Parshat V'yetsei - Population Explosion, Population Contraction - Betsy Teutsch

Parshat V’yeitsei - Population Growth, Population Contraction Dec 7, 2024

This is a parshah of fertility and population explosion. God promised Avraham that his progeny would be like the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore. In today’s Parshah, God similarly promises Jacob that

וְהָיָ֤ה זַרְעֲךָ֙ כַּעֲפַ֣ר הָאָ֔רֶץ וּפָרַצְתָּ֛ יָ֥מָּה וָקֵ֖דְמָה וְצָפֹ֣נָה וָנֶ֑גְבָּה וְנִבְרְכ֥וּ בְךָ֛ כׇּל־מִשְׁפְּחֹ֥ת הָאֲדָמָ֖ה וּבְזַרְעֶֽךָ׃

“Your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south.” 

Laban famously agrees to give Rachel to Jacob in marriage, but substitutes Leah. While second fiddle to beloved Rachel, Leah bears Jacob six sons and a daughter. Plus Bilhah and Zilpah bear Jacob sons, and ultimately Rachel bears two. Jacob’s tribe is off to the races.

Through ingenious breeding, Jacob also expands his flocks and wealth.

The explosive growth of this generation is clearly seen as positive, a great blessing.

But, the Rabbis did not consider Jacob’s 13 children a norm. Jacob’s family is mythic, not a paradigm. Infant mortality was too high for most of human history for people to rear Jacob-size families.

Jewish tradition considers children not only a blessing, but also an obligation. The Torah tells us that God blessed Adam and Eve and commanded them to Peru U’rvu: “Be fertile and increase, פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ”. 

The Talmud determines that Jews fulfill this commandment when they replicate themselves, bearing a son and daughter. Two girls or two boys also suffice, because when they grow up and partner, it will average out. Of course, infertility is beyond the control of couples, so this is not a commandment all can fill. Interestingly, the rabbis must have realized that some families did not want more children, or they wouldn’t have bothered to set a minimum. 

When David and I were married by Rabbi David Feldman, he presented us with a copy of his then new book, Birth Control and Jewish Law, which he assured us was descriptive, not prescriptive. It is a deep dive into ancient contraceptive practices.

For most of Jewish history, population growth was fairly flat, given violence, assimilation, high infant mortality, and short life spans. Jewish population started growing faster about 200 years ago and increased rapidly until WWII. Think of your own families: my great-grandmother bore 12 children, six of whom lived. My grandmother birthed six, all of whom survived.

Post-Holocaust, with the murder of two-thirds of European Jewry, survival of the Jewish people became a paramount concern. But, even before The Pill, non-Orthodox Jewish families were small. 

A Conservative movement leader, Rabbi Kassel Abelson z”l (who died last year at 99) long promoted the idea that Jewish couples should have a 3rd “mitzvah child”, to replace souls lost in WWII; this was part of his standard pre-marital interviews.  I read that as time passed, many couples enjoyed introducing their Mitzvah Children to Rabbi Abelson.

The idea was also encouraged in the 80s by UJA Young Leadership. I remember it as a community campaign, and via FB others have corroborated my recollection.

In 2007, Rabbi Abelson and Rabbi Elliot Dorff (mechutanim with our own Rabbi Avruhm Addison) successfully introduced a Rabbinical Assembly Responsum entitled Mitzvah Children. https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/20052010/mitzvah_children.pdf  . 

The Responsum expresses great compassion for couples challenged with infertility, not infrequently a result of delayed childbearing. The Committee takes pains not to guilt people for whom a third pregnancy is far-fetched, while encouraging third children for whom it is possible. They also call on the Jewish community to assist with matchmaking, subsidize the expenses of raising and educating Jewish children, and to make Jewish spaces more kid-friendly. 

So, what happened? It’s impossible to count the number of Mitzvah children, but we know that in general, global birth rates have been declining at jaw-dropping rates, and the Jewish community has been no exception. Even in Israel, which has a high birth rate for a high income country, the average number of births continues to drop even with ultra-Orthodox families placing no limits on their childbearing.

In contrast to the campaign for more Jewish babies, there have also been aggressive campaigns to lower birth rates. In some low income countries, these took the form of draconian sterilizations, and the notorious Chinese one-child policy with forced abortions and surveillance of couples of childbearing age.

Paul Ehrlich’s best selling book, The Population Bomb, published in 1968 with graphic descriptions of the disasters of over-population, predicts mass starvation and global collapse. He popularized the concept of ZPG, zero population growth, which became a rallying cry. 

Birth rates were already declining rapidly, and Ehrlich’s predictions have not proven accurate, but his framing of the environmental cost of overpopulation really took off. In my circles, people with more than 2 children were looked at with some suspicion and eco-judgement. It’s impossible to quantify the impact of Ehrlich’s ideas; his cry for controlling explosive population growth may have simply reinforced trends already taking place, since it coincided with the kick-off of the modern environmental movement, 2nd wave feminism, and The Pill.

The Zionist movement took up the idea, turned it on its head, calling it ZPG, Zionist Population Growth. 

Fast forward - we are living through an extraordinary time in world population history: the era of depopulation. This summary is from Our World in Data, headed by Max Roser, an Oxford economist.

Human population grew very slowly until 200 years ago. We reached one billion in 1800 and doubled that in 123 years, by the 1920s.  The biggest increase has been in the last 50 years, a quadrupling of the world’s population, to at present 8+ billion. It’s a hockey stick curve.

But! Population growth rates peaked in 1963 when the average birth rate per woman was 5+. (Birth rate is the number of offspring women produce. The growth rate is the numbers for total population.)

Birth rates are now about half of that, 2.418. The world population IS still increasing, due to people’s expanding life spans. At present life expectancy in the USA is 79. It’s up to 85 in Hong Kong. Societies around the world will be comprised of an ever higher percentage of elders.

The total global population is predicted to peak at 10+ billion later in the 21st century, when the birthrate drops to ZPG or below. Total population will then, if predictions are accurate, start contracting. This is an massive demographic shift. 

What’s happened? We have lived through it!

In the pre-modern era, fertility rates were 4.5 to 7 children per woman. The very high levels of infant and child mortality mortality kept population growth low.

There are three major reasons cited for the rapid decline in the global fertility rate, in both high income (this happened first) and but then also low income countries:

• the empowerment of women — increased access to education and labor market participation

• declining rates of child mortality and improved healthcare. When people expect their kids to survive, they have fewer.

• rising costs of bringing up children, due to increased expectations and higher status of kids, along with the decline of child labor (related to urbanization) - kids are now perceived as economic liabilities, not assets.

Some additional factors:

• Availability of effective contraception and the decoupling of sex and reproduction, resulting in far fewer unintended pregnancies.

• The contraction of extended families who typically helped with child rearing.

• The decline of marriage and a corresponding increase in single-person households. This suppresses childbearing, sometimes beyond when it is achievable.

These factors are intensified in the Jewish community, as Jewish women are among the best-educated of any American ethnic group, performing demanding jobs that leave less time for child rearing.

 

Jews reflect others in their socio-economic bracket, and higher incomes correlate with lower fertility. They are also more mobile, often moving far from their families of origin.

Many governments consider low birthrates and depopulation a crisis. It will cause many problems, as our societies become older and older. Pension systems based on young people paying in while elders withdraw funds will obviously need to be redesigned.

Migration and immigration of young labor (African populations are growing much faster than other continents) will be essential for elderly countries. 

Efforts to encourage more births, as many countries try, seem to be wholly ineffective. In Scandinavia, despite generous benefits, long parental leave, and free day care, birth rates are in the 1.5 range. But they’re doing great compared to prosperous South Korea, with a birth rate of .75.

But, there are also likely to be many creative responses. Seniors will have long retirements [we already do!]; societies will need to deploy them better as resources, not just perceive them as service/resource recipients. My Aunt Ruth was retired for 42 years. When she was in her 90s, she reflected that had she realized she would live so long, she would have done something more meaningful than playing cards and mah jongg.

Jewish communities will look very different. Jewish continuity has always been based in family life. At present, about a third of Jewish households are comprised of one person; how will that work? As people outlive partners, that number will only grow.

There are already more people in our community without children than previous generations (20% versus 10%). And that means many people without extended families - no nieces, nephews, or grandkids. Many children will be without uncles, aunts, and cousins.

One mini counter-trend is women having babies independently, and their families pitching in, with grandparents doing a lot of childcare. Three of my friends - though this is what we call “anecdata”! Grandparents are healthier and more active, more inclined to age in place, and increasing their commitment to help out with grandkids, at least here in our community. Also, younger generations are less inclined to move far away, preferring to live closer to grandparents, or moving near their parents with the intention of their helping with child rearing. Likewise some grandparents are moving to be near their kids. This was unheard of among our crowd a generation ago. 

Questions:

Q) How do we shift paradigms and embrace contraction, as opposed to assuming the Torah’s growth mindset? 

Q) How might the Jewish community respond to these changes?

Q) How do these trends impact you, your family, or your community/ies?

On the Possible Inclusion of Bilhah and Zilpah in our Liturgy

Bilhah and Zilpah Listserv Postings

As many of you know, at our next minyan meeting on Sunday, December 2^nd, we will be voting on whether to include Bilhah and Zilpah in the communal recitation of the Amidah. In advance of that meeting, the study group’s findings are posted below. These were shared at services a few weeks ago, but we appreciate that not everyone was able to attend.

I would like to encourage the community to discuss this on the listserv and on this bloc so as to share your perspectives. Earlier, I had asked people to e-mail their comments to me, and that had the unintended consequence of making me the sole recipient of everyone’s views. I would like to rectify that now.

This exploration grew out of one of our principles: a commitment to liturgical innovation and the right of the service leader, within very broad guidelines, to introduce new materials in order to expand learning, deepen spirituality, or heighten attention to issues. For example, the traditional Aleynu says, "Who has not made us like other peoples of the world or families of the earth, and not made our lot like theirs or our fate like any others'."  When the community decided to use the Reconstructionist version that replaces the phrase with "who gave us true teaching and planted eternal life in our midst," we originally paused to allow time for those reciting the traditional Aleynu to finish because it takes longer to say.  Over time, that pause fell by the wayside when no one seemed to be doing the traditional Aleynu.

The intention of the study group has been to use this question as an impetus for Jewish learning and to create an avenue for communal discussion and to deepen our connections to each other.

As a brief background, Bilhah and Zilpah are the “handmaidens” of Leah and Rahel who birthed sons considered leaders of four tribes of Israel. The sons born to Zilpah (Leah’s shifhah) are Gad and Asher; the sons born to Bilhah (Rahel’s shifhah) are Dan and Naftali. The reason we chose to focus on the possibility of including them in the recitation of the imahot is that their children account for one third of the tribes of Israel.

Below are the opening comments from the d’var we shared:

Through study and consultation with many members of our community, we have identified a number of reasons both to include and not to include their names in the listing of the imahot. As we formulated our approach to learning, we agreed that, despite what our personal inclinations might be, we would be open to hearing whatever our search brought to us. We do not have a recommendation one way or the other but have come to the conclusion that including them or not including them in the community recitation of the Avot v'Imahot section of the Amidah is a matter of personal and community conviction. And as a matter of process, more important than coming up with an answer, is using this exploration as a way to get to know each other in a deeper way and build community.

We chose four avenues for data collection: rabbinic text (Michelle Greenfield), the Hebrew words by which Bilhah and Zilpah are referenced - “amah” or “shifchah” plus the concept of pilegesh (Chana Dickter), the processes of other communities that have wrestled with this issue, and feedback from our community as we included Bilhah and Zilpah in the community recitation of the Avot v'Imahot section of the Amidah (Naomi Klayman). Further, the chapter, Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values from David Teutch’s book, AGuide to Jewish Practice was a valuable resource for us as we grappled with the question of how this inclusion might or might not support our communal values.

This study was not meant to be exhaustive, but rather an initial exploration, limited by our time and energy.

Rabbinic Text Search

A review of Rabbinic sources (talmud and midrash) on the Imahot and on Bilhah and Zilpah led us to sources which, not surprisingly, contradict each other.

Although there is a strong early tradition of there being four mothers, we also found a Midrashic tradition (attested to in Song of Songs Rabbah as well as other sources) that specifically claims there are 6 mothers, including Bilhah and Zilpah on the list. In these midrashim, the inclusion or exclusion of Bilhah and Zilpah is likely not driven by values.  It would seem as though when the rabbis were looking for things that added up to four, there were four mothers.  When they wanted seven, they added the four mothers and three fathers. And when they wanted six, Bilhah and Zilpah were included.

Other sources contribute to a sense that these two women were important in the life of Joseph.  Midrash on Geneses 37:2 imagined them as having been Joseph’s caretakers, as his mother had died.  There is even a Midrash that imagines Joseph referring to Bilhah as his mother.

No texts were found about Bilhah and Zilpah's faith or religion, though one obscure Midrash does imagine them as the product of a relationship between Lavan and one if his maidservants which, in a system of Patrilineal descent gives them the same status as Rachel and Leah.   

Other Synagogue Practices

Three synagogues/minyanim were identified in North America that include Bilhah and Zilpah in the Avot section of the Amidah at some point in a service. What is unique about Dorshei Derekh, is that we are the only community that I have found so far that is subjecting this decision to a communal process; the others made a de facto decision by a few people with little process. I know there are other prayer communities that I have not been able to contact, and perhaps there are others that have gone through a similar process.

Congregation Bet Simchat Torah, an LGBT synagogue in NYC appointed a study/work group to develop their own siddur. The group included the assistant rabbi at that time, Ayelet S. Cohen. The group decided to include Bilhah and Zilpah in the Friday night recitation of the Amidah. No discussion of weighing the implications was reported, but this is what appears at the footnote:

“As a community of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and straight Jews, we have experienced the ways in which families are excluded and erased from Jewish community and family life. Because of the way we love, some of us have lost our children or have been excised from their lives; many of us will never be legally recognized as the parents of the children we have raised. Likewise, many of us are the children of parents who are not legally recognized. Yet despite this, we know that our relationships are holy and our families are real. Therefore, we acknowledge all our ancestors, Avraham, Yitschak, Ya’akov, Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel, her handmaiden Bilhah, Leah, and her handmaiden Zilpah. Our ancestors descended from all of them, whether their relationships were celebr4ated or not, whether they were regarded as equal or not.”

Congregation Adath Jeshurun, a Conservative synagogue in Elkins Park, added Bilhah and Zilpah to the minhah service. When Rabbi Seymour Rosenbloom was developing their siddur, he decided to add them to the minchah service without consultation with the community. Their names are included or excluded at the discretion of the service leader, and that is announced just prior to the recitation of the Amidah. Rabbi Rosenbloom first became aware of the possibility of included their names at a female baby-naming service conducted by Rabbi Lenny Gordon.

Ahavat Olam, a progressive synagogue in Vancouver, CA, includes Bilhah and Zilpah in the Shabbat morning recitation of the Amidah. Rabbi David Mivasair explained that he shares leading services with one other person. When that other person included Bilhah and Zilpah in the Amidah, Rabbi Mivasair decided to continue that tradition. This was not discussed by the community.

Compiled Reflections on Values

Avadim hayinu bemitzrayim (We were slaves in Egypt [Deuteronomy 6:21]). "create empathy with all who are down-trodden, victimized or in pain, and support for them." Some of the rejection of Bilhah and Zilpah is due to class and race issues. - Supports inclusion

B’tzelem Elohim (Human beings are created in the image of God) "no human being should be treated merely as an object" Bilhah and Zilpah should not be treated merely as objects (wombs/surrogates) but as putting their lives on the line for Israel in enduring pregnancies for the propagation of the tribes. -  Supports inclusion

Darkhey shalom:  "utilizing ... resources in ways that create harmony. ... Applies to conflicts between religious groups", A change to the status quo has the potential to incite conflict within our community. - Could support exclusion

Diversity "We benefit from our exposure to different ideas, cultures and ways of being in the world."  Recognizing the diversity of mother role - Supports inclusion.

Egalitarianism Although it speaks of equal treatment only for "women and men, homosexual and heterosexual, and people of all races and ethnicities. This principle to extend to socio-economic class. It recognizes the infinite worth of every human life, especially as mothers of Israel. It also sends a message of inclusion and respect to all members of our community. – Supports inclusion.

Emet (Truth and integrity) Provides the truth about our origins, recognizing all six mothers, voiding the untruth of omission. – Supports inclusion

Inclusion and Pluralism "Welcoming all into our communities regardless of ... family status". Supports embracing a wider range of people, strengthening the community and encouraging it to serve all its members.  –  Supports inclusion.

Kehila (Commitment to community) and Klal Yisrael (Unity and survival of the Jewish people) and Sh’lom bayit (Peace at home)   Some in our community take offense at this and would find it distracting. However, the same could be said of other minority groups that we feel compelled to include and other ways that we have expanded our prayers, such as the Imahot and "yo shvay tayvel" at the end of kaddish.  - Supports exclusion

K’vod hab’riyot (Human dignity)  :  "we are bound to respect the dignity of each human being and act in a way consistent with that dignity."  - Supports inclusion.

Pluralism:  "We embrace pluralism not as a necessary evil but as a source for creating vigor in Jewish life".  Bringing the rare practice of including B&Z enhances pluralism. – Supports inclusion.

Shalshelet hakabbala (Preserving the chain of tradition) PROBLEMATIC as Bilhah and Zilpah are not seen as part of the dominant oral tradition in our prayer services. But then neither was including the imahot until we started doing it.

Tzedek:  "We live in a just society only when every one of its members is treated justly."  Inclusion of Bilhah and Zilpah as equals with Rachel &Leah is a way of retroactively treating them justly as mothers.  - Support inclusion.

Hebrew Text Study

In the text, Bilhah & Zilpah are referred to as both “amah” or “shifchah”.  What types of relationships do these terms imply when used in the Torah?  Another  textual term is “pilegesh” How were these terms used and understood in the ancient Middle East?

The brief citations below are not intended for anything other than to provide a very broad, basic understanding for reference in future discussions.  They were collected during a very pleasant hour spent lost in the internet.

1. Pilegesh/ פילגש  :  A pilegesh was recognized among the ancient Hebrews and enjoyed the same rights in the house as the legitimate wife. Since having children in Judaism was considered a great blessing, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands so they could have children with them when those women themselves where childless.  According to the Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 21a), the difference between a pilegesh and a full wife was that the latter received a ketubah and her marriage was preceded by a formal betrothal ("kiddushin"), which was not the case with the former. Any offspring created as a result of a union between a pilegesh and a man were on equal legal footing with children of the man and his (ketubah owning) wife.  (no citation)

NB:  anyone interested in pursuing such a relationship is welcome to visit www.pilagesh.org

2.  The following is from a brief e-mail correspondence with Wil Gafney:

“Amah & shifchah are used completely interchangeably in the corpus and it is no longer possible to distinguish them. Both types of enslaved women and girls are sexually available to their owners for pleasure and/or reproduction. For that reason I chose "womb-slave" to emphasize that aspect of their servitude in those narratives in which they are so used. The translation is semantic (womb) and philological (slave).

Here are some references for Amah in the Tanakh:   Judg 9:18; 19:19; 1 Sam 1:11, 16; 25:24–25, 28, 31, 41; 2 Sam 6:20, 22; 14:15–16; 20:17; 1 Kings 1:13, 17; 3:20; Nah 2:7; Psa 86:16; 116:16; Job 19:15; 31:13; Ruth 3:9; Ezra 2:65; Neh 7:67”

3.    http://ziegler.ajula.edu/Default.aspx?id=5351

Shabbat Parashat Mishpatim, 29 Shevat 5764 - Torah: Exodus 21:1-24:18; Maftir: Exodus 30:11-16; Haftarah : II Kings 12:1-17

An amah is a girl sold to a man because of her family’s dire poverty She becomes a servant to that man. Because her status is anomalous – she is a part of the family but was acquired in the manner of slave – the Torah here lays out her special prerogatives. According to Professor Nahum Sarna, the “laws safeguard her rights and protect her from sexual exploitation.”

Biref4. Most intriguing was a summary from the book: Savina J. Teubal. Ancient Sisterhood: The Lost Traditions of Hagar and Sarah. Athens, Ohio: Swallow Press/Ohio University Press, 1997, in which she posits that Hagar was a Naditu priest and argues that she may have been Pharaoh's daughter, or his royal wife or sister. Teubal argues that Hagar's function was childbearing, a rather important function that was of great significance for childless priests like Sarah. Drawing a distinction between "shifhah" and "amah" [slave, maid] terms that are both attributed to Hagar in the Bible, Teubal links the first term to the function of a woman who bore children for a barren priest and who served herself as a priest. That Hagar was childless before coming into Sarah's service provides the likelihood that she was a priest. Teubal argues that Hagar was Sarah's companion, a clan member of equal status rather than a slave or a servant as the later interpretation of "shifhah" and the term "amah" suggests.

Community Feedback (as of the date of the d’var)

·         It is possible that Bilhah and Zilpah were initially excluded from the Imahot based on class and/or race prejudice.

·         It is possible that Bilhah and Zilpah were initially excluded from the Imahot because their alliance to God is not evident or because they do not explicitly represent Jewish spiritual values.

·         The inclusion of Bilhah and Zilpah could be taking feminism too far, listing so many more mothers than fathers and could alienate some men in our community.

·         The addition of Bilhah and Zilpah reminds us of the contributions of so many nameless and voiceless people over the millennia, especially women, who toil and care for their families and the children of others.

·         We might put elipses after Rachel and Leah, and pause in the davvening to indicate that we can never name in the prayer all the ancestors in all the generations.

·         The inclusion of Bilhah and Zilpah could be distracting to the point of discouraging participating in our service.