Deut. 21:10 - 25:19
Précis: The parasha might be subtitled “entering society” because it describes the creation of a just and moral social network. It begins with the phrase “when you go forth” (ki tetze) to battle. This parasha, according to Maimonides, contains 72 mitzvot and cover a wide variety of topics, from family life, human kindness, respect for property and animals, the safety of others, sexual relationships, escaped slaves, financial loans and charging interest, keeping promises, and remembering to blot out the name of one of Israel’s greatest enemies. This assortment of commands included requirements that there be sex-distinct clothing; that mother birds not be separated from their eggs; that roof-tops have parapets; that seeds not be mixed in a field, and that “tzitzit” (fringes) be worn on garments.
Deut. 22:5 “A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.”
Erica Brown (writing in Weekly Jewish Wisdom 2/12/15) foresaw a debate regarding “gender identity” well before it became the “culture war” issue that it has become today.
She notes that scientists had started to believe that gender was more of a spectrum than a binary matter. She offers the important distinction between “sex” (a biological formation of chromosomes, hormones, reproductive capacity, and anatomy) and “gender” (the way one feels about one's personal sense of masculinity or femininity).
She adds that this is not a new conversation, noting that the Talmud discusses several legal cases involving those with both sexual organs and those with unclear biological gender features. However, these issues are not about “gender” but rather about whether the individual would be considered a “man” or a “woman” for purposes of religious obligations. The verse here is more about “gender” because it goes about external coverings and behaviors apart from biological destiny.
She notes that medieval commentators differ in their understanding of what is prohibited when it comes to cross-dressing. Most believe that the problem is not in wearing clothing of the opposite sex but rather in doing so one can disguise oneself for the purpose of sexual commingling or promiscuity. As she states, “The problem is the lie and the behaviors that follow from this lie. It's not the clothes.” Other commentators argue that the verse points to behavior associated with pagan rites, magic or sexual deviance.
Brown, a Modern Orthodox woman, observes that there is “a pretty slippery slope here because as we know, over time, men stopped wearing earrings (and then started again) and long tunics and women started wearing business suits. Fashions change.” So how can we explain the judgmental and harsh language of the verse? She suggests that the best way to interpret this verse is that God is asking us to make a choice, and to affirm that choice in dress and behavior. When one is unsure of one's self, it can be painful to create relationships with others, or even with God.
She acknowledges that “maybe it's too generous a reading, but I think what God detests is our failure to name ourselves. It can lead to self-hate and hate of others.”
This interpretation may be too modern for some, and insufficiently modern for others, but it is a call for a conversation on religion and gender identity, and a demand to make that conversation a serious one.
No comments:
Post a Comment