Many (if not all) cultures and languages use euphemisms, “polite” ways of referring to taboo subjects while avoiding direct unequivocal language. The main “taboo” subjects which need some “sanitising” tend to be: (1) death, so we may speak of someone “passing away” or “moving on” instead of saying they died; (2) certain bodily functions, and even the places where they are carried out (especially toilets); and (3) sex and sexuality (so in English, and in biblical Hebrew, we may speak about “sleeping with” someone rather than saying “had sex with” them).
In this post I will only look at some curious cases where feet are mentioned euphemistically in the Bible; that is, where the writer referred to “feet” when they meant something else.
Covering feet
I’ve written about some biblical cases of toilet-euphemisms in the past, but only mentioned in passing a case where covering feet was used as a euphemism for having a bowel movement. It occurs in 1 Samuel 24:3 in a story about Saul pursuing David. “He came to the sheepfolds beside the road, where there was a cave; and Saul went in to cover his feet.” The story goes on to say that David and his men were actually deeper inside the cave and, on seeing Saul in this position, they urged David to take the opportunity to attack him. David, however, cut off a corner of Saul’s cloak while he was pre-occupied and “scolded his men severely and did not permit them to attack Saul.” We aren’t told how David was able to get so close to Saul undetected, if Saul ever noticed that part of his cloak was missing and if he had any clue how it happened; or how David and his men were able to have a conversation in the cave without Saul hearing them (after all, they were close enough to see him and presumably sound would travel well inside a cave). I’m not saying this event didn’t happen, just that the story raises a lot of unanswered questions which should make us think more about its purpose.
So, back to Saul’s feet. Many translations render the Hebrew לְהָסֵךְ אֶת־רַגְלָיו to cover his feet as “to relieve himself”. The Common English Bible has “Saul went into the cave to use the restroom.” I understand that the translations are trying to use simple, everyday English to make it clear to their readers what was happening, but in doing so they may actually confuse some of those very readers who want ‘simple’ English who may think that ancient caves were fitted out with “restrooms”. Laughably, The Living Bible even has “Saul went into a cave to go to the bathroom“. Ok, I get that this is an Americanism. Australians, and people in most countries where we speak the King’s English, would expect a bathroom to contain a bath but not necessarily a toilet, but we watch enough American television to understand that Americans are going even further with their euphemistic avoidance of even the word “toilet”. Any non-American English readers of this translation might be excused for thinking that Saul wanted to take a bath!
It’s easy to understand how “cover his feet” in a culture which wore cloaks and which squatted to defecate could became a euphemism for having a bowel movement. In the process of squatting I imagine one’s cloak would cover their feet. In Australia (and possibly elsewhere, although it sounds like a very Australian thing to say) instead of saying he needed to go to the urinal a man might say he needed to “splash his boots”. It’s exactly the same kind of euphemism. (Incidentally, the Greek Septuagint has παρασκευάσασθαι to prepare himself, possibly another euphemism).
We encounter the phrase again in the story of Eglon, who was “covering his feet” in his well-ventilated chamber (Judges 3:24). I’ve written about this in a post titled “Murder in the toilet“, so it’s best to go there for more details.
Uncovering feet
In the biblical accounts of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem there is a taunt by the Assyrian commander that the men of Jerusalem “will eat their own excrement and drink their own urine” (2 Kings 18:27 and Isaiah 36:12). In the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew text which forms the basis for almost all English translations), there is a note that instead of reading שֵׁינֵיהֶם their urine the reader should say מֵימֵי רַגְלֵיהֶם water of their feet. (These alternative readings are very ancient and also very common and are called kere-qetiv, which refers to “what is read” as opposed to “what is written.”) In this case, the alternative reading substitutes a euphemism for what is actually written, replacing “urine” with “water of their feet” where “feet” is a euphemism for “male genitals.” At some stage it was probably deemed inappropriate for synagogue or public reading of the text to use the word “urine” so an alternative was used. But where does this Masoretic euphemism about feet come from? Is it biblical?
If we go back to Isaiah for help we find this strange prophecy in 7:20 “On that day the Lord will shave with a razor … the head and the hair of the feet, and it will take off the beard as well.” What’s this about shaving hairy feet?! The imagery is clearly about people being shamed by having their heads and beards shaved, but were their feet so hairy that they could also be shaved? Or is the prophet using a euphemism (as many commentators think) and referring to their genitals being shaved of pubic hair? Ezekiel is full of shocking sexual imagery (which I suspect was a result of his traumatic experiences going into exile) and in one particularly sordid sustained metaphor he refers to a girl coming to physical maturity: “your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown” (16:7). In the context it is almost certain that Ezekiel was referring to pubic hair. Against this background, it is very possible, almost certain, that Isaiah’s reference to the “hair of the feet” is also a reference to pubic hair, confirming that by “feet” he means “genitals.” The Hebrew words for “foot/feet” after all may have included the entire leg, including the thighs.
While “covering feet” in the story of Saul in the cave is likely to be a euphemism for relieving oneself, the converse phrase “to uncover his feet” means something quite different. We come across this phrase a couple times in the story of Ruth. First, Naomi tells Ruth that she should “wash and anoint yourself, and put on your best clothes” and then follow Boaz home from work, wait until he has a good feed and something to drink, and then “when he lies down, observe the place where he lies; then, go and uncover his feet and lie down; and he will tell you what to do” (3:1-4). Next, the story goes on to say that Ruth carefully followed these instructions and when Boaz “was in a contented mood, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. Then she came stealthily and uncovered his feet, and lay down.” We don’t know exactly what happened next except that Boaz woke startled in the middle of the night and asked Ruth who she was. She replied “I am Ruth, your servant; spread your cloak over your servant, for you are next-of-kin” (v.8). Boaz reads this as a sign of her loyalty and then takes steps to marry her (which is a bit of a long story because of some legal complications which I discussed here). Without going down that track right now about the legal issues, I want to ponder what is meant here about Ruth “uncovering the feet” of Boaz. In its context, and considering this takes place in the night, in Boaz’s bedroom, and includes Ruth asking if she can get under the bed-covers with him, I think we would have to do some exegetical gymnastics to arrive at a meaning other than a sexual one. Uncovering his “feet” would have to mean “uncovering his genitals” and whatever followed from that. It doesn’t take much of an imagination. The similar phrase לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה to uncover nakedness (using the same Hebrew word for “uncover”) is used repeatedly in Leviticus 18:6-20 in a list of prohibited sexual relationships. It was used somewhat euphemistically in Leviticus, and it seems that by the time Ruth was written it had taken one more euphemistic step so that “uncovering nakedness” became “uncovering feet“.
What should translators do with these euphemisms? Is it ok to have Saul going to “the bathroom”? Should translators let us know when a euphemism is being employed and, for example, substitute “genitals” for “feet” when that is probably what is intended? One translator, Carl Gross, offers some good advice about this:
“When I was young, I thought that the reason King Saul went into the cave to “cover his feet” (1 Sam 24.3) was that he was tired and wanted to have a short sleep, so he put a blanket over his feet because it was cool in the cave in comparison with the desert heat outside. Here, for me, the euphemism obscured the meaning, and so it was bad translation. But the opposite can also be a problem. If a translator, having understood well the meaning of the biblical euphemism, chooses to use a term that expresses the meaning explicitly, the physical action comes into full focus, perhaps quite explicitly, even though the biblical author himself used a euphemism to tone it down a bit. Thus we can both over-translate and under-translate. A good rule of thumb is to use euphemisms where the Bible uses them, and to be equally as explicit as the Bible where the Bible chooses to be explicit.”1
A note about the artwork above:
The Italian Baroque painter Caravaggio was notoriously famous for depicting some of his subjects with dirty feet. In some circles this was considered to be scandalous, especially when his subjects included the Virgin Mary, St. Peter, and Jesus Christ. In an earlier post, I mentioned that his depiction of St. Matthew and the Angel was rejected by the church which commissioned it because they regarded it as an irreverent presentation of the evangelist, showing him as too humble and rustic, and because Caravaggio had depicted the saint as a bare-footed and unlearned peasant. Yet, in other circles, even in the Vatican, it was recognised that the rawness of Caravaggio’s paintings, including his dirty feet, emerged from an appreciation of the poverty and humanity of Jesus and the saints, and contained a profound Christian message.
1 Gross, Carl. “Embarrassed by the Bible: What’s a Translator to Do?” The Bible Translator 63, no. 2 (2012): 87-94, here 88. See also Browning Jr, Daniel C. “Covering the Feet: Toilet Imagery in English Bible Translation.” Publications of the Mississippi Philological Association 37 (2020): 87-104.
מִקְרָא Mikra: Biblical studies 