion that the relationship between G-d and the people of Israel is a story between a father and son, made me rethink how I viewed these characters.

The patriarchs in Genesis represent the early relationship between a parent and their child. The child is looking for acceptance from their parent, evident in the story of the binding of Isaac. The child is mischievous as seen in both the story of Jacob stealing his brother’s birthright and when Jacob’s sons sell their brother Joseph. And the child is rebellious when the people of Israel worship the Golden Calf and Moses does not listen to G-d when asked to talk to a rock for water. In all of these different situations G-d acts as the parent, for example explaining to Abraham that he does not have to sacrifice his son, it was test. G-d does not punish Jacob for stealing the birthright, because like a parent, G-d has a favorite child as well, the Jewish people. This is why G-d does not punish Jacob for stealing his older brothers birthright and blessing. When Moses hits the rock instead of talking to it, G-d decides he cannot see the promise land.

Israel, the chosen child, is not a perfect child, however G-d is not the perfect parent either. G-d has a temper that sometimes does not let G-d make the most rational decisions. G-d plays favorites, helping his favorite people, the chosen people. And even though the chosen people, the favorite child, makes mistakes, G-d is still there is with unconditional love.

This analysis of the Torah raises two questions for me: why did G-d choose these people to be the favorite child and why is the relationship imperfect? I am currently taking Hebrew Testament in Context, and we studied that the Jewish people were a collection of random people, a conclusion Padres makes as well. The Torah explains that these people all believed in the same G-d, and were the first monotheists. G-d took the outcasts, the people who did not feel connected with their tribe and made them one, the chosen child. They did not have the most advance culture, however G-d felt something for the awkward-group-of-people-in-the-corner. And this is why I think the relationship is viewed as imperfect. The chosen people had to become one, and G-d dealt with all the differences until they were one, and that did not occur until they entered Israel. Once in Israel G-d and the people’s relationship improves, the people worship one G-d and protect the land given to them. However looking at the book of Genesis specifically, it is a reminder that the family unit is not perfect, growing up does not go smoothly, but as a parent there is unconditional love. However even the all knowing parent can make mistakes, which G-d does. The imperfection in the Bible stories is one of the many reasons I enjoy the Jewish religion. It teaches the lesson that in order to be religious, you do not have to be perfect, and it is ok to make mistakes and question authority.