Henna, cultural practices, and musings on Jewish customs.
Jha posted a link to this tumblr discussion about henna.
It's so tricky, I just wanted to share some of my stream of consciousness on this topic with you.
Some Sephardi Jewish communities have nuptial henna rituals. I have not participated in any, because when I left Israel, my girlfriends of Sephardi descent were still unmarried, but I would definitely participate in Sarit's henna night if I'd stayed. So yes, I would have henna designs painted on my palms as part of her ritual. For myself, I would not have a henna night, because it is not my tradition. Yet, it is also pretty clear that the Sephardi Jews did not invent the henna night; they adopted it from the Muslim cultures of the region, along with other customs that serve to protect from the Evil Eye. So, is this appropriation if henna rituals were adopted by the Jews from their neighbors for a specific magical purpose? Or is it not appropriation, because the Jewish tradition is old already? Cultures cross-fertilize. In terms of the Jewish cultures in particular, it is astounding what range of ritual/magical practices, foodways, and folklore have been adopted by the Jews from the non-Jewish neighbors, whatever these neighbors happened to be at the time.
For myself, I would never have henna designs casually painted on my body. It seems off to me outside of a ritual context. But if I were to marry a Sephardi man, and his hamula wanted me to have a henna night, I absolutely would. But I married an Ashkenazi Jew, and henna wasn't in our repertoire. It would have been weird to have any custom that was not our combined heritages' wedding custom. I remember that my biggest concern was to have klezmer musicians on the way to the khupeh, and indeed I got the proper freilakhs music I wanted, even though we couldn't quite afford it. I wouldn't have "mizrakhi" music on my wedding, even though I LOVE mizrakhi music and listen to it a lot.
On the other hand, I wore a Western-style white wedding dress.
There are no simple answers here.
Jaded16 says: "Another thing, when Indian “brides” wear henna or mehendi on their hands, we’re absolutely forgetting how many of them have no choice or agency when it comes to marriage, their sexuality, even the person they’re marrying. Here mehendi becomes a symbol of patriarchal expression (read possession of the feminine body)"
Yes, this is very very important.
The ritual immersion, or mikveh, is an inherent part of Jewish wedding ritual. The woman immerses herself in the mikveh for the first time before her wedding. Following family purity laws, she will continue dipping in the mikveh every month after her menstruation and the seven clean days are over. According to family purity laws, the woman who doesn't immerse cannot have sexual intercourse with her husband - or even touch him. Clearly, beliefs and fears surrounding a menstruating woman are patriarchal - and very ancient indeed. Secular Israeli women who wish to marry within the State of Israel (where there's no separation of church and state) have to go through mikveh immersion and bring a signed note to the Rabbi, who otherwise would not perform the marriage ceremony. Most of my secular Jewish friends view the mikveh immersion requirement as a sign of the state's religious minority oppressing the secular majority, and patriarchal oppression in particular. And for many religious women, I am sure, the mikveh custom is inherently oppressive. Let's face it, the idea that a fertile woman is unclean for about a half of the month is not a martriarchal idea.
And yet, many women I interviewed love the mikveh. In Soviet Russia, some Jewish women went to great lengths to find an underground mikveh for immersion, even when it was dangerous, even when it meant traveling to another city by train, even when it meant dipping in ice-cold water. Yet, significantly greater numbers of Jewish women were grateful for the Soviet regime for providing them with opportunities denied to them by the Jewish shtetl patriarchy.
Many Jewish-American families have old candlesticks, lovingly saved and brought over the ocean by the immigrant great-grandmothers, as the last and only signifier of Jewishness, and women's religious customs in particular. I have no candlesticks. My great-grandmother Roza had happily shed it all for what the Revolution had to offer. Religion was nothing but oppressive to great-grandmother Roza.
Personally, I have been quite happy to immerse in the mikveh, and to light candles using a new pair of candlesticks. On most Shabbes nights, my husband lights them, because we're like that.
Cultural practices, objects, and symbols, I think, are not in themselves inherently oppressive; all folklore exists in context. Same or similar items may exist in various cultures. In addition, no "culture" is monolithic. Cultures are subdivided by gender, status, etc; but even within the women's culture of the East-European Jewish shtetl, the same practices were regarded by some women as oppressive, while for other women these were positive experiences. In addition, in the context of various cultures the practices do not exist in a vacuum; they come with long, elaborate histories. In America, it is easier for me to practice many aspects of Jewish orthodoxy than it was in Israel, because of the very different local histories attached to these practices.
Those are just my thoughts, but I'd love to hear what you think. Please play nice.
It's so tricky, I just wanted to share some of my stream of consciousness on this topic with you.
Some Sephardi Jewish communities have nuptial henna rituals. I have not participated in any, because when I left Israel, my girlfriends of Sephardi descent were still unmarried, but I would definitely participate in Sarit's henna night if I'd stayed. So yes, I would have henna designs painted on my palms as part of her ritual. For myself, I would not have a henna night, because it is not my tradition. Yet, it is also pretty clear that the Sephardi Jews did not invent the henna night; they adopted it from the Muslim cultures of the region, along with other customs that serve to protect from the Evil Eye. So, is this appropriation if henna rituals were adopted by the Jews from their neighbors for a specific magical purpose? Or is it not appropriation, because the Jewish tradition is old already? Cultures cross-fertilize. In terms of the Jewish cultures in particular, it is astounding what range of ritual/magical practices, foodways, and folklore have been adopted by the Jews from the non-Jewish neighbors, whatever these neighbors happened to be at the time.
For myself, I would never have henna designs casually painted on my body. It seems off to me outside of a ritual context. But if I were to marry a Sephardi man, and his hamula wanted me to have a henna night, I absolutely would. But I married an Ashkenazi Jew, and henna wasn't in our repertoire. It would have been weird to have any custom that was not our combined heritages' wedding custom. I remember that my biggest concern was to have klezmer musicians on the way to the khupeh, and indeed I got the proper freilakhs music I wanted, even though we couldn't quite afford it. I wouldn't have "mizrakhi" music on my wedding, even though I LOVE mizrakhi music and listen to it a lot.
On the other hand, I wore a Western-style white wedding dress.
There are no simple answers here.
Jaded16 says: "Another thing, when Indian “brides” wear henna or mehendi on their hands, we’re absolutely forgetting how many of them have no choice or agency when it comes to marriage, their sexuality, even the person they’re marrying. Here mehendi becomes a symbol of patriarchal expression (read possession of the feminine body)"
Yes, this is very very important.
The ritual immersion, or mikveh, is an inherent part of Jewish wedding ritual. The woman immerses herself in the mikveh for the first time before her wedding. Following family purity laws, she will continue dipping in the mikveh every month after her menstruation and the seven clean days are over. According to family purity laws, the woman who doesn't immerse cannot have sexual intercourse with her husband - or even touch him. Clearly, beliefs and fears surrounding a menstruating woman are patriarchal - and very ancient indeed. Secular Israeli women who wish to marry within the State of Israel (where there's no separation of church and state) have to go through mikveh immersion and bring a signed note to the Rabbi, who otherwise would not perform the marriage ceremony. Most of my secular Jewish friends view the mikveh immersion requirement as a sign of the state's religious minority oppressing the secular majority, and patriarchal oppression in particular. And for many religious women, I am sure, the mikveh custom is inherently oppressive. Let's face it, the idea that a fertile woman is unclean for about a half of the month is not a martriarchal idea.
And yet, many women I interviewed love the mikveh. In Soviet Russia, some Jewish women went to great lengths to find an underground mikveh for immersion, even when it was dangerous, even when it meant traveling to another city by train, even when it meant dipping in ice-cold water. Yet, significantly greater numbers of Jewish women were grateful for the Soviet regime for providing them with opportunities denied to them by the Jewish shtetl patriarchy.
Many Jewish-American families have old candlesticks, lovingly saved and brought over the ocean by the immigrant great-grandmothers, as the last and only signifier of Jewishness, and women's religious customs in particular. I have no candlesticks. My great-grandmother Roza had happily shed it all for what the Revolution had to offer. Religion was nothing but oppressive to great-grandmother Roza.
Personally, I have been quite happy to immerse in the mikveh, and to light candles using a new pair of candlesticks. On most Shabbes nights, my husband lights them, because we're like that.
Cultural practices, objects, and symbols, I think, are not in themselves inherently oppressive; all folklore exists in context. Same or similar items may exist in various cultures. In addition, no "culture" is monolithic. Cultures are subdivided by gender, status, etc; but even within the women's culture of the East-European Jewish shtetl, the same practices were regarded by some women as oppressive, while for other women these were positive experiences. In addition, in the context of various cultures the practices do not exist in a vacuum; they come with long, elaborate histories. In America, it is easier for me to practice many aspects of Jewish orthodoxy than it was in Israel, because of the very different local histories attached to these practices.
Those are just my thoughts, but I'd love to hear what you think. Please play nice.
No comments have been added yet.
