The Origins of Shame

The Bible as a mere collection of fables? A renowned rabbi and his equally regarded son, a professor of psychology and Jewish Education, mine the ancient biblical story of Noah to extract gems of wisdom for contemporary people of faith

If you go back to man's experience before he was driven out of the Garden of Eden, it is only after Adam and Eve sin that they experience a sense of shame. For the first time they are aware of a need to wear c1othing — as a means to deal with their shame and as a means of taming their impulses — a temptation that did not exist before that time.

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (d. 1983) points out the connection between man's first experience with shame and the need for clothing(1). Before their banishment from Eden, Adam and Eve experienced no inclination toward sinning and consequently there was no need for clothing — since there was no self-consciousness about nakedness.

Quoting the 16th Century Portuguese Jewish statesman, philosopher and Bible commentator, Abarbanel (Genesis 2:25), Rabbi Kaplan points out that the Hebrew word for clothing, levoosh, is derived from the word boosh — to be ashamed. Similarly the Talmud (Shabbos 77b) explicitly tells us that the word lebooshah is based on a combination of the two words: lo booshah [no shame]. Once Adam and Eve sinned, a sense of shame became a core antidote against the experience of being tempted by the evil inclination. Clothing served as a concrete measure that concretely expressed this sense of shame.

Another Hebrew word for clothing, beged, bears the same allusion to the origins of shame. Beged is rooted in the word bagad which means to rebel. Before Adam and Everebelled they were unaware of their nakedness and there was no need for clothing.(2)

	ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? BUY THE BOOK
	Click HERE to purchase it at a 10% discount. (Sales help fund JWR.).

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT VS. INTERNALIZED VALUES

Valuable insights into various facets of shame as viewed through the prism of Jewish thought is contained in the story of how Noah's sons reacted to viewing their father under humiliating circumstances. After the flood, Noah plants a vineyard, drinks of the wine to excess, and in his drunkenness lies uncovered within his tent. The Torah tells us how the younger son, Cham, seeing the nakedness of his father, gleefully tells his two brothers of their father's degradation.

Shem and Japheth immediately cover their father's nakedness with a garment and Noah, awakening from his stupor, pronounces a curse upon Canaan (the son of Ham) and blesses his other two sons.

As we read this incident, superficially, it would seem that we have presented to us the fundamental difference in character between the sons of Noah. On the one hand, we have Ham who is completely devoid of all moral sense, lacking the most elementary standard of decency, and on the other hand we see Shem and Japheth who rise to the occasion and hasten to cover their father's nakedness in order to rectify and correct as much as possible the momentary lapse of their righteous father.

It is interesting to note, however, that the Torah gives us pause to probe deeper into this commendable act of the two loyal sons of Noah, granting us a clue as to the motivation of the deed of filial devotion displayed by these two men. For indeed, there is a vast difference in the reason and incentive that causes the two brothers to conceal and cover their father's shameful conduct.

And Shem and Japheth took the garment ... (Genesis

Although both bring the garment and cover the nakedness of their father, our attention is directed to the fact that the act of taking is referred to in the singular rather than in the plural (see commentary of Rashi). From this apparent grammatical deviation our Sages deduce that it was Shem who took the initiative and Japheth who followed the lead of his brother.

This is no simple observation on the part of our Rabbis; rather it probes to the heart and crux of the entire motivation lying behind the deed itself. For in this episode the Torah reveals to us the profound difference underlying the standards and principles which differentiate the spirit and teaching of Judaism represented by Shem from that of other civilized and cultured people symbolized by Japheth.

When Shem is confronted with the tragic story of his father's unsavory conduct, he hastens to cover his father for he is driven by a spirit of basic morality and ethics which is the standard by which he lives. Though the nakedness of Noah may remain hidden within the tent, never to be revealed or known without, nonetheless the behavior of man is never to be formed and shaped for the sake of appearance and public opinion, but rather based upon the inherent values and standards by which man must live; at peace with himself.

This is the basic and fundamental spirit of Judaism, not eye appeal but soul appeal. Japheth, on the other hand, is concerned primarily with covering the nakedness of his father from the sight of others. His motivation is not ethical but rather one of aesthetics. It is a question of etiquette, of propriety, of eye appeal. "What shall people say?" is far more important to a Japheth than how man shall be judged in the eyes of the Divine as the result of questionable behavior.

Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness, and told his two brothers outside (Genesis 9:22).

Japheth is upset, for his brother has spoken of the shameful secret to outsiders , and that is highly improper. His is the shame of exposing the ugly and inelegant to the gaze of others. Now to experience the emotion of shame is one of the virtues of civilized man, but it is important to appreciate the fine and delicate overtone to be found in the expression boshes panim . True, it means shamefulness, but it also should be read with the Hebrew words meaning inner shame.

Concealed and unrevealed though it may be from the eyes of others, nonetheless it is present, deeply and painfully felt. Here, then, is the fundamental difference of two viewpoints and two diverse philosophies of life. Shall man be guided by that which is right, ethical, and moral or by that which is proper, aesthetic, and acceptable? Shall we be more concerned with appearance or sincerity, with show or with basic honesty? The philosophy of Judaism is best summarized as follows:

Rebbi said: Which is the right course that a man should choose for himself? That which is an honor to him who does it, and which also brings him honor for mankind (Ethics of the Fathers 2:1).

You will note that Rebbi gives priority to the honor that evolves from man's deeds and actions as it reflects upon himself. Though no one may be aware of that deed, it is far more important that a man be true to himself and sincere in his every action. We do not belittle the importance of conducting our lives so that it may bring honor and esteem from others. What we must understand, however, is that external honor is secondary to the effects of our behavior upon ourselves.

Psychologists speak of the dangers of too much emphasis on "impression management": educating children in a manner that places more emphasis on external impressions than on inner growth.(3) Children raised in such homes often fail to internalize the values that we associate with being a "mentsch"; they are at risk for developing superficial personalities that lack depth and empathy.

Being raised in an atmosphere that makes the impressions of others a priority over an internalized sense of what is right inevitably leads to risk for improper behavior when the child is alone and feels that nobody will ever find out.

Ultimately, the lesson of Shem is the value of developing a sense of boshes pnim — the internal brake that is present even in the most private of settings — as a pathway to a truly internalized sense of values.

---

(1). Rabbi Ayreh Kaplan, The Aryeh Kaplan Anthology, Volume II, p. 188.

(2) Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, The Aryeh Kaplan Anthology, Volume II, p. 189, Mesorah Publications, 1974.

(3) 8. Deci, E. & Ryan R. (1995), "Human Autonomy: The Basis for True Self-Esteem." In M. Kernis (Ed.) Efficacy, Agency and Self-Esteem (pp. 31-46), New York: Plenum.