Dear Readers: This week, my d'var touches on an issue about which American thought seems to be rapidly changing: the rights of gay and lesbian Americans in our society. If you're not interested in the subject, or in the take listed below, please feel free to hit the delete button.
Shabbat Shalom
Acharei Mot - Kedoshim
Leviticus 16:1 - 20:27
Précis: Acharei Mot begins with Adonai speaking to Moses after the death (acharei mot) of Aaron’s sons. It describes the rituals for Yom Kippur, including the prescribed sacrifices. There are specific details about the purification of the Sanctuary, vessels, and the priests. Following this descriptions, rules for the slaughter of meat (including the prohibition against eating blood) are reiterated. The parasha concludes with a listing of prohibited marriages.
The opening words of Kedoshim are “You shall be holy” (kedoshim tihyu), and it continues with various descriptions of how the People are to strive for holiness. Included are fundamental laws, such as fearing one’s parents and observing Shabbat. Consideration of the poor through the commandments to leave the corners of fields for gleaners is included, as are mandates which complement the ethical principles of the Ten Commandments (being honest, avoiding vengeance). Specific bans against magicians, soothsaying, witchcraft and defiling the dead follow, as are reminders to avoid human sacrifice. This parasha is often viewed as the very core of moral teaching for the Jewish People.
Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is abhorrent”.
It is always dangerous to cite a particular biblical verse to “prove” a point of view on a current issue of moral or political dispute. After all, the Bible sees no problem with polygamy, provides a basis for slavery and demands the death penalty for a range of issues which the most rapid “pro-death penalty” folks would find a bit too far (e.g., Sabbath violations). The Sages, when faced with the death penalty for a stubborn and rebellious child (Deuteronomy 21:18–21), had to admit that the penalty was so onerous that it had never been applied.
Yet, there are many who point to this verse and say this is a religious basis for opposing homosexual relations (at least between men) let alone gay or lesbian marriage. (By the way, have you ever wondered why some non-Jews, who claim to take the Bible literally, cite this verse with fervor but don’t seem to have a problem eating a BLT?)
Rabbi Neal J. Loevinger, who writes for KOLEL (affiliated with the Reform Movement of Canada), has written an article which rejects the literal translation of this Biblical injunction. (The Prohibition Against Homosexuality In Context - MyJewishLewarning.com 4/12/11).His thesis is that if we read this verse in its context, we are not necessarily talking about committed same-sex relationships.
He notes that this parasha begins with the details of the Yom Kippur ritual, the scapegoat in the wilderness, and certain dietary laws. These are followed by a list of prohibited sexual relationships, all viewed with reference to the “doings of the land of Egypt” (verse 18:3). These include bans on incest, marriage with close relatives, or “setting aside your seed to Molech” (usually interpreted as having sexual relations with pagan cult prostitutes). These restrictions are followed by the cited verse, as well as a verse banning bestiality. Why? Because (verse 25) “in all these things the nations are defiled.”
Loevinger insists that we read the prohibition of this verse in the context of the associated verses, a highly traditional approach to rabbinic interpretation. The prohibition here appears in the context of many rules prohibiting the Israelites from copying religious practices of other nations. Can we infer that this specific prohibition was tied to other pagan practices, and not to loving and committed relations between people of the same gender?
Second, Loevinger argues (based on a plethora of scientific studies) that one’s attraction to another of the same gender is not a matter of choice. Since everyone is made “b’tzelem Elohim” (in God’s image), we should not be quick to assume that the prohibition against homosexual activity is one that needs to be taken literally.
I personally believe that a strict and simply reading of the prohibition here is problematic. We should look at the context of the verse and we should take care when we pick and choose among the verses we believe are still binding. Above all, we need to come away with a resolve to make all people, regardless of sexual orientation or identity, welcome in our congregations.
I recognize that many traditional Jews are not open to this point of view, and this d’var is not intended to offend them. I am also aware that some traditionalists, who still feel that homosexual activity is sinful, are prepared to acknowledge that gays should be welcome in their congregations inasmuch as everyone sins in one way or another. Rabbi Loevinger here attempts to honor the tradition of rabbinic exegesis of text, trying to find the intent of Scripture in the context of the world in which we live. Whether he has been successful is for you to decide. I find that his insight supports an ethical stand that I have already taken for myself.
